Talk:What Creationism Is

From EvoWiki

Verbose

This article is needlessly wordy. His convoluted responses to criticism are even worse. The author seems to have some sort of vicious scorn for concise language.

His prose is some of the most torturous, pretentious, steaming crap I've ever read, like reading an End User License Agreement. And if your article comes off as overbearing, elitist, and reads like contract fineprint, then you know you're really communicating your ideas effectively.

I can anticipate his response:

"Objective consideration of the literary phenomena that is my elegant disquisition, excogitates the notion that the said facilities of speech appropriated therein, would be the only satisfactory discourse commensurate with the accountable wordsmith, and the intellect and innate talent thereof.

It is indisputably explicit to the intellectually-versed cosmopolite, that a scholar's linguistic perspicuity is inversely proportional to the prodigious genius of said scholar. Your Pavlovian response appears sorely misguided on all counts."

PS. Actually I shouldn't have been so harsh. The author's writing is not hard to read - just irritating. It actually has a Flesch readability score of 50.5. But his use of "word of the day" vocabulary is still gratuitous.

This editorial might strike us as too harsh, and I confess that it is. It was the product of a particularly exasperating discussion with a creationist. I think it valuable though, because we are almost surely united in our contempt for creationism on the many grounds covered in this essay. (JGK 8:46PM GMT -5, 2/13/04).

HEY!

I would like to point out that that whole essay was BULLSHIT! You may have your rights to free speech, but here's mine: you know nothing about creationists! We not out to get you, to force our

I think that your whole article should be re-written. Yes, you might have problems with the Creationist model etc. How terribly unscientific etc.. yeah. I'm an evolutionist myself, but it does not follow that I have to express any petty extreme dislikes and evoke such nonsensical prejudices as you consecutively do. Your article is just what gives a bad name to us evolutionists as being entirely arrogant and ignorant of other theories - even if they are increasingly unscientific and based upon belief.

So, yes - I think it should be re-written; you really didn't cover much apart from your dislike of Creationists. This is the scientific field, not a playground.

Fortunately, my good anonymous reviewer, what you think and what reality dictates are entirely independent of one another. What I quite fail to understand is where you missed the part within the essay to which you have so stridently replied to that specifically demonstrates that the very same essay is an editorial. Editorials are not stoic scientific meditations on a topic, I do hate to inform you. As it were, inane and pointless as your objection is, I could possibly convince myself of some merit therein if this article were the only article on creationism within the contents of this wiki. I find it to be a matter of some curiosity that one can describe contempt for a system that seeks to pervert science and public education to mere scaffolding for a belief system, as "nonsensical prejudice." I must either question your mental competence, or your understanding of the true agenda of creationism. It is possible, I suppose that rather than seriously deranged you are merely wholly naive, though I will confess one is scarcely better than the other. The following comments from your screed of a reply, however, force me to reach the former conclusion (which for your sake I will reiterate--that your mental competence must be questioned). You state, and I will quote you below, that:

"Your article is just what gives a bad name to us evolutionists as being entirely arrogant and ignorant of other theories - even if they are increasingly unscientific and based upon belief."

First and foremost, if outright indignation (to say the least) at what creationist are seeking to do, and the security in the fact that there is nothing but pure fantasy substantiating creationism translate to perceived arrogance, than so be it. While this clearly troubles your pesky little conscience it would appear to not bother the vast majority of us, including myself. Secondly, I would so love to know why any intelligent human being would refer to creationism as a theory. You see, as this very editorial of mine demonstrates, creationism is as close to being a theory as was Gandhi to being a glutton. Given so basic a misunderstanding it becomes difficult to take anything you burden us with reading seriously.

So, yes--after careful consideration I think I will not rewrite what is a perfectly excellent editorial, least of all on your troubled opinion. -- (JGK 5:15pm EDT, 5/17/04)

Of course JGK's answer consists mainly of the fallacy of Attacking the Person (that's what he does when someone criticizes his writing - it's best to just accept it, like you accept a lioness defending their young), but his main point is right - this is an opinion article. I don't agree with every point he makes (e.g. I'm not a Naive Empiricist), but it's his opinion.

Maybe we should do more "Private Opinion" articles like this, to make clear what drives each of us.

Thomas Kettenring

Thomas, Thomas...you of all people should know that when the critique is vapid rot, there is hardly any reason to react to it in any other way. But, given your own fairly obtuse and pointless objections to my writing (usually based on your own ignorance), I can hardly be surprised that you would sympathize with so distorted, fallacious, and generally laughable a critique as that offered by the anonymous reviewer above. -- (JGK 9:42am EDT 5/18/04)

I didn't sympathize.

I agreed with your opinion.

I'm on your side.

Get it?

(Though I prefer other, much better, non-fallacious arguments to defend the opinion, but that's an individual choice).

Thomas Kettenring

I just wanted to say that I do not object to this editorial and that it should not be re-written. -thealexfish, 5/19

In response to the latest editor of this piece, for the umpteenth time, this is a purely personal EDITORIAL not meant to be a polite, happy and scholarly analysis of creationism. All of those things are also contained on this site, at separate entries. This is purely meant to reflect a personal account from someone who has been dealing with creationists for years, about creationism. If you don't like it, fine, but don't entirely change the whole document. Discuss it here, if you find it egregious, or even better, write your own editorial. -- (JGK 8/8/04 3:54am GMT -5)

To be perfectly honest, although this is a quite vitriolic essay, we have to recognise what we are dealing with. Creationists are religious zealots who are in no way dissimilar to those of Hinduism and Islam, and indeed every religion. They wish to impose their views upon science, possibly because they feel very threatened by science itself. The release of Creationism and their laws into mainstream science would destroy the US economy like 9/11 never could.

As for being vitriolic, we have to be. We've tried being nice, we've tried being reasonable, we've tried accommodating, but Creationists are very adept crowd rousers, as this is the nature of religion. Scientists are not, and we work in a word where the quiet voice of reason and thought often prevails. We think we tell the truth, so it need not be shouted out loud. Creationists know they have holes and loops big enough elephant herds through, not least that their book has two conflicting stories at the very start, so they are ready to twist and turn and cajole and tell half-truths. Also, allegedly 60% of the broader US population broadly agrees with the creationists, so I suspect they wouldn't generally fight creationism in schools as they would think that there isn't anything wrong with it. --Wee Jimmy 13:39, 31 Aug 2004 (BST)

Every one who sees this should read A Theory of Everything by Ken Wilber. Excellent book and illustrates all of this discussion beautifully and then some, it does however leave out evolution and a lot of biology, but it does go over the illusion of the churches and scientific academic institutions and philosophies being at odds with one another. The other book then to read would be Spiral Dynamics by Cohen and Beck. This is the model Wilber talks about with his own additions to the map of the cosmos. --The One 09 November 2004

I doubt that it would be viewed as an excellent book by most science-minded folks, since Ken Wilber is a New Age freak. I don't say it's bad, because I haven't read it yet, but I doubt it will turn out to be "excellent". If I get it really cheap, I'll read it, same as with books by other pseudoscientists. --tk 21:53, 12 Nov 2004 (GMT)

Say it loud

I agree with the tone and content of the article; being accommodating or polite has sown nothing in the interest of science. We have a new enemy, and it is pop ignorance. Discourse has perhaps not died, but it is in the ICU, gasping for breath. A frightening number of people believe the world is six to twelve thousand years old, and can look at the Grand Canyon without a hint of doubt and declare that a "great flood" did it. I don't know what "their" agenda really is, but creationism is the single most serious threat to our future. Those who seek political muscle through such a venue will serve to decimate the very tenet of reason we've fought so hard to develop. We face another dark age when people think more about the rapture than about where their grandchildren will grow their food.

This is shit

What is the point of this essay? What did you hope to accomplish by writing this? - Omegatron 00:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's an opinion page of one user. So you think the user's opinion is shit. Okay, that's your opinion. It's not as exhausting as the other one, and therefore more difficult to judge (you don't give any reasons) but it's an opinion. Now what? --tk (t) 10:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JGK has answered this above. Joe D (t) 14:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this is really horrible, and will do nothing but encourage creationists. "All evolutionists are hate-filled god-denialists", and all that. You would be best to move this to JGK's userspace (User:VindexUrvogel(JGK)/What Creationism Is) so it doesn't reflect so poorly on your project.

Wasn't immediately clear it was an opinion piece

I just stumbled on this today after a session with a creationist on Wikipedia. While I sympathise with the tenor of the article, I would have liked to see a clearer indication at the top that it was an editorial or personal opinion rather than a more general view of Creationism. 192.75.48.150 19:16, 31 Mar 2005 (BST)

Move to userspace?

This page is painfully bad, and to make things more embarrassing CreationWiki has apparently created a response to it. The fact that it's apparently the first link under Creationism on the Main Page doesn't help. Why was this never moved to a subpage of the user who created it? As it stands, it looks as though this long, unreferenced and angry rant is an "official" EvoWiki creation. I suggest that this be moved to User:VindexUrvogel(JGK)/What Creationism Is (as above) and be replaced with a page containing a link to the new location, an explanation of why it was moved and a link to the CreationWiki reply (along with appropriate derision that of all the things that he could and should have replied to, this is what Ungtss chose :). TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 04:46, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I agree that this page should be either shifted or at least marked on the main page as an editorial. But I think "derision that of all the things that he could and should have replied to, this is what Ungtss chose" is inappropriate because they do have "replies" to some creationist claim pages - though to Mark Isaak's, not ours. --tk (t) 16:40, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

That's a point, but I can barely imagine someone writing more than a paragraph replying to something like this. I guess I was just annoyed when I wrote that, having seen this page for the first time. :) TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 00:38, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)

HEY!

First of all, I am a creationist and do not appreciate being called a hypocrite, which is what this arguement boils down to. And we do not claim anything of the sort that we are guardiams of the true faith, because I know that I don't believe I'm any sort of guardian. I believe that what the Bible says is true, but that doesn't mean that I think science is false or anything of that sort. And as for the author, it would "take a healthy dose of Thorzane" to convince me that the complexities of our universe could come about by mere chance. Take a look around you. Can you honestly comprehend the kind of odds it would take to get even something as simple as a housefly from some kind of organic goo? Try adding an entire universe full of things that complex and more that work out perfectly so no one populace destroys everything. Do you know that if Earth was its orbit we would either freeze to death or be scorched? That if the moon were too much closer we would be drowned by the humongous tides? Let's add the fact that the sun burns so fast that if you go back far enough, (i.e.: Maybe a few hundred thousand years ago if you're lucky) the sun would have made this planet into a giant burnt rock? That throws the millions and billions of years ago thing out the window. And even assuming you're all right, that this all came from some single thing or being, where did that come from and why haven't we changed since recorded history?

Just because most people that believe in creation don't have the proper information to argue it doesn't mean that our arguements have circularity or that we are the bearers of "the most deceitful, fraudulent, and sloppiest lies ever to be put over on the civilized world." In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if that's what you have the gall to call our beliefs that without a defense, that would make you the liar.

For one thing, the sun was not infinitely big when it began to burn its fuel, and that the planets were formed as it coalesced from the giant cloud of gas the solar system formed from. And another thing, when the moon began orbiting the Earth, it did not begin orbiting by rolling around on the surface: the two prevailing theories state that the Moon was either a gigantic, spherical asteroid that was captured by the Earth's gravity, or was formed when a Mars-sized asteroid impacted with the Earth, soon after the Earth was formed. To have an orbit where the Moon will "drown everything with humonguous tides," the distance will bring it close enough to be torn pieces by the Earth's gravity and form a ring like Saturn's or Jupiter's. Thirdly, a house fly is too complex to have "come from organic goo." That idea was debunked over two hundred years ago.--Yours truly, His Imperial Weirdness 06:29, 12 February 2006 (GMT)

Just as an aside: I wouldn't have corrected his spelling mistakes - they are his own. Correcting other people's writings is for article pages, not Talk pages. You don't want to make him appear more sophisticated than he is, right? --tk (t) 10:36, 13 February 2006 (GMT)

I'm sorry: force of habit.--ap 10:10 13 February 2006 (PST)

Oh yes? Then how would you say the housefly did come into existance then? While you may debunk the theory of something coming from an organic goo, you have yet to address the main issue: matter cannot be created or destroyed. even if all your theories are factual, even if you're right, where did it all come from? Whatever your theories about the earth's origins may be, matter does not spring out of nowhere. And as another thing, I didn't say the sun was infinately big, I said it was impossible for the sun to have existed for as long as it would have taken for things to evolve. Therefore, life could not have existed. As for the moon, if it was an asteroid by earth's gravity, that's one thing. But wouldn't there be evidence even today if there was a giant asteroid knocking into the planet? As for Earth's gravity tearing the Moon into pieces, gravity is an attracting force. It doesn't tear anything to pieces. The atmosphere, maybe. But if something as big as the Moon came into our atmospere, it wouldn't have time to be torn apart before it hit the ground. As for appearing sophisticated, I know I don't. You're not talking to a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have some ideas.

It would help your position if you would actually take the time to study what you're arguing against before you actually try arguing against them. Do realize that the theory of evolution does not make a comment on the origin of the universe, nor the solar system: perhaps if you read more about astronomy, you would be able to make a more coherent and logical argument. Nowhere in Evolutionary Biology does it say that things can spontaneously spring into existence, thus violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. In fact, if you look closely at the Big Bang Theory, it did not state that the Universe spontaneously arose out of nothing, it said that all of the matter in the Universe simply exploded/expanded. You continue failing to realize that there is a marked difference between the theory of spontaneous generation, where complex organisms can arise fully formed from decaying matter, and the theory of abiogenesis, where self-replicating organic molecules arise from an organic solution. Perhaps if you had read more about insect evolution and paleontology, you would know that flies were believed to have diverged from the Mecopterans, or scorpionflies, over 200 million years ago, during the Triassic Period. [What the Tree of Life has to say] And if the Moon crashed into the Earth, we wouldn't be here arguing over it, now would we? And while I know you're not a scientist, would it kill you to actually do a little research before you begin organizing your arguments, please? --ap 10:30 13 February 2006 (PST)

As for that, the origin of the universe haseverything to do with this! The article was denouncing creationism as a pack of lies, and creationism is a theory on how things came to be. And don't you think I know the big bang theory? My implication was that before everything exploded/expanded it had to come from somewhere, which is what your explanation lacked! As for my apparent lack of research, if you would be so kind as to make clear which of your arguements you follow, I would be more than appy to explain to you why I believe both of the threories you stated is unlikely at best. And the comment about the Moon crashing into Earth came from the arguement in which an asteroid impacted Earth. At least read what has been said before you go into a rage and start denouncing every word I write.

If you ask me, you should take your own advice. Physicists do not know what happened before the [Big Bang], but they have ideas about what was there before. This article is about how Creationism is not a science, it's not a scientific theory, it's not even a hypothesis. Creationism is a literal interpretation of the events described in the Book of Genesis, and offers no explanation on how these events occured. In fact, virtually all Creationist experts say that people would never be able to understand or even comprehend the means that God used to create the universe. Creationism, as a science, offers no testable or observable explanation to describe why the world is so. Creationism, as a science, is wholely incapable of giving a scientific explanation why plants and animals of Australia, and Hawaii, and other places, are so unique, as well as being wholely incapable of travelling to the isolated haunts they live in, from Mount Ararat. If Creationism is a valid science, then why do Creationists spend all of their time trying to tear down other scientists, rather than conducting lab research or field observations? If Creationism is a valid science, then why was it that when Creationism was introduced into the school curricula of Kansas, the Kansas school board received an "F" for its science curricula?ap 13:23 13 February 2006 (PST)

"I am a creationist and I do not appreciate being called a hypocrite": That's nice. For the past several decades, you creationists have been making noise about how Naziism is a direct product of evolution, and people who accept evolution are all pawns of Satan, and quite a variety of other unfounded slanderous remarks. If Creationists want to be respected, perhaps Creationists should show a little respect, and quit slandering the bejeezus out of people whose only "sin" is to reject one highly specific interpretation of Scripture.

"And we do not claim... that we are guardiams of the true faith": Oh, please. You lot may not claim to be "guardians of the true faith", but you ruddy well act like it! And you definitely do claim that you oppose evolution because it contradicts Scripture. Since there are plenty of other Christians (million, in fact!) who don't agree with you that evolution contradicts Scripture, either (a) your "evolution contradicts Scripture" routine is an example of bearing false witness, or (b) you're making a statement which falls apart without the implicit premise that you lot are the only ones who know what Scripture really says.

"I believe that what the Bible says is true, but that doesn't mean that I think science is false or anything of that sort.": Oh, yes you do think science is false, when science contradicts your fallible, human INTERPRETATION of Scripture. Again: There's plenty of Christians in this world -- millions of them -- who don't believe that evolution contradicts Scripture.

"Can you honestly comprehend the kind of odds it would take to get even something as simple as a housefly from some kind of organic goo?": What odds would those be, please? I don't happen to know, myself -- but if you're going to assert that those odds are too great, you're going to have to explain how you know the odds are too great! "The odds against evolution are just too great" is a time-honored Creationist argument, but I've noticed that no two Creationists can manaage to agree on how unlikely the odds are. Indeed, Creationist assertions of the unlikelihood of evolution vary all over the place, across a range of hundreds of orders of magnitude! This, to me, suggests that Creationists just make up whatever numbers they feel like.

"Do you know that if Earth was its orbit we would either freeze to death or be scorched?": This sentence is garbled. I think you mean "if Earth was out of its orbit", but it's hard to say. In any case: Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle -- the distance between Earth and the Sun varies over the course of a year, from about 147 million miles at the closest point (called "perihelion"), to about 152 million miles at the farthest point (called "aphelion"). So if this is an attempt to bring up the Creationist argument that "if the Earth's orbit were even a mile closer or farther to the Sun, the Earth would be uninhabitable", just be aware that Earth's habitability doesn't seem to have been hurt any by five -- bleeding -- million -- kilometers of variation in orbital distance.

"That if the moon were too much closer we would be drowned by the humongous tides?" Maybe, maybe not. How about you put some hard figures to this assertion? For example, suppose the Moon was only an eighth of a million miles away from Earth, instead of its current quarter-million-mile distance: What would that do to the tides?

"Let's add the fact that the sun burns so fast that if you go back far enough, (i.e.: Maybe a few hundred thousand years ago if you're lucky) the sun would have made this planet into a giant burnt rock?": This sounds like a garbled version of the "shrinking Sun" story. If so, you might want to check the Talk.Origins [page on the 'shrinking Sun'].

"And even assuming you're all right, that this all came from some single thing or being, where did that come from and why haven't we changed since recorded history?": "Where did that come from" is not yet known. Perhaps it may never be known. [shrug] If you want to say that God did it, fine -- just don't pretend that "God did it" is science, okay? The answer to "why haven't we changed since recorded history?" is that we have -- just not all that much of a change, is all.

"Just because most people that believe in creation don't have the proper information to argue it doesn't mean that our arguements have circularity or that we are the bearers of 'the most deceitful, fraudulent, and sloppiest lies ever to be put over on the civilized world.'": Well, that's true enough as far as it goes; the mere fact that Creationists are ignorant, does not necessarily mean that Creationists' arguments must be circular, or that they must be the bearers of lies. All of which said and acknowledged, it is nonetheless true that in addition to being ignorant, Creationists also use circular arguments and are the bearers of deceitful, fraudulent, sloppy lies. Nobody claims that Creationists have to be liars, just because they're ignorant; nevertheless, it happens to be true that Creationists, in addition to being ignorant, also are liars.

"While you may debunk the theory of something coming from an organic goo, you have yet to address the main issue: matter cannot be created or destroyed.": Since evolution involves the rearrangement of existing matter, without needing to 'create' or 'destroy' any matter, it is not at all clear why you think "matter cannot be created or destroyed" is "the main issue". As best I can tell, not only is "matter cannot be created or destroyed" not "the main issue", "matter cannot be created or destroyed" isn't even relevant!

"As for Earth's gravity tearing the Moon into pieces, gravity is an attracting force. It doesn't tear anything to pieces.": Gravity is indeed an attracting force, yes. It's also an attracting force whose strength varies with distance. What happens to an object when the pull of gravity on its nearest point is 100* stronger than the pull of gravity on its farthest point? That's a rather extreme scenario, granted, but it should serve to illustrate what I'm talking about. You might want to check out the Wikipedia page on [tidal force] to start with.

Okay first of all, the people who claim the title of Christain are a very broad range of people. Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, Mormons, and any of a dozen other religions with varying beliefs fall into the category that you're refering to. Second of all, you have no right to call us slanderers. You have the gall to group us all together and say we all believe this way, when you don't either. Evolutionary science has just as many opinions and interpretations as Christianity, and just because one group says something, doesn't mean we all agree or that we're all insane and want to label you all satanic. The vast majority of Christians I know and would call Christians are very nice people who are not willing to condemn you unless you throw it in their face. Just because we claim he same name doesn't mean we ARE the same group of people!

As for us believing we are the only gaurdians of true faith, once again, SO DO YOU! You may not call it that, but you believe what you believe and nobody is going to tell you otherwise! As such, you have not right to tell me that I'm some psycho with an agenda to tell the world they're wrong and going to hell.

How can you tell me what I believe! That was a statement of personal opinion! And yes, when science clearly contradicts what the Bible says, I'm going to believe the Bible, because that's what I believe, just like you'll believe in science, because that's your choice and what YOU believe! And just because others that fall into that very BROAD category believe one thing, doesn't mean I DO!

As for the fly, please open your eyes and look around you. The housefly is an amazing creature despite its apparent simplicity. The larva have been known to crawl up to a hundred and fifty feet before they pupate, and fly up to 28 miles from there breeding grounds, the females laying 350-900 eggs in their 30-60 days life cycle. They regurgitate there food and digest it outside their bodies before re-ingesting it. Their eyes are among the most complicated in the insect world, and each lens has a separate image, yet they still fly. They taste, feel, and smell with the hair on their bodies. They have sticky pads on their feet so they can walk on vertical surfaces. And you think this randomly came together to work perfectly without them dying off during evolution and now it all works perfectly BY CHANCE?! While I may not have numbers for you since this isn't something people generally spend time calculating, please use your head. I trust that you're not stupid if you can argue.

Thank you for the correction, but know I was rather tired when I wrote that. I am aware that the Earth's orbit is an elipse and do not think that only a mile would kill us. But the range only stretches so far, and as we have seen no envidence of life on other planets, one would think that the range is probably fairly limited.

The moon controls the tides through its gravity with the Earth, as any descent fourth grader should know. The closer the Moon gets, the bigger the tides get, and vice versa. Two plus two, Einstein.

I will be sure to check it out, and I would be happy to continue this discussion at a later date, although you must admit that the idea has some merit.

If you have no arguement as to where it all came from, please do not automatically disregaurd mine. Just because you choose not to believe it, which is your right, doesn't give you the right to say my beliefs aren't science. Science is the study of the world around us, including how it came to be. Your ideas are just as much of a theory as mine are to you. As you have no solid proof, you cannot ignore Creationism as a possibility if nothing else.

Honestly, how many people that follow evolutionism can put a descent arguement to paper? Mostly, those who spend time studying it at a college level. The same is true of Christianity. How many people do you hanestly think could even understand the terminology in the article? By the same reasoning, I could call all evolutionists liars, because not all of them can argue it descently, so they must be liars as well.

Please take that sentence IN CONTEXT! It was later stated that the point I was making there was that evolution did not give a reasonable explanation as to the origins of matter in the first place, or energy or anything else. Therefore, as we were arguing creationism vs. evolution from matter which we don't know where it came from, the idea of matter being unable to be created or distroyed was the main point of the arguement. I will conceed that the sentence was badly phrased, and explained even worse. Please note that the only time I have to write this is fairly late in the evening.

That arguement may be valid, but here's your problem: gravity ratios stay the same as long as the size and shape stay the same. If, as you say the gravity on one side of the object is 100* that of the other side and the object was pulled apart as it approached Earth, Then it would have been pulled apart anyways because the destruction of it depended on the suddenly changing forces around it. An increase of pull shouldn't be enough, there would also have to be a change in the WAY it pulled.

First off, please learn how to spell, and learn how to use the correct word, please. I find it frustrating trying to hold a conversation with self-righteous people who can't realize that "descent" and "decent" are two totally different words. Secondly, what part of "flies were descended from scorpionflies over 220 million years ago" did you not understand? You open your own eyes, and take your own advice about using your head, please. You must realize that house flies do not hold a monopoly of uniqueness among other insects, or even other flies. Virtually all other insects have footpads that have microscopic bristles that utilize Van Der Waal forces to cling to any surface. Upon hatching, mantid fly larvae must search for spider egg sacs or starve to death. And yes, most of them starve to death while searchin, and yet, there are still plenty of mantid flies in the world. Dragonflies have superior compound eyes to house flies, which may be why dragonflies are an important predator of house flies. And what's so bad about having compound eyes? So what if they each form a separate image? They all blend together to form a composite view of the world. Monarch butterflies fly from Canada to Mexico and back each year. Oh, and there are species of flies whose larvae deal with competitors by eating them. Maybe if, instead of hooping and hollering about how unknowable and incomprehensible the fly is, you would read more about flies, you would be able to understand and appreciate how they are related to other insects. I find it hard to take you seriously, especially since you insist on trotting out that stupid argument about how evolution can't occur because of CHANCE. By that same piece of logic, no one should win the lottery, nor get struck by lightning. And yet, people win lotteries and get struck by lightning every day. Furthermore, do realize that evolution does not occur by CHANCE. Complex organic molecules do not come together, or not come together simply do to chance. Evolution does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Explain to me in detail exactly how the descent and modification of biological populations create and or destroy energy and matter. Furthermore, we can dismiss Creationism as a science because it is not a science at all. Creationism is simply a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and presents no opportunity for any testable experiment or observation. It can not even be falsified without catastrophic consequences. If a theory is falsified, then the scientists simply go back to the drawing board to realize what went wrong. If the Bible is falsified, then the whole sky is going to come metaphorically tumbling down. Among other things, there is no physical proof that there was a Great Deluge. If there was a Great Deluge, then all sedimentary rocks would have been uniformly laid down, and all life would have its greatest diversity around Mount Ararat. Please explain in detail about how koalas and kangaroos and eucalyptus trees got to Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and maple trees. --Mr A. 06:14, 16 February 2006 (GMT)

Speaking of the Great Deluge, I'm often reminded of how Creationists claim that it is a God of Love who loves and protects us, but, why would a God of Love annihilate all life on Earth, save for what Noah took aboard the Ark, simply because some women were seduced by fallen angels? Someone reading the Bible, and was otherwise ignorant of Christianity, or even Judaism, how would one be able to correct the wrong assumption that the ancient Jews and ancient Christians were all obsessed with killing any and all non-Jewish and non-Christian peoples they came across, if one remains adamant that the Bible is wholely infallible? --Mr A. 06:19, 16 February 2006 (GMT)

Or, instead of postulating the evidence presented by the Great Deluge, can you name any Creationist who has won Nobel Prizes for their work in Scientific Creationism?--Mr A. 19:43, 16 February 2006 (GMT)

For what seems like the eighth time, it is not a lack of ability to spell that causes the errors, it is being tired. I come home from an eight hour day plus time at the gym and a social life, and by the time I'm done, it's late and I'm tired. "Descent" and "decent" are off by a letter, it's just a typo, leave me alone! I had a 12th grade reading level in 6th grade, trust me, I'm fine. It's just a lack of proof reading and my limited typing abitlities. I'm sorry if you're so perfect that you can't deal with that, but if you wish to continue this conversation, you're going to have to. Secondly, I was not saying there was anything particularly spectacular among the insect world. I was saying it was too complex for it to come together by evolution. Example: Every animal has at least four basic systems in some form or another. Say, reproductive, respiratory, digestive, and nervous systems to be more specific, varying in complexity. And all of these systems have to come together perfectly, at the same time, in a way that won't put them to a disadvantage or such a great advantage that they wipe out all life. That's like have four people in the same family, winning the lottery in four consecutive days. Or else getting hit by lightening in separate places at the same time. Unlikely is an understatement. So the point was not that the fly was so amazing or I'd done so much research on it, but that even something like that was not going to come together very easily, much less a dragonfly or monarch butterfly. And if evolution doesn't come together by chance, then I'm assuming that you're resorting to survival of the fittest. I am not saying that I do not believe in evolution on some level. Please, understand, I very firmly support microevolution, which is what survival of the fittest would cause. But it is more than a bit of a jump to go from the changing of a bird's beak to it changing into another species entirely. And I did not say that "the descent and modification of biological populations create and or destroy energy and matter." I said that evolution offers no explanation for the origins of matter and energy. I then stated that you had no grounds to dismiss creationism if you yourselves couldn't offer such an explanation. And of course creationsim doesn't offer grounds for testable experiment or obesvation! The Bible was written as a history book, not a science textbook! But if you go into everything stated in there, you will find that everything that IS stated is testably true, excepting unfulfilled prophecy, since there is no standardized testing method I've heard of that can proove that. And what catostauphic consequences are you refering to, if I may ask? It all comes down to climate with the spred of animals. After the Great Deluge, the world had gone through a dramatic climate change. The theory is that there was a protectiveice shield, if you will surrounding the earth before the flood. This created something of a greenhouse effect, which can be evidenced by the tropical trees that have been uncovered at the north and south poles today. The shield was thought to collapse during the flood, evidenced by a group of mammoths discovered to have been frozen alive so fast that the food in their stomachs was still green when they were dug out. So the climate was changed and animals naturally disperse and spread out over time, and using your own survival of the fittest theory, the animals most adapted to each surrounding would be the ones to survive in each place. And if you will take notice, Mount Ararat is in the Middle East. That is a very specific climate, so not every animal COULD survive there. Thus, the diversity there is not necessarily a must. And God is a God of Love, but he is also a just God. God didn't just up and annihilate thousands of people. The ark was supposed to be about one and a half football fields long, and you had four men to do it. By record, it took them 120 years to complete it with the tools available to them, during which time Noah preached daily. Everyone had an equal chance. And as you yourself said, the assumption that Christians and Jews were obsessed with killing people is a wrong assumption. First of all, Christians didn't even exist till post-Christ times. Christians separated with the Jews at that time and were first called Christians at Antioch. Second, Christians were the ones who were persecuted through the Roman empire. Nero, for example, had Christians hung on crosses and burned to light his gardens. As for the Jews, after they left Egypt, they went to Israel, and after not even completely conquering it, spent most of their time defending it. As for the Catholics and the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and other tradgedies, it was mostly Jews and Baptists who died. Once again, it depends on how you define a Christian. Catholics and Baptists are different people, and I happen to be Baptist, therefore, I don't group myself with them. So we haven't really killed that many people and aren't obessed with wiping people out. Finally, to answer a question with a question, how many creationists decide who get the Nobel Prize? And how many evolutionists? And how would proving Creationism true cause a wonderful change in the world, as people still wouldn't believe it? As for me, I've got enough evidence, and you will never have enough.

If you want to continue arguing with us, then common courtesy recommends that you type legibly. It may be just me, but if you insist on saying that you don't have a scientific background, then why continue being so presumptious in that you think you know better than everyone here? Furthermore, why don't you read more about evolution, even if only to help your arguments against it? There are lots of reports and books on insect paleontology that detail insect fossils and insect evolution. From what I've read of your statements, you haven't done any research. None at all. Otherwise, you'd understand how flies relate to other insects, and other animals, and differences in bird beaks is a very important criterion for determining different species. You apparently refuse to acknowledge the fact that macroevolution is simply the accumulated effects of microevolution over hundreds or thousands of generations. If the mammoths that you said were killed and frozen by the falling ice from the ice/vapor canopy, were actually killed by falling pieces of the ice/vapor canopy, they would be crushed to a paste, not flash-frozen and then buried. Nowhere is there a law of nature that states that an animal must first starve to death before it can be frozen. Furthermore, you fail to realize that you, yourself, said that evolution violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, which said that matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed, merely changed. Speaking of which, you never even explained how the descent and modification of biological populations create and destroy matter. You seemed to miss my point about Mount Ararat. If all life as we currently know it emigrated from Mount Ararat, we would have found evidence of that emigration. However, we have never found any trace of such mass emigration, especially since there has never been any 4000 year old koala, wombat, kangaroo, or pronghorn antelope bone ever found in Turkey, ever. If the Bible was written as a history book, and not a science book, why on God's green earth do you continue to insist on using it as a science book? That is exactly what Creationism demands that the Bible be used as. From what I've been told, the Bible was meant to be a holy book, not a science book. You said so yourself that Creationism doesn't provide opportunities for experiments nor observations, and yet, you continue to insist that Creationism is a viable science. I'm sorry, but I come from a dimension where a school of thought that does not provide opportunities for neither experiments nor observation is not considered to be a science, no matter what its proponents say. And for your information, lightning strikes occur all over the world, at the same time, given as how lightning occurs whenever there is a rainstorm, and there are rainstorms occuring all over the world as I type. That there are also lottery programs going on throughout the world, also, means that there are also people winning those same lottery programs throughout the world. And the catastrophic, or, as you put it, "catostauphic" things that would happen if the Bible was falsified would be the realization that Judaism and Christianity had their foundations in a book of falsehoods. Do I have to spell out the ramifications of such an epiphany?--Mr A. 06:19, 21 February 2006 (GMT)

I just want to concentrate on these sentences: I was not saying there was anything particularly spectacular among the insect world. I was saying it was too complex for it to come together by evolution. It baffles me again and again how creationists think they are so incredibly smart that they can decide what evolution can do and what it cannot. But really smart people know that the world is so complex they can't hope to understand everything there is, and it's perfectly normal to fail to understand things. "This can't have happened" is such a naive statement that a real scientist will never say it. See Appeal to Ignorance. --tk (t) 08:31, 21 February 2006 (GMT)

Oh, and to answer my own question, there have been no Creationists who have won any Nobel Prize for any sciences. That's because Creationists never do any science to begin with, not because there are no Creationists on board the committees that decide who gets the prize, nor because of some revenge plot like the way Alfred Nobel denied giving prizes to mathematicians. There have Nobel Prize-winners who were important to Evolutionary Biology, on the other hand, like, say, Barbara McClintock, whose life's work in studying corn genetics, particularly the so-called "jumping genes," helped researchers discover and understand transposons, as well as help further the understand the process of meiosis. If you would stop appealing to ignorance, and actually study the subject, you would have probably known that, already.--Mr A. 16:03, 21 February 2006 (GMT)

Look, I understand your irritation, but please understand that I’ve heard that about eight times, now, so please understand mine. If it makes you feel better, I’ll type on Microsoft word and use spell check. Just please don’t presume that typos make me stupid, because I seem to get that a lot. And my typing is perfectly legible since no one seems to have any difficulty arguing back! As for me being presumptuous, my policy is not to get into an argument unless I know I’m right. If that makes me presumptuous, then allow me to fall on your most humble mercies as you all seem bent on indulging me! One more thing: you seem bent on deliberately misunderstanding everything I say. What you fail to understand was that the fly argument was never meant to be more than general references to the complexities that even the most simple of animals have. The argument was countered, I DID do some research to find out some basic facts, and again submitted the argument of complexity. That was answered to as the fly being nothing remarkable, and I responded that the systems themselves might not be, but all of the systems coming together in one insect at one time without causing damage to the ecosystem by being to advanced or getting wiped out was remarkable in and of itself. And yes, I know differences in beaks in birds and other such things help differentiate species. Do you think I’m a total moron? Wait, don’t answer that, of course you do. But that fact has been known to me since elementary school. I think I’ve got it. And yes, I am well aware of the theory of evolution. But that is a method of adaptation, and saying that microevolution is proof of macroevolution is like saying that if person drinks they must be an alcoholic. It’s going to an extreme that you can’t prove. I understand that evolutionists believe that reptiles evolved into birds. Tell me, if that true and it did take billions of years for them to change, where is the fossil evidence of the transition stages? In billions of years of changed shouldn’t there be more than a few fossils of that? Please tell me, sir, that if you saw giant chunks of ice falling towards your head, wouldn’t you have the sense to move? Nobody said that it happened quickly. In fact, I think it’s much more likely that a hole was formed and the whole thing weakened, and it was brought down more completely due to the violence of the storm. As for the mammoths, space is much colder than earth, so ice in it would be cold enough to flash freeze a mammoth without necessarily crushing it. And I didn’t say they had to starve to death. I said that the food was still green in there stomachs. Think about it: just because we die, it doesn’t make the acids in our stomachs stop working. There is no ice on earth that could freeze a mammoth solid, despite their fur, fast enough for the food in their stomach to be green. I did say that. You’re right. Because evolution does violate the first law of thermodynamics. If you want to say that God had nothing to do with the earth’s origins, and that creationism is completely false, you MUST give an explanation as to where everything came from. I’m sorry, but a God who created everything seems much more likely than everything appearing from nowhere and violating the chaos theory by everything ordering itself perfectly in a complex ecosystem with billions of perfectly adapted species living together without all of them dying by now. And before you say that you never said that everything appeared from nowhere, please understand that if you have no explanation for it but refuse to even consider ideas that DO have a theory for that, then that’s basically what you’re saying. And I never said that “the descent and modification of biological populations create and destroy matter.” I even acknowledged microevolution. I will, however, admit to the statement to which you are referring was badly stated and I can see how you came to that conclusion. Which has been clearly stated before and acknowledged, however, and I would appreciate it if you actually read everything before jumping down my throat about a badly phrased sentence. Not necessarily. If Noah only took two of every animal on the ark, save sacrificial animals, then the herds would have been small. Climate changes after something like that would have been dramatic, and the immigrations would have occurred in a few generations of an extremely small herd, then you aren’t necessarily going to get fossil evidence. Animals die every day, and not all of them get fossilized. Please allow me a moment to laugh at the irony of your statement. Okay, now that that’s over, we don’t use it as a science book. You see George Washington as a fact. You see the things he did as a fact. I see God and the thing things he did as a fact. Thus, it is a history book. As for viable, testable science, how exactly do you propose I test the existence of God? Or how do you plan to prove he does not exist? Going back a bit, if evolution provides no explanation for the origins of matter, that leaves a VERY big gap in your theory, yet has yet to be addressed by anyone. As creation provides such an answer, I find it much more likely. I am sure there are lightning storms at various parts of the world, and that there are times when the strikes are very close, but to what degree? To the millisecond? There is no way that could happen at exactly the same time, but I will give on the premise of it being a rather bad example since such a thing is a physical impossibility. And yes, people do win the lottery every day, but the example was more specific. Four people in the same family are far less likely, and the odds of winning a jackpot are one in a million to begin with. The idea of our universe coming together like that seems… ludicrous. And I suppose I can see the ramifications you’re referring to. Without Christianity, there are no morals except what the individual decides. That could be bad. Of course, that would also take away the Islamic reason to attack the U.S., as their religion is also creationistic based. Not so bad. But if you believe it would cause an epiphany, why are you trying to disprove it? And people have disbelieved the Bible for years, thinking they’ve disproved it, and that has neither stopped people from believing it, nor caused said epiphany. Once again, allow me to laugh. You tell me I’m making an appeal to ignorance by not researching a great deal when the information is in scattered places and I have absolutely no intention of spending the time it would take to write a research paper in an argument on a discussion page, yet you make your own appeal to ignorance when you say you cannot possibly hope to understand everything. You’re right. We don’t know everything. We don’t know why people think what they do, but you have my reasoning in the previous paragraphs, at least. Although I suppose you’re right. There are no absolutes. Maybe a fly could have evolved, given time. But could a spider, a Venus fly trap, birds, and all of its other predators have evolved on the same time schedule to keep them from overpopulating? What you’re failing to think about is that it isn’t just the fly. Every plant and animal has its place, and a few changes can unbalance that. What are the odds of the entire ecosystem evolving at once? Now granted, you believe evolution is constant, and microevolution is. But you’re talking about massive variations. Why would there be more than a few species in any one area if they all evolved from the same basic creature? And why would there still be the originals left if the new species had adapted to better survive? Wouldn’t they have died off? Even given billions of years, millions of species seem unlikely if they only change at need in different climates. And did I say anything about a revenge plot? I never said that we were victims on any level. But we DO have scientists, after a fashion. Ken Ham is one of them, but he is more of a debater. Try contacting him, he knows a good deal more than me and has never lost a debate on creationism. And I’m terribly sorry if I’m not familiar with every Noble Prize winner off the top of my head. And yes, I’m sure evolutionary scientists have won before. It is the top theory in the scientific world, and to get a degree in science, you have to know it. Thus, that makes sense. How many creationist colleges are there out there that aren’t dedicated to sending people into the ministry? And how many laboratories are for creationist use only? Very few, if any. Most labs have government funding to operate, but do you honestly think a creationist could get that? I find that highly unlikely.

Given as how all of the arguments you use have already been refuted, either here, or in Mark Isaak's list of Creationist claims, I remain unconvinced that you understand what evolutionary biology is. If you did, you'd realize that evolutionary biology is not concerned with the Big Bang, or even the formation of the solar system. Evolutionary Biology concerns itself ONLY WITH the change and modification of biological populations. What does Biology have to do with Astrophysics? If you actually did research on house flies, you would know that the first examples of Musca (the genus of house flies) first appeared 65 million years ago in what's now the Middle East, and that Venus flytraps are not the natural predators of Musca domestica, the common house fly. If you did have a basic understanding of evolutionary biology, you'd understand that evolutionary biology does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, given as how matter is not created when a gene mutates. Do you really think that babies miraculously spring into being inside of their mother's womb, or their eggs? No. Reproduction doesn't violate the 1st Law, given as how the mother uses her own body to form her young, be they babies or eggs. Anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of biology knows this. To define microevolution and macroevolution in the most basic way possible, the former is genetic change and variation within a species, and the latter is another term for speciation. Whenever examples of observed macroevolution are mentioned, Creationists poo-poo them away simply being examples of microevolution. Yet, no Creationist has been able to satisfactorily explain how the speciation of Oenothera gigas from O. lamarckiana is simply an example of microevolution. You might ask, "Well, how did it get 14 extra chromosomes to give it a total of 28 chromosomes? That violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics!" O. gigas got its extra 14 chromosomes from the fact that the oocyte that the seed came from had an accident during Meiosis 1, leaving it with a double helping of chromosomes. As for the nonexistant transitional forms between birds and dinosaurs? What about the dromeosaurs? According to over a century of anatomical studies, they're the closest relatives of Archaeopteryx. What about all of the feathered dinosaur fossils and fossils of birds found in China? What about even Beipiaosaurus, and the remains of protofeathers found in the impressions of its skin? To say that no transitional forms ever existed is to repeat a lie. Yes, it's a lie. Creationists try to dance around this by claiming that "oh, well, Archaeopteryx is a true bird, and not a dinosaur," nevermind that Archaeopteryx possesses a huge array of dinosaur-like traits along with its bird-like traits. In fact, if you actually bothered to look through this site, you'd find an essay discussing this very topic. As for the Great Flood... No one, NO ONE has ever been able to explain how the species of every terrestrial organism on earth got to where they needed to get from Mount Ararat. In fact, no one has been able to present an explanation on how Noah's pair of koalas were able to make it to Australia. Do you really think that a piece of ice falling through the atmosphere will stay frozen, especially if it falls from outer space? And if the sky really was falling down, as you claimed, do you really think that either I or a mammoth would be able to outrun it so either of us could be conviently flash-frozened? Exactly how would a vault of ice in the sky stay up in the sky in the first place? And explain to me how my statement of not all animals that die go on to become fossils is ironic? Furthermore, if the Bible is so accurate of a history book, why doesn't it say which Pharoah enslaved the Israelites? If the Bible is so accurate, then why haven't the records found in the ruins of Babylon ever mentioned the workers of Babylon's ziggurat suddenly speaking in languages never spoken before? And if Babylon was the first city built after the Flood, then why is the city of Ur considered to be older? The fact that you don't understand evolutionary biology does not invalidate it. The fact that I don't understand how computers translate things to and from binary code doesn't invalidate the fact that they can and do translate things to and from binary code. Given as how Creationists don't bother with actual scientific study, why would you even expect them to get a government-funded laboratory?

For the record, the world did not come together simply by pure chance. For the record, that you can't comprehend this does not invalidate centuries of scientific observations. For the record, Ken Ham is not a scientist, and the only thing he's done for science is promote a hyper-skepticism of science among children. For the record, the Book of Genesis never explained how God created the world, and never ever mentioned a vault of ice in the sky. For the record, the majority of non-fundamentalist muslims find nothing wrong with the idea of a 4.5 billion year old Earth, in that the Quran said that before the creation of Adam and Eve time flowed in a way beyond comprehension. For the record, both the Bullit Foundation and the Templeton Foundation, the latter being an organization that promotes Intelligent Design, withdrew their funding from the Discovery Institute because they found out that the Discovery Institute never bothers to create proposals for scientific research. For the record, do realize that Christianity never had a monopoly on morality. Ever hear of a little old man named "Kung," known to the Western World as "Confucius", who lived over 2500 years ago in China? As for viable, testable science, how exactly do you propose I test the existence of God? Or how do you plan to prove he does not exist? Please explain to me how someone who has true faith in God would even want to, let alone bother to devise a way to scientifically prove the existence of God? Can you point out the page, paragraph and line where Darwin refutes the existence of God in "The Origin of Species (full title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)" please? From a Christian's standpoint, do you even comprehend how blasphemous it is to demand that science prove or disprove the existence of God? You, yourself, have conceded that Creationism lacks even the most basic criterion for being a science, and yet, you insist that it's a valid science. Isn't that like picking up a rock, and after saying, "It doesn't feel like a duck, it doesn't swim like a rock, or even look like a duck, it has to be a duck"?--Mr A. 06:25, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Looking back, you admit that you don't have a background in science, and yet, you presume to know better than anyone in this site, nevermind that the vast majority of people here happen to have extensive scientific backgrounds, or at the very least, are working on their Bachelors and PhDs of science. You refuse to admit that you are confusing physics with biology, saying that the Theory of Evolution explicitely talks about the origin of the Universe, when in fact, it discusses how biological populations change with each generation. You find the idea that most organisms that die rarely get a chance to become fossils laughable, and yet, you find the idea of 2 koalas, 2 3-toed sloths, 2 dodos, and 2 i'iwis being able to climb down from Mount Ararat and make it to Eastern Australia, Central America, and the islands of Mauritius and Hawaii, respectively, to be a legitimate fact? Am I missing something here?--Mr A. 16:48, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

See also: People will stop believing in evolution after you feed them creationist arguments. --tk (t) 09:00, 27 February 2006 (GMT)

Wonderful! You have a way with words. But I am a Strong Creationist. Why is this a new concept, and yet creationism is older? Is it because the old isn't wise? Evolutionism is basically naturalism. Naturalists believe everything comes from something before it. So, what is original matter? Is it the Big Bang? How did that happen? Two random particles hit each other and explode into billions of atoms, creating an universe, a galaxy, and an earth and its inhabitants. Here, think about a puzzle. There's a bunch of pieces, not connected to each other. You throw all the little pieces and they all connect and the picture of a horse becomes perfectly clear. Do you think that story is crap? "Yeah right, a 100 piece set perfectly connects to become a clear puzzle." That's the Big Bang. Maybe I got one or two of you to believe, but the scholars who studied at Oxford for 10-20 years say "You're using the wrong example." "That's not how it happened." I'm sure you could use your words to make an ass out of me. I have no doubt. After all, I'm just some Christian redneck High School Junior who's on a computer. Do I have any degrees? Nope. But I will continue if I may. Lets go back a little, how some single cell organism has shown up out of the depths of the ocean. It decides to move up, because it sees a more protein. It can't adapt to the lighter gravity, but eventually it changes its entire structure around to be able to get the protein. It Evolves. Lets skip a few chapters of this interesting squabble. There's a fish, of course it is forced to go on land. There's no more room in the water. It gets pushed on land, lets say several fish get pushed on land. These fish can breathe air, but it isn't used to being in a place with no water. Its able to breathe due to fish being pushed up for years by the ever increasing populace. Some fish are starting to die, they are weak. But fish makes it, because it is the strongest. It gets water every once and a while, because it needs it. It mates with another fish, the offspring are able to live on land, with the less need of water. It grows extra features, it mates, it evolves. Eventually, after several generations, you have a monkey. It begins a higher communication, it learns how to kill bigger things than bugs. It walks upright, it has more offspring. These monkeys don't slouch, they walk upright. The generations lose hair, they become naked monkeys. They lose they're monkey bone structure. Socially these guys are the cool guys. They learn to use tools, they use a very basic language. They draw on walls. They stop dragging women by their hair (but women start to pull the mens out am I right?). They build something bigger than a nest, they build something out of sticks, it fails but they continue. They use weapons, they use tools, they kill animals, they kill each other. By this time in my rambling, they are able to recognize each other not by smell or looks, but by name. Science goes on, they discover many many things, they become united through the knowledge of what they are. They keep on using words, they find themselves writting, they learn from the humans behind them. They learn concepts not thought of before, they make stories, they start believing in deities. They fight who's right, they forget entirely what they used to be, and learned what they are. Wars start, they continue to fight, they start wondering why they fought in the first place, they wonder where they came from. And then a man came up who saw monkeys and saw the likenesses between humans and apes. He proposed an idea that is still believed a hundred years from its creation. Phhew! That was long. Ahh, but I've proved you right. Here's the question:Where did this higher learning come from? No animals have ever built a governing force and destroyed themselves. Yet we are the only ones. Have they stopped evolving? Is there such thing anymore? Why did something that moved the world along from a single-celled organism striving to get a little protein to us, a species who not only control the world, but has the ability to destroy it in one single push of a button? How can we think at this level? How could we get this far? We can't. We can't change species, let alone create a new one. Viruses can evolve, yes. They can change a little, they learn to adapt, they get stronger, but they never change species. The only option is that their is such thing as Intelligent Design by one who has a power to create a universe and the inhabitants. University Professors will continue teaching this theory of evolution, they are stubborn. I have nothing against stubborness, my grandpa and I am both the most stubborn people. But keep your stubborness and accept this "theory". 69.67.229.226 06:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't have a single idea what you're actually talking about. Perhaps if you actually took the time to READ a book on Biology or Paleontology, and stopped relying on the parodies provided by Creationists, you'd actually understand what Evolutionary Biology is about. If you actually took the time to read some of the other articles in this site, or even actually read the whole thread, you'd realize that every single one of your arguments have been debunked here.--Mr A. 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried. I failed to explain it. For the sake of your souls, accept Christianity. You will go to the Lake of Fire, and you will go to the throne and Jesus will say, "Go away, I never knew you." I will pray on your behalf. 69.67.234.235

And can you explain to me how not thinking like you means that I can't accept Jesus as my savior? I could have sworn that Christians are not allowed to bar people they don't like from Heaven. Isn't Christianity a wonderful idea, where you can terrify everyone into thinking like you want them to with the threat of eternal hellfire?--Mr A. 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See also Appeal to Force. --tk (t) 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition

Someone added to the sentence:

"There is no higher imperative if we mean to preserve intellectual freedom in this country",

"(the USA) or indeed, in any country. It is also important to remember that there are other, non-christian creationist loonies and liars running around, promoting their own version of their own religions untruths about "Creation", as opposed to evolution."

But as the article says, it is "a personal editorial/essay, major changes should be suggested either to the author or on the talk page". So I'll revert. --tk (t) 08:32, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Here's an edit:

Let us be perfectly clear. This is not an essay defining creationism for a dictionary. For that, there is an introduction here. Why then did I title the essay with a statement that appears to do just that? Because, though many may know creationism by an impartial list of trappings, I mean to introduce creationism’s real agenda, and hold it up, naked and ugly, to the light of day. I offer no point-by-point tit-for-tat academic anemic polemic, this is a passionate attack on one of the most deceitful, fraudulent, and sloppiest lies to ever be put over on the civilized world.

Creationists, regardless of flavor, are united in two basic assertions: that they are the ones practicing true science, and that it is they and they alone who are the guardians of true faith in the written and revealed word of their deity. Both are disturbing as surely as they are false, but the first should particularly concern rational people who want to have a stake in our society.

The argument goes something like this: Creationism is real therefore evolution is false and if evolution is false creationism must be real. To any intelligent person the circularity and philosophical bankruptcy of this standpoint, central to all creationist pontifications on science, is obvious. They literally beg the question, presuming to be true the very thing they wish to prove. Creationist “science” consists of rejecting every fundamental precept upon which science is constructed, from empiricism to falsification.

On philosophical grounds, it would take a healthy dose of Thorazine to convince anyone with even a modicum of brains about them, that creationism meets the minimum requirements of science. But to be fair, though at this point it may be sorely vexing, let us examine creationist arguments. First and foremost how do they arrive at their conclusions? Scientists use the Scientific Method, a process so fundamental to scientific inquiry that I will not elaborate on it here. Do creationists adhere to this method? Absolutely not. They begin with their conclusions and make torturous attempts to force them to fit observed reality. This is an attempt to define the world, not describe it. At best it could be referred to as philosophy, but sullying the word with such a disgusting association is more than I am willing to do so I shall abstain. By choosing to find fact to support their assumptions rather than assumptions to fit their facts creationists reject empiricism, the very heart of science. Instead they formulate the most farcical concepts ever imagined. They erect a labyrinth of self-referencing articles notable only for bizarreness, subjectivity and rhetoric. Falsification is automatically ruled out. Karl Popper demonstrated that the ability to falsify a hypothesis is pivotal to its recognition as scientific as opposed to philosophical. Consider for instance, the opinion that the author has an invisible friend next to him twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. Can this be falsified? Of course not, as some convoluted explanation can always be thought up to explain away any discrepancy between reality and my assertions that, yes, I have an invisible friend next to me. Creationist “hypotheses” are much the same. They are so obscenely malleable, so devoid of factual basis, that they can take shape to engulf any new data brought to light to refute them, incorporate these data, and claim that the hypothesis was congruent with these data all along. If creationists unilaterally reject empiricism and falsification, the two central tenets of scientific thought, then on what grounds can we possibly call creationism science, if we mean to keep a straight face?

To this, the worthy creationist will object that they defend their ideas on the basis of their scientific merits. Yet this is curious, as creationists must inevitably invoke a deity of one sort or another to explain the significant discordance between reality and their theories. Now what makes this particularly interesting, is that you do not see scientists calling upon their respective deities to explain flaws in their research, or similar problems. Why is this? Simple, because that is not how science works. If creationism cannot meet the basic requirements by which science is defined it is nothing more than opinion without basis in reality, held on faith alone.

And on matters of faith, what of the tireless and rather agitating creationist claim that they have a monopoly on the most pious and profound religious faith conceivable? It has always struck me as an odd claim, for a variety of reasons. Historically, those with the deepest and most truly profound faith have been those for whom faith alone was enough. Consider Gandhi. Did he feel compelled to try and bend science to the defense of his faith? Not at all. For the truly pious are secure in their faith and need not invoke crusades against reality in an attempt to reassure them that their faith is merited. Thus creationists strike me as the most insecure, faithless, and impious adherents of religious teachings to ever exist. And yet at the same time, they have the temerity to pontificate on what their respective deities can and cannot do, in an attempt to define not only nature but God or the gods (or goddesses, or whatever). Assuming for a moment that there are such deities, I cannot help but think that they would find it rather distressing that their characters were being redefined by a naïve lot of mortals on a lonely planet in a side-arm of the Milky Way. The temerity of such a gesture is astonishing, and it naturally makes one wonder just who these creationists think they are, preaching to the divine. And, when one thinks of that, it leads inescapably to a cleverly hidden and far more disturbing idea. Perhaps they have no religious aspirations at all. Perhaps this is a rhetorical farce to use religion as a lever through which to gain political and personal power. Creationists exploit the faith of well-meaning Christians (and those of other religions) to further their own purely political, financial and otherwise selfish goals at the expense of reality. They have not the slightest interest in true theology, the meaning of faith, or service and fidelity to the God they claim to so cherish. Creationism is a tool crafted to a very specific end; it is nothing more than the regurgitated claptrap of an ideology bereft of merit, and loathsome in its intentions.

For there can be no mistake that creationism means to destroy science, and replace it with a hollow shell of lies and deceit. Why? The answer is not hard to fathom. Religion has ever been a crutch of despots and all those who seek to secure their eminence at the expense of all others. History is unequivocal in teaching this lesson, and yet as blind as we are we seem to have failed to learn it. Creationists aim to not only destroy science in an effort to bolster their claims, they mean to redefine the United States of America, eviscerate the Constitution, and effectively dismantle American democracy, by instituting religious indoctrination in the schools and halls of public policy making. They mean to supplant all of these things with a form of oligarchy wrapped in the shrouds of science and religion redefined. And if one doubts this, one need only consult the publications of such notable creationist organizations as ICR, and the Discovery Institute to name but a few. Creationists are quite explicit in their stated goals, and there is little room for doubt as to what they wish to do, if allowed the chance. This is what creationism is. And thus revealed, the need to fight it on all fronts, scientific, philosophical, theological, administrative and judicial, is made all the more clear. There is no higher imperative if we mean to preserve intellectual freedom in this country.

I liked it. Advice (worth what you pay for I guess): words like "thus" and "let us" and "it naturally follows" and any "very" or "quite" before a fully capable word like "unequivocally" are tip-offs to a touch of pretentiousness. I would still shorten it quite a bit but to keep the author's voice, I left most as-is.

Response to What Creationism Is

Reading this ‘personal article’ reminded me that I need to go on record as a concerned observer of the hostility and vehemence from both evolutionists and creationists in debating this controversial issue.

At this point I’m responding specifically to the anti-creationist article, so my remarks shouldn’t be construed as condoning the content and tone of creationists.

First, let me state that I believe in a young earth and in the Bible account of how life came into being. I hesitate to call myself a creationist because the word has so many negative connotations. I’m not anti-science, nor do I believe that my faith is incompatible with science. I certainly do not believe that scientists and evolutionists are ignorant, godless or any of the other labels often pinned on them. However, I strongly object to being labeled by evolutionists simply because I don’t believe in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution or any of the modern variations thereof. I have no doubt that many creationists bring these accusations on themselves, but evolutionists, who claim to be truly scientific in their approach, simply make themselves guilty of many of the same errors by indulging in blanket statements, sweeping accusations and name-calling.

I would hardly call very well-reasoned remarks by thinkers of the caliber of Einstein, Newton and others, not to mention leading scientists, philosophers and writers of today, ‘intellectual detritus’ (also see entry “Historical creationist scientists” below).

Some creationists probably have an agenda, but some would justifiably counter that evolutionists have an agenda too – to edge out God from creation and from existence. This kind of argumentation from either side accomplishes nothing.

I beg to differ with the remark that creationism is just a lie. I’ve read a great deal from the intelligent design side, and not only are the proponents often well educated, but their arguments are often logical and rock solid. And again, they might argue that it is deceitful, fraudulent and sloppy for evolutionists to simply declare, “Life originated when energy struck inanimate matter and formed the first simple cell, which evolved into the incredibly complex variety of animal and human life we see today”.

Even hardcore, angry, fundamentalist creationists do not to my knowledge reject science or claim they alone practice true science. I believe in creation, and I for one have great respect for science and scientists (whether or not they believe in creation or God). I also believe that faith and truth are available for anyone to accept, reject, promote, safeguard or whatever. It is injurious to the cause of science when scientists indulge in slurs and generalizations.

Not every believer in creation, or even every creationist according to how you define this category of evildoer, would argue that “creation is real therefore evolution is false etc.” I believe evolutionary statements about the origin of life from inanimate matter and about common ancestry with animals and about origins of life billions of years ago are false, and I can give you very reasoned arguments for my belief without once referring to the Bible or my faith.

It seems to me that evolutionists are at least equally as guilty of ‘presuming to be true the very thing they wish to prove’.

To claim that creationism reject ‘every fundamental precept upon which science is constructed’ is another gross generalization. In fact this kind of remark sounds suspiciously like a remark the average religious fundamentalist/fanatic would make. Make a reasoned case for evolution so that I can respond in kind. Don’t call me names, and don’t call me stupid. I don’t think you are, even though some creationists think so. Let’s rise above petty arguments and debate the facts.

Actually it would have been useful if you had elaborated on the scientific method. I’d love to know how the evolutionist arrives at his conclusions, from the earliest life to the development of the species over the millennia. I’m not being facetious when I say I’ve been looking for solid reasoning in books and on the web, but all I find are guesses, estimates, presumptions and sweeping statements about dates, data, new species, transitional species (links) and what not with no proof whatsoever. Maybe I’m stupid. Maybe I’m not looking in the right places. Help me out here. If you have the truth, lay it down for me.

The fear that some want to tamper with the US constitution and force their religion down the throats of learners in schools is understandable, but is it fair, sensible or constitutional to allow believers in evolution to present their claims and suppress believers in creation from presenting theirs? I’m not talking about state-sanctioned practice of religion. Maybe there should be a distinction between the practice of religion and the teaching of the theories of religion.

I need to make a few last remarks on the language of evolution theory. It is significant how many statements about evolution are framed in language remarkably similar to the language of faith, e.g. “It is believed” and “Scientists believe”. In fact, the language of evolutionism is often vague and non-committal, as reflected in the use of words such as “may”, “might”, “could”, “possibly”, “speculate”, “think”, “seems to”, “perhaps” and many others. Not that there is not an attempt to at least appear certain, but even when they express certainty there is no attempt at proving the veracity of their remarks. Evolutionists will positively declare, “Humans appeared on the scene 2 million years ago”, but make little or no attempt to supply proof. The truth, it appears, is that evolution is a system of belief that happens to incorporate a great deal of observable, verifiable fact but also a great deal of speculation on things they’ve never proven.

Darwin himself repeatedly admitted that his theory was just a theory and expressed the hope and, fair enough, the firm conviction that someday his theory would be proven true. Yet the impression is created today that he proved evolution. A further question is, was his hope of proof ever realized. The truth is, the most ardent evolutionist can only supply a firm conviction, but not firm evidence.

To recap – I would love to see both sides try to have a well-reasoned debate on the issue of evolution vs. creation, not to make it an issue of science vs. religion, but in fact to use the scientific method to examine the theories advanced by both sides. Ruben Mitchell 22/10/07 - 2 pm rufrankarl@yahoo.com

Among other things, do realize that "evolutionists" have more than a "strong conviction," as they have EVIDENCE. If you tried to actual research, you can find research done on any subtopic of Evolution. Furthermore, do not dismiss Evolution as a mere "theory" unless you intend to dismiss all of science as "mere theory." Also, it is my own observation that the vast majority of creationists insist that only a literal reading of the Bible, invariably the King Jame's translation, is the only path to Truth, AND it is also my observation that the vast majority of creationists have no genuine interest, nor do they even deign to fake interest in the various sciences they want to replace/destroy.--Mr A. 13:46, 22 October 2007 (BST)

You say you do not think "evolutionists" are ignorant. I think you are ignorant, but please do not think that I mean that as an insult. "Ignorant" does not mean the same thing as "stupid", and the sum of human knowledge is such that we must all be ignorant of lots of things. Many of the claims you make above indicate your ignorance of the issue: to call something "only a theory" demonstrates an elementary ignorance of what science is, and how it works. Claiming that scientists provide no evidence for what we know about human evolution demonstrates a significant ignorance, as this evidence is not just confined to technical journals and textbooks, but is widely celebrated in newspapers, television programmes and museums around the world, and it is therefore surprising that you are not familiar with at least some of it.

Ignorance is not a crime, but it is an unwise state to remain in if you wish to discuss an issue. None of us have unlimited spare time, and we have all heard many of these claims before: we simply don't have time to respond to every elementary mistake over and over again. The purpose of this website is not to debate (those take place on the websites listed on this page), but as a repository for responses to common questions and statements. If you start a discussion which shows elementary misunderstanding of the science, you will likely get short, unhelpful and possibly insulting replies. I recommend, therefore, that you read around the creationist claims section (linked on the left), which already responds to most of your points. If you still have questions after reading through that page, we will be happy to help.

Thanks, Joe (t) 16:01, 22 October 2007 (BST)

Response to responses

To A. My concern is that the evidence simply does not prove what it is supposed to prove. There are no fossils of transitional species, no clear links between any two different species. In simple terms, I see no proof for evolution. If you read my article you would have seen it is largely an appeal for a less emotional, more rational debate than what I have observed, and here you are insulting me about my lack of research. Just take a deep breath and dispense with the petty insults. Let’s talk facts. Respond to my actual statements. Don’t try to insult me and don’t refer me to mountains of research done by someone else. If you don’t want to respond with facts, don’t respond with insults, don’t respond at all.

As for your arguments, first, I didn’t dismiss evolution as a mere theory. I said it incorporates a great deal of provable, observable facts and that my problem was with evolutionary statements about the origin of life from inanimate matter and about common ancestry with animals and about origins of life billions of years ago. Second, even if I were dismissing evolution, how does it follow that I intend to dismiss all of science? Just stick to the facts.

I don’t know why you bring up your observations of creationists and Christians who interpret the King James Version literally. I’m asking for scientific, observable, verifiable facts. I never mentioned my religious beliefs.

To Joe. Wow, I feel like I’ve stepped into the middle of a mud-slinging match. So in response to my assuring evolutionists that I don’t believe they’re ignorant, you respond that I am? And that you don’t mean it as an insult? Hmm!

I’m not stupid, ignorant or uninformed. I’ve read widely. What I said is there is a lack of firm evidence. There is no proof. Even evolutionists argue among themselves because they come to different conclusions based on the evidence. Darwin admitted that his theory was not proven. It is in that sense that I believe evolution theory today is just theory according to the general definition of the word. Again, please respond to my actual arguments. Questioning my intelligence, research or motives is unproductive.

Having publicly announced that I’m ignorant, you dismiss me because you all have limited spare time and you all have heard many of these claims before. Who are you speaking on behalf of? I was responding to a particular author, who invited discussion.

Call me naïve, but I’m convinced that not everyone will respond to my ‘ignorance’ with unhelpful and insulting replies. I was asking for information because the masses of resources I’ve gone through couldn’t give me the firm evidence I’m looking for. Ruben, 23/10/07.

Yes there are mountains of evidence of evolution. You could see and understand them if you actually took the time to look them up, rather than listen to the lies perpetuated by creationists about science. And yes, when you dismiss Evolution as a "mere theory," you are dismissing all of science as "mere theory." Yes, we have a spectrum of human fossils, but, if you dismiss them simply because you don't understand them, then, why not dismiss the fact that syphilis is caused by Treponema pallidum because no one has been able to culture it in a laboratory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil Furthermore, "Intelligent Design" as presented by its proponents such as Michael Behe and William Dembski, is a totally useless pseudoscience, wholly without merit as it can not explain ANYTHING. All ID proponents are incapable of utilizing ID in any scientific endeavor, AND all ID proponents have displayed a lack of desire to utilize or even explain ID. Puff of Smoke If you don't believe me, then why is it that the Discovery Institute has not engaged in any scientific project, and has had several donors withdraw support for this lack of scientific drive? Why have neither Michael Behe nor William Dembski performed any scientific experiments with ID?--Mr A. 05:06, 23 October 2007 (BST)

Also, rather than continue with trying our patience, would it be possible if you can go through this list of Creationist claims first, to see which of your arguments have been debunked, please?--Mr A. 05:21, 23 October 2007 (BST)

More importantly, if there are no such thing as "transitional forms," then how do you explain the fact that there are numerous similarities between related organisms? Why is it that the Mesonychids share so many features with whales? Why do birds have so many features in common with dromeosaur dinosaurs?--Mr A. 05:28, 23 October 2007 (BST)

Also, Ruben, just to let you know, I'm not trying to be insulting, I happen to have very little patience when arguing time and time again with anti-evolutionists who demonstrate time and time again that they have very little understanding of Evolutionary Biology, despite claims to the contrary. Furthermore, we're not trying to be insulting when we tell you that you are ignorant in Evolutionary Biology, so, please do not cry abuse when we take you to task for any ignorant statements you make. If we wanted to be insulting or abusive, we would have called you some grotesquely colorful synonym for "idiot," and sent you on your way already. Please, if you want to make a serious discussion about this, please first educate yourself about the topic: there are plenty of layman-friendly articles at Wikipedia, search the Creationist claims list to see if any of your points have already been brought and refuted, and if there are points that you really, truly don't understand, please elucidate your problems clearly so that we may explain them better. I am just easily frustrated from trying to argue with anti-evolutionists, many of whom, despite never so much as setting foot in an elementary school-level science class, presume to know the absolute entirety of Biology.--Mr A. 02:50, 24 October 2007 (BST)

Ruben, there shouldn't be a transitional form "between" two currently living species, just as there shouldn't be an intermediate between you and your cousins. Evolution doesn't work like that. Just as an example, dogs don't become cats and cats don't become dogs, and so we won't expect to see a half-cat/half-dog critter in fossils. But we know that both dogs and cats are descendants of a common ancestor, just like you and your cousins are descendants of a common ancestor (your grandparents). I trust you when you say that you are widely read on the topic of arguments for/against evolution, but you don't yet seem to have a firm understanding of the process.--Doddy 06:48, 23 October 2007 (BST)

Talk:What Creationism Is

From EvoWiki

Contents

Verbose

Say it loud

This is shit

Wasn't immediately clear it was an opinion piece

Move to userspace?

HEY!

Addition

Response to What Creationism Is

Response to responses

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Toolbox