My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

Why did you register a second account? This is from the Forum Guidelines:

9. Do not participate as more than one ID. You may change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias.

I plan to merge your two accounts, but I'll hold off in case there's some reason to keep them separate, maybe family members posting from the same LAN or computer. Please let me know.Edited by Admin, : Typo.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Percy, it appears to me that your response to Chuck is somewhat of a hodgepodge of statements telling him of your opinion that he's wrong, rather than addressing reasons why you think he is wrong.He highlighted some valid reasons why creationists reject the ToE.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

John said EVEN GOD CAN MAKE CHILDREN FOR ABRAHAMOUT OF THESE ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Lord of Lords.... what does that tell you USELESS ATHEISTS!

"Very overweight"? If you're talking about Gautama Buddha, you are making the common western mistake of confusing him with Budai, who has a similar name but is a completely different person.Anyway, back to the topic.

I could not log into Mazzie123, could not change password, could not see some posts, I had huge probs with registration etc, so started a new registration in similar name, same avatar.Obviously if I wanted a double ID I would have been more creative.Please fix this, however you can, with new email addy. Thanks in advance for any assistance. {2 ID's merged. E-mail was the most recent registration. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

just an example of whatever.....some faiths desert common sense altogether. TOE is one of them.Some follow religious leaders that act like mad men, do not live what they preach and should be easily discerned as being bogus. This is a plea to common sense.Many faiths/religions/cultures adhere to similar creation stories eg floods. Perhaps there is truth in many. However, when it comes to defending ones beliefs, one needs to be able to defend the basis behind it, why they feel their basis is stronger than any other faith, including TOE.I feel creationists that base their beliefs on the biblical creation have an excellent basis from which to start, as outlined in previous post. I see TOE as a faith and should be taught as such, separating it out of biology in schools.There is no need to choose a particular version of creation to be taught in schools. Rather all that needs to be done is the truth, warts and all, of the current contradictions and debate within evolutionary theory to be taught and how this relates to the outdatedness of Darwins simplistic ideas.It is about providing balanced information so that the community can be well informed and able to make an informed decision to accept TOE or any creationist model.This is much more preferable to bullying students into only online of thought and being taught only the glossy side of TOE in public schools, most of which has changed or been refuted by the time text books go to print.For me it does not matter which creation model is correct, as long as none of my ancestors were apes. The evidence, research, contradictions etc show me evolution is an unlikely event. I am not an IDer, yet abiogenesis is unlikely to have occured on this planet or any other.For me, it is NOT about tuning the population into YECS, old earth creationists, IDers, or otherwise, I don't think. It IS about offering a basis for informed choice to the community and the future adults of the world. This may be accomplished by instigating a curriculum of TOE that includes the debates and contradictions within itself, considers all creationist refutes seriously, and teaches TOE as theory, not a fact. That may be a good start.

Would that be the same "common sense" that tells people that the Earth is flat and that heavier objects fall faster than light ones and that the Sun orbits the Earth?Practically nothing in science is "common sense", that's why it's necessary to teach science. Ooh, yes! And we could separate the periodic table from chemistry and Maxwell's equations from electricity! Whereas scientists, the people who are familiar with the evidence and the research, regard evolution as a done deal. Maybe they know something you don't, such as science. Your indifference is singular. I would have thought that that would be rather important, but apparently all that matters to you is denying the findings of scientists. Taking creationist arguments seriously would involve teaching why they're all crap. Personally, I'm in favor of this.What you mean by "taught as a theory" you do not say, and possibly you do not know. The theory of evolution is taught in the same way as the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity, Maxwell's theory, and other things known to be true to a high degree of accuracy.You have repeatedly blathered about imaginary "contradictions" in evolution; though without, of course, offering anything in support of this nonsense. If you ever wish to even attempt to back up your windy rhetoric with anything of substance, perhaps you could start a thread on this subject.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

An interesting insight into your creationist thinking might be for you to give us some details of what "warts" you think you see in Evolution.You might also like to give us some idea why you think 150 years of refined detail all the while strengthening Darwin's basic premise is somehow a weakness of the theory.Finally, what makes you think the present controversies in Evolution, like diversity in clades, the pace of evolution and evo-devo, are not being taught? Are you enrolled in such a course of study?

It would help me investigate the problem if you could provide some information:

1. What browser and OS were you using?
   ​
2. Had you logged out, or were you trying to log in from a different computer?
   ​
3. Did you forget your password, or did your password stop working?
   ​
4. If you tried the Request New Password link on the login page, what happened that it didn't work for you?
   ​
5. The posts that you couldn't see, can you describe what it was you could see surrounding these posts?

Thanks for your help!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This is an example of capitulationist creationist thinking: "Okay, I give up, creation science *is* really religion, but evolution is religion, too." This is an example of the creationist belief that Biblical revelation is the equal of or is even superior to evidence from the real world. This is an example of the creationist tactic of claiming openmindedness: "We're only being fair and open-minded. Let's teach the Biblical creation myth, plus all the other creation myths that also have no evidence." This is an example of creationist determination to ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. By the way, Mazzy, not only were your ancestors apes, earlier ancestors were rodent-like mammals, before that were reptiles, and before that were fish. So there's no reason to let your prejudices stop at apes. Finally, a mention of evidence, but only to provide a hint of the ignorance lying behind creationist rejection of many of the findings of modern science. This is another example of creationist ignorance. Whether abiogenesis happened on the fifth day through a miracle of God, or by slow accumulating change over time on the primitive Earth or some other planet billions of years ago, abiogenesis (life from non-life) still happened. Unless life has always existed it had to have a beginning, and whatever that process was by which life first began, whether by miracle or nature, it is called abiogenesis. This is a reference to the creationist fallacy that there is some kind of legitimate debate within science about evolution. The creation/evolution debate is a contentious social/religious/political issue, but there is no debate within science about whether evolution really happened.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

I see you are ignorant of what a scientific theory truly is. Or maybe you are being dishonest. You are equivocating the word theory.
Here is what a Scientific Theory is.

quote:

---

A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

---

Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.comA Scientific Theory is not a guess.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And you will provide this TRVTH from ancient tribal myths and superstitions?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The answer is that school boards would do it, and the result would disregard the rights of other ethnic groups and would be unconstitutional.

Very interesting, considering humans are apes. So what are your ancestors, rocks?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Only evolutionists think of themselves as apes. I can clearly see that mankind has advanced reasoning and perceptual ability that clearly distinguishes us from apes and any animal. It is evolutionists that ask common sense to leave the room, while trying to convince the community we are apes with all sorts of reasonings. Thankfully, your ancestors were never knuckle walkers though!!!!Biblical creationists know mankind never were apes. The first man was created in the image of God by just as magical process as your natural abiogenesis. That is where I came from. You'll be happy to know that you have no ape ancestors either. Debating fossils is for another thread. I'll breifly say this. Homo erectus is a mix of apes and humans. I do not think your researchers can tell the difference, I am afraid.Homo erectus - Wikipedia
http://planet.uwc.ac.za/.../attachments/Bahn_Turkana_Boy.pdfTurkana boy is quite different to some other homo erectus examples according to new finds. So the human line is a bigger mess than the others, which I know is hard to believe.It does not matter if ID or any other creationist models is offered alongside TOE. All creationist thinking exposes the flaws, contradictions and delusions of evidence past (eg LUCA, knuckle walking ancestry), so any would be beneficial to what is generally taught these days. The more important thing is that any creation model be taught with sincerity and not tokenism.All need to engage the reasoning ability God (or evolution to some) gave them, that separates humans from animals and make an informed choice based on knowledge. This is preferable to having believe what some one tells you. The bible supports this action.So really, there is no problem for me here. Where I have a problem is theory being taught as fact, which I believe is a misleading representation of the status quo. Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.