On creationists' beliefs

It seems to me that any creationist who dismisses evolution must hold one of the following two positions:1) A relatively small group of predominantly right-wing christians, most with no scientific training or education, led by people like Kent Hovind and Duane Gish, know more about biology, genetics, and many other sciences that contribute to evolutionary theory, than do the world's scientists, people who have studied these sciences all their professional lives, or2) Evolutionary theory is a lie to which the world's scientists knowingly describe in an an effort to supplant/diminish belief in God.Either of these two positions strikes me as absurd, yet I cannot see how someone who dismisses evolutionary theory cannot hold one or the other.Am I missing something? Or am I correct, and one of the above two positions ARE held by the majority of creationists? If so, which is the most held belief?

Sadly, I note that neither TrueCreation nor KingPenguin, the most prolific posters on this an some other boards, have bothered to even try to answer my question. One simply dodged around it, while the other (incorrectly) accused me of making a generalisation. Read it again, KingPenguin. I'm asking a QUESTION, begging to be corrected if I have the wrong end of the stick. So how about you actually try responding to my original post, instead of just using it as a launching pad for your own statements?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
A fact that helps proves creation is that we count down to and from the year of christ's birth, i highly doubt that people would just start counting from there and have it become worldwide without enough evidence to convince everyone that God does exist. if you actually had enough evidence to prove evolution and disprove creation, like so many of you claim, then surely we would be in the year whatever starting from mans first existence according to evolution.

---

Are you seriously putting forward the current western calendar as evidence for creation? I can't believe anyone would be that desparate for an argument. If that's evidence fo creation by your god, tell me - what are all the other calendars which have been used over time evidence for?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I suppose I will answer you're question.

​

Point one is ridiculous mainly because you try to point out that Creation Scientists have no credentials, which is plainly not true and IS an unreasonable discirimination. Then you try to say that science is a majority vote! You seem to have this view that scientists are all completely convinced about evolution. Not so. Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution. So consensus around evolution is probably not as extreme as you may assume.

​

Point two is a position that I don't think too many people hold, so it is not worth discussion.

​

Actually, I don't think too many people hold either of your points:

​

Point 3: Have studied a great deal on the subject of life and have come to the conclusion that evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists.

​

I believe more people would be able to say they are with point 3. Of course you don't like this point because it shows that Creation Scientists (and all creationists) can be reasonable, so I'm sure you will start yelling about the fallacies of my point. I don't care, it's not worth my time. If you are going to dismiss all Creationists as ignorant merely because they don't agree with you, than debating with you on this matter would surely be a waste of my time.

---

Thank you. You answered my question. You subscribe to belief number 1. You, and others like you, the majority of whom hold no scientific qualifications, know more about the subject than those who have studied it for decades. I appreciate your honesty (although you tried to make your position sound a little better by hedging and trying to make it sounds more reasonable).Oh, and a couple of other quick points - I neither said nor implied that "Creation Scientists have no credentials". I said that of creationists, most have no scientific knowledge or training. This is simply true, of creationists and indeed the general populace. Nice try, though.And do you seriously believe that there are evolutionists who believe evolution is not plausible? Are you serious? If they don't believe it's plausible, then they're not evolutionists, are they?Oh, and I wouldn't try to make your position sound better by citing that "many intelligent Creation scientists" hold it as well. I have yet to see a creation 'scientist' who has any (a) integrity or (b) an accurate picture of science in general or evolution in particular.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Sadly, I note that neither TrueCreation nor KingPenguin, the most prolific posters on this an some other boards, have bothered to even try to answer my question. One simply dodged around it, while the other (incorrectly) accused me of making a generalisation. Read it again, KingPenguin. I'm asking a QUESTION, begging to be corrected if I have the wrong end of the stick. So how about you actually try responding to my original post, instead of just using it as a launching pad for your own statements?"
--I already responded to your original post, and as I can see from the only two, one or the other conjector, that it doesn't seem worth getting into as someone seems to have already made up their mind before starting. Unless you woul like to restate the question.

---

From this and other threads, it appears you aer fond of asking people to restate the question, perhaps when to answer the question would prove damaging for your case. Sorry. The question stands as asked. You have not answered it, nor, I suspect, will you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
PLEASE do not turn this debate into one of these topics. These topics should be discussed in other forums.

​

My main arguments against evolution are:

​

1. Abiogenesis
2. Mutation-Selection
3. Puncuated Equilibrium

​

These are the sections of the theory in which I find the most unconvincing for evolution.

---

Ummm....sorry, Cobra Snake. Abiogenesis is not any part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory deals with how organisms change, not how they come into being. 'Mutation-Selection' is sufficiently general that I have no idea what it means, and Punctuated Equilibrium is a relatively new theory that is by no means accepted by all evolutionary theorists. If this represents the sum of your difficulties with evolutionary theory, I expect you to give up creationism any day now.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]"Thank you. You answered my question. You subscribe to belief number
1. You, and others like you, the majority of whom hold no scientific qualifications, know more about the subject than those who have studied it for decades. I appreciate your honesty (although you tried to make your position sound a little better by hedging and trying to make it sounds more reasonable)."Well I would be really interested if you could show me that the MAJORITY of Creation Scientists hold no credentials. [/QUOTE][/b]
Nice straw man, but I never said that the majority of Creation Scientists hold no credentials. I said the majority of creationists don't. Which is surely true.
"Oh, and a couple of other quick points - I neither said nor implied that "Creation Scientists have no credentials". I said that of creationists, most have no scientific knowledge or training. This is simply true, of creationists and indeed the general populace. Nice try, though." [QUOTE][b]
So, a group should be defined by its stupidest member? Well, then both evolution and creation fall flat on their faces. Creation scientists are the important subject at hand. Pointing out that there are quite a few ignorant people out there that follow the Creation model does nothing to disprove the validity of the Creation model. [/QUOTE][/b]
Who said anything about defining a group? I made a simple point; that the majority of creationists have no scientific knowledge, qualifications or training. That, surely, is simply obvious fact. [QUOTE][b]
"And do you seriously believe that there are evolutionists who believe evolution is not plausible? Are you serious? If they don't believe it's plausible, then they're not evolutionists, are they?"Actually, that is not what I said. The thing is, many evolutionists are unsure of THEIR area of study, but they listen to the proffesionals from the OTHER areas of study. All the while the members from the OTHER area of study are unsure of their position, so they rely on the information from the FORMER area of study. This is one of the main problems with the creation and evolution models- they are much too broad. Therefore, evidence that is crushing to one area of study can be viewed as a minor mystery that is to be solved later. However, it would not be as difficult to disprove the Atomic Theory, if indeed it were false. This is because the Atomic Theory is not too broad. [/QUOTE][/b]Actually, it's EXACTLY what you said. I quote: "...evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists." Of course, you also said "Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution", which I would love to see supported, because I believe it to be nonsense.Never mind. I think there's an exemption from the commandment when it comes to lying in debates.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Abiogenesis is part of the "General Theory of Evolution." I have a right to include it. It may not be included in biological evolution, but that does not matter as Abiogenesis is clearly part of the General Theory of Evolution.

---

Sorry, abiogenesis is not any part of evolutionary theory, or even of the 'General Theory of Evolution' (whatever that is). It is a separate field, which has some overlap with evolutionary theory, as physics has some overlap with chemistry. It doesn't make them the same field. Abiogenesis is no part of evolutionary theory.
[b] [QUOTE] Mutation-Selection I find ridiculous because scientists expect upward and onward progress from random mutations that are generally negative. Of the ones that are beneficial, few increase information. Given the extreme amount of information present in today's species, we should be able to see information steadily increasing all the time.
[/b][/QUOTE]And we do, and have, repeatedly. We see it in short-lived animals, like bacteria and flies, because to see it in more long-lived animals would take far longer than we have been knowledgably observing them.
[b] [QUOTE] Punctuated Equilibrium is I believe an indication of the lack of evidence for mutation-selection to work. It seems like a desperate attempt to explain the theory. It is also a theory BASED on lack of evidence, which I doubt you would find scientific.
[/b][/QUOTE]It is a theory which attempts to explain why, in some instances, fewer fossils showing gradual change are found than could be expected. And, as I said, it is relatively new and not accepted by all evolutionary theorists.
[b] [QUOTE] "Nice straw man, but I never said that the majority of Creation Scientists hold no credentials. I said the majority of creationists don't. Which is surely true."You can say that all day, but it has nothing to do with the Creation Theory. I should not be drug down because some stupid 9-year-old asked a question like "why are apes still aroung then?" The stupidity of these comments is only indicative of that individual.
[/b][/QUOTE]I wasn't trying to 'drug' anyone down. I was making a simple statement of fact, one that you complained about, and you were sufficiently irate as to lie about what I actually said. I corrected you.
[b] [QUOTE] "Who said anything about defining a group? I made a simple point; that the majority of creationists have no scientific knowledge, qualifications or training. That, surely, is simply obvious fact."Fine. But you should realize that this does NOTHING to discredit the Creation model.
[B][QUOTE] It wasn't intended to. It was a simple statement of fact, made in context, that you took issue with. Now that it's shown you shouldn't have taken issue with it, your response is "So what? That doesn't prove anything!" It was never supposed to 'prove' anything, beyond precisely what it says.
[/b][/QUOTE]"Actually, it's EXACTLY what you said. I quote: "...evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists." Of course, you also said "Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution", which I would love to see supported, because I believe it to be nonsense."Sorry for being misleading there. That is not what I meant. It IS true that some scientists are doubtful of their area, which I will show you with a few quotes later.
[/B][/QUOTE]If it's not what you meant, then you should be more careful, because it's PRECISELY what you said. And I note that you don't show these quotes to point out the evolutionists who believe that evolution is not very plausible, or that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution.
[b] [QUOTE] It is unfair for you to ask Creationists to answer your ridiculous question with only two answers:1. I'm a dumbass
2. I'm a REAL dumbass
[/b][/QUOTE]It would be, were they the possible answers I gave. They weren't.
[B]

quote:

---

Surely your question is meant only to amuse yourself so you can think we are all ignorant. I provided you a third possibility

​

3. I'm a reasonably intelligent human being

​

but you didn't seem to like my third possibility. Perhaps it's because it shows that Creationists can be objective and intelligent. But this simply cannot be in your mind, so you will continue to babble on w