Reasons for Creationist Persistence

They expect victory any day now, and have been doing so for the last 180 years ...

Is there any other body of scientific knowledge which you reject because it is in a continual process of improvement and refinement, or is it just basic biology? While we're waiting, why don't you try accepting the answers to all the questions we do know the answers to? Ever hear of the Dover Panda Trial?How do I know they're real creationists? 'Cos they say they are. Do you suppose that they're secretly evolutionists who've infiltrated creationism in order to make it look dumber?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If reciting nutty stuff like this magically made it true, creationists would have won the debate long ago. It is not possible to tell from this gibberish whether you really are trying to deny that people who push creationism as science are creationists.It's a simple question, yes or no?

Yes. I've invented the word "asincere" to describe persistent creationists, by analogy with "amoral". They don't know that they're reciting rubbish, and they can't be bothered to find out.I mean, if I was a creationist, and I thought that thermodynamics proved me right, then I'd go and learn some thermodynamics so I could prove it myself. And then I'd find out I was wrong. And then maybe I'd move on to the "no intermediate forms" gibberish, and I'd want to learn something about the fossil record to back me up, and I'd find out I was wrong ...And eventually I'd stop being a creationist.The essential characteristic of creationists is to be obsessed with subjects they're not interested in.

That was a little too sweeping, perhaps.I was thinking most of the creationists you get on message boards. The people who are just creationists 'cos they've been brought up that way are often neither obsessed nor interested in science. And I guess the handful of real scientists they have do have an interest in science. Now if only they could come up with some result that supported creationism ...But mostly, 'fess up, what we get is stuff about thermodynamics from people who've never studied thermodynamics, arguments about information theory from people who wouldn't recognise information theory if it bit them in the ass, arguments about morphology from people who don't know there humerus from their rectum, arguments about the fossil record from people who say that Archaeopterix is a perfectly modern bird ...And it never occurs to them to find out if they're right. They know they're right. About subjects they haven't studied.---A while back someone here posted about how birds couldn't have evolved from dinosaurs because dinosaurs are all "big lumbering creatures". He could have disabused himself of that notion by reading A Child's First Book Of Dinosaurs, never mind the scientific literature. But he'd never been that interested in dinosaurs.I kind of understand how there can be people who weren't fascinated by dinosaurs even as children, but I find it a lot harder to understand why people who have spent their whole lives scrupulously avoiding information about dinosaurs would then start posting about them on a message board as though they'd ever bothered to find out the facts.The word "asincere" only describes the phenomenon, I don't offer to explain it.

I meant no offense; nor to deny your existence.But in the main, my characterisation of activist creationists is about right.I remember when I first wanted to know about creationism, so I downloaded a whole book of 25 chapters to see what creationists had to say. And as I read it, I got more and more convinced that it was a parody. I was rolling about with laughter at all the really basic, childish mistakes. It had to be a joke. So I went back to the internet to see what creationists really had to say for themselves.It wasn't a parody.The bit which finally convinced me (erroneously) that it was a parody was where the guy said that scientists can't explain why sodium and chlorine are poisonous but salt isn't. This was in a book prepared specifically for use in schools as a textbook. How can anyone have the arrogance to know that little about chemistry and presume to teach it to children.The mind boggles.---As a creationist and scientist, can you point me towards any creationist resource on the internet which is not full of crass errors?Heck, I've challenged creationists before to point me out one creationist website which doesn't get the theory of evolution wrong. So far, I've had no takers.

A slight derail: that's a rotten argument. You don't calculate to more significant digits that you've got.And since pi is a non-repeating decimal, you'd always be able to complain about insufficient inaccuracy. Unless the relationship between the radius and diameter of the sea was given in the form of a convergent series.If you want to try this sort of thing, then the bit about the earth being immovable and resting on pillars works fine.

And who turn out, time and time again, to have adopted fundamentalist religious beliefs before they tried to think of these "scientific reasons", which invariably turn out to be rubbish, and which they are, for this reason, unable to justify with actual evidence.C'mon, you can't avoid the elephant in the room. Creationism really is ideologically motivated. Look here.A recent discussion topic. J C Sanford. A real, proper geneticist.Then one day he found Jesus.Now he hates the theory of evolution. He is incapable of arguing against it or even stating honestly what the theory is. But he hates it nonetheless.Jesus ate his brain.---"Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology."--- Philip Johnson"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."--- William Dembski

That interview with Kurt Wise'To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn't reject it.' At that point he decided his only option was to reject evolutionary theory ...He is more honest than the rest of them.Apart from evolution, Dr Wise says that one of the things that has really bothered him is finding creationists who fall into the trap of dismissing justified criticism. He said he has presented data to point out areas that some of them needed to change, and it was either fobbed off or was still being repeated next time he saw them.[/i]Here he is on intermediate forms:Darwin's second expectation -- of stratomorphic intermediate species -- has been confirmed by such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and lycopods),Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin's third expectation -- of higher taxon stratomorphic intermediates -- has been nicely confirmed by the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals and the phenacodontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin's fourth expectation -- of stratomorphic series --- has been beautifully confirmed by such examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (e.g. the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series. The existence of stratomorphic intermediates of the general type expected a priori by macroevolutionary theory (above the level of species) should be acknowledged by creationists for what it is: very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. It certainly CANNOT be said that the traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds." (Kurt Wise, Towards a Creationist Understanding of 'Transitional Forms, CEN Technical Journal 9 (1995) p. 218-219)Apparently he hopes to work round them in some way.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

They are perfectly eligible to undergo the peer-review process.This may lead to their papers being rejected, if they happen to be complete bollocks.

I'm not sure that the implication is all that clear.Try substituting any other noun for "energy": e.g. "cucumber sandwiches".

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. What is there in this passage that means that I have to believe that "no energy was ever created"; and yet I can still believe that cucumber sandwiches were created?---I might add that your position is theologically unorthodox: God can create as much energy as he wants, he's omnipotent.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You want to call adaptive evolution "degeneration"? Fine. Then you are a "degenerated" monkey. "Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy." --- Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic AssociationI wonder if he knows more about genetics than you do?

I think Tyberius' nonsense underlines what I was saying in post #33 and subsequent posts.If I was a creationist, and I thought genetics proved me right, then I'd try to learn a little genetics, for the following reasons:* I am interested in nature. I am interested in nature and in science generally. How can a person be aware that there's such a science as genetics, and not want to learn about it? So if I was a creationist who thought that genetics proved me right, I'd learn some genetics, and realise that I was wrong.* I have some integrity. Before I would go around in public preaching some point of view, I'd make darn sure I was right, not just reciting some stuff I'd seen on some website. So before I went around talking rubbish about genetics in public, I'd learn some genetics, and realise that I was wrong.* I have a logical mind. If there was some conflict between evolution and genetics, then at least one of them would be wrong. But I don't get to choose which, neither according to my prejudices nor by doing "eeney-meeney-miney-mo". I would have to study evolution and genetics carefully to find out which was right. So if I was a creationist who thought there was some conflict between genetics and evolution, I'd learn some genetics, and realise that I was wrong.* I have some humility. If I was going to declare that hundreds of thousands of scientists are wrong, then, knowing my own limitations, and the fact that they are specialists in their subjects and I am not, I'd make darn sure that I was right and they were wrong. So I'd learn some genetics, and realise that I was wrong.* I like winning arguments. If I was a creationist, and I believed that genetics proved me right, then I'd learn some genetics so I could present the proof. So I'd learn some genetics, and realise that I was wrong.Creationists, in my experience, are not interested in nature; they have no integrity; they do not have logical minds; they have all the humility of Satan himself; and they do want to win the argument, but they are so ignorant of science and the scientific method that they have no idea what this would entail.These are the reasons for creationist persistence. If they had a genuine desire to be right, then this would eventually lead them to abandon creationism.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I felt it belonged here."If what you say is true, and that evoluationary theory is the ONLY valid theory, then why does science even exist in this field. We're done exploring. We've found the answer. Why pursue anything else? To me, this is the exact opposite of science."