I (sort of) understand why creationists disown evolution, but what do you think of this gem?

Question

"Why are you libs so scared of belief? Darwinism is a quasi-religion and it takes quite a leap of faith to believe in that atheistic propaganda masquerading as science. You believe in a theory while I believe in Jesus. Fair?"

Answer 1

Did you get this off Conservapedia?



"Creationists can cite quotations which assert that no solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists:



"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. - E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Botany, Cambridge University, England), “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97 ”



“ "We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." - Lord Solly Zuckerman (professor of anatomy at Birmingham University in England and chief scientific adviser to the British government from the time period of 1964 to 1971), Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, p. 19. ”



“ "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131."



http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Evolutionary_Theory_and_Cases_of_Fraud.2C_Hoaxes_and_Speculation.E2.80.8E

Answer 2

Wow. There was so much "fail" in that one, I see why you called it a gem.



So apparently everybody who accepts evolution is automatically 1) an atheist, 2) politically left, 3) a follower of Herbert Spencer's philosophy (social Darwinism), 4) takes this to be their religion, 5) believes it all on pure faith, and 6) thinks evolution is a substitute for a 1st century Nazarene carpenter's son?

Answer 3

To be fair, Darwinism is not a proven scientific fact, it is an ideology. And atheistic evolutionists do have a history of using propaganda to advance their agenda. If you don´t believe it, then why don´t you ask yourself why disproven data are still being taught as "facts" in school textbooks?



And the fact that they condemn anyone who challenges their evolutionary theories and lump them all as christian fundamentalists shows that they are motivated more by ideological reasons than by scientific reason. What they practice is not science at all.



Your attempt to mock christian believers fails.

Answer 4

Evolution claims to be a science so any challenge should be scientific. If you challenge evolution (or the big bang or abiogenesis) scientifically it collapses on it's own unproven assumptions and the only response those supporting evolution can provide are logical fallacies and denial.



Skeptiki... - you have validated my last sentence. Name calling (logical fallacy) and implied denial is the best response you could produce. The word creationism is not included in my response..



Here are two assumptions of evolution that remain unproven but absolutely must be correct for evolution to explain the diversity of life observed in the biosphere. Provide objective, reproducible evidence proving these assumptions and you will have a point:



The accumulation of mutations can form novel alleles that are both beneficial to survival and selectable.



The combination of natural selection plus novel alleles produced by mutations and time can produce novel body types.



Neither of these hypotheses have been observed in nature or validated experimentally. They are assumptions that are accepted but not proven.



Your move!



So(u)l : Not just any mutations - Richard Dawkins has firmly established that the basic unit of selection is the allele. That being the case the minimum level of information formed by an accumulation of mutations necessary for evolution to explain the diversity of life observed in the biosphere is the allele. Your response employs the logical fallacy called the Reductive Fallacy, also referred to as oversimplification.



You Aggravate Me: Your opinion of Christianity has nothing to do with the scientific validity of evolution - that is the logical fallacy known as the red herring...



Brad: Red Herring - see above -- do you have an answer for the scientific objections related to evolution presented above or not?

Answer 5

...



So natural selection coupled with genetic drift, gene flow and mutation are part of a quasi-religion?



lol okay

Answer 6

Test Christianity.



Test Evolution.



Get back to me with your findings.

Answer 7

That guy is an idiot of the lowest caliber.





@NDMA-

You spelled "creationism" wrong, dear.

Answer 8

Which version of evolution? We need specifics. lol Jeremiah 20:11 God Bless

Answer 9

sure he wasn't trolling

Answer 10

heehee. that made me laugh