JediMasterPikachu #fundie

JediMasterPikachu #fundie freerepublic.com

Creationism

* Every Christian should be a Creationist.
* Creationism is at least as defensible as Macroevolutionism from a scientific standpoint.
* Macroevolution requires at least as much religion as Creationism.
* The primary reason Macroevolution is so popular is because it is the dominant viewpoint of the origin of life presented to the populace, and not because it is grounded in good science or common sense.
* Both Creationists and Macroevolutionists can be smart, competent scientists.
* Creationists should know about at least the basic tenets of Macroevolution. You should know your opponent. Ignorance is rarely becoming.
* Similarly, it would be good for Macroevolutionists to know about Creationism, and not receive all their information on Creationism secondhand from anti-Creationism-biased sources.
* Macroevolution is an inherently racist doctrine, even if individual Macroevolutionists do not wish to be racist. If there were races which evolved, one race would be the smartest, one the strongest, etc. There are NO races of humanity. There is one human race, and it is imperative that all Christians, even those who insist on being Macroevolutionists, agree with this. Christ died to save Christ's family, the family of Man.
* The origin of Man explains why Man needs a Savior. This is why Christians should be adamantly Creationist, and is also why atheists are just as adamantly anti-Creationist.

27 comments

old comment by David B.

"Macroevolution is an inherently racist doctrine, even if individual Macroevolutionists do not wish to be racist. If there were races which evolved, one race would be the smartest, one the strongest, etc. There are NO races of humanity. There is one human race, and it is imperative that all Christians, even those who insist on being Macroevolutionists, agree with this. Christ died to save Christ's family, the family of Man."
1. Of course, all 'races' would be equally (macro)evolved, hence any idea of superiority of one race over another will come from the person, not the science. Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man demonstrates this quite clearly. Time and again 'scientists' looked for a difference between (mainly) Africans and Europeans, then whatever 'racial' characteristic they had identified (e.g. the slope of the forehead, etc.) was indicative of superiority. In their (circular) logic: blacks are inferior to whites, blacks' foreheads slope more than whites', the slope of the forehead is indicative of intelligence, hence blacks are inferior to whites. Scientist are imperfect, that is why science should be open to review, not handed down by fiat 2. By this logic Christianity is inherently xenophobic. Aliens aren't God's special creation like Man, so are inferior. This is true even if aliens don't exist. 3. Christianity is inherently sexist. Given its immediate downer on 50% of the population of the world, it's a bit rich to start criticizing imagined inherent bias in others. Matthew 7:5 - "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

old comment by Eric the Blue

Ignorance is rarely becoming.
Mirror Award... Similarly, it would be good for Macroevolutionists to know about Creationism, and not receive all their information on Creationism secondhand from anti-Creationism-biased sources. Who needs to look at anti-Creationism sites when everything they say is easy to refute? Macroevolution is an inherently racist doctrine, even if individual Macroevolutionists do not wish to be racist. If there were races which evolved, one race would be the smartest, one the strongest, etc. Eh... No... As you said, humans are equally evolved. That's why races can breed with each other. That's like saying a Great Dane is move evolved than a grayhound.

old comment by szenah

* Every Christian should be a Creationist.

Adding a new requirement for salvation? Isn't there something in the Bible saying you shouldn't do that?

* Creationism is at least as defensible as Macroevolutionism from a scientific standpoint.

Totally wrong, which you would know if you actually knew the first thing about science.

* Macroevolution requires at least as much religion as Creationism.

(sigh) Saying that over and over again doesn't make it true.

* The primary reason Macroevolution is so popular is because it is the dominant viewpoint of the origin of life presented to the populace, and not because it is grounded in good science or common sense.

Wrong on two points. First, it has nothing to do with the origin of life. Second, evolution is more widely accepted than creationism because it's supported by the all the evidence your church doesn't want you to hear about.

* Both Creationists and Macroevolutionists can be smart, competent scientists.

I suppose it's theoretically possible, but it seems unlikely.

* Creationists should know about at least the basic tenets of Macroevolution.

That would be nice. Why is it that none of them do?

You should know your opponent. Ignorance is rarely becoming.

Too funny for words.

* Similarly, it would be good for Macroevolutionists to know about Creationism, and not receive all their information on Creationism secondhand from anti-Creationism-biased sources.

In every creation/evolution debate I've been involved in, it's those on the evolution side who are way more familiar with the opposition's arguments and writings.

* Macroevolution is an inherently racist doctrine

Thanks for demonstrating that you know nothing about it.

old comment by [i]McCulloch[/i]

Every Christian should be a Creationist.
One unsupportable fantasy deserves another. Creationism is at least as defensible as Macroevolutionism from a scientific standpoint. Wrong. Macroevolution requires at least as much religion as Creationism. Wrong again. Evolution is a way to explain empirical facts. No faith required. The primary reason Macroevolution is so popular is because it is the dominant viewpoint of the origin of life presented to the populace, and not because it is grounded in good science or common sense. Wrong. The scientists were first convinced. The populace is slower coming along. Especially homeschooled Americans. Both Creationists and Macroevolutionists can be smart, competent scientists. Wrong. Creationists can be smart competent scientists so long as they avoid the fields of geology and biology. Creationists should know about at least the basic tenets of Macroevolution. From scientific sources. You should know your opponent. But not in a Biblical sense :wink: :wink: :saynomore: Ignorance is rarely becoming. Nice mirror you got there. Similarly, it would be good for Macroevolutionists to know about Creationism, and not receive all their information on Creationism secondhand from anti-Creationism-biased sources. Ok. Macroevolution is an inherently racist doctrine, even if individual Macroevolutionists do not wish to be racist. If there were races which evolved, one race would be the smartest, one the strongest, etc. There are NO races of humanity. There is one human race, and it is imperative that all Christians, even those who insist on being Macroevolutionists, agree with this. The odd thing is that racism was promoted by the Creationists. Races were caused by the division of humanity from Noah's children and the curse of God on one of those races. Is it science which came to the conclusion that races do not exist in any way that would be meaningful in a measurable way. BTW, we do not speak of a human race anymore. It is the human species. Christ died to save Christ's family, the family of Man. Try to lose the sexist terminology. Use human when you mean to refer to our species collectively. The origin of Man explains why Man needs a Savior. Yes, Christian theology requires Christian mythology. Debunk the myth and the theology should disappear too. How do the theistic evolutionists avoid that? This is why Christians should be adamantly Creationist, and is also why atheists are just as adamantly anti-Creationist. Atheist are adamantly anti-creationist because they are, by definition, against the idea that there is a God. God's existence is somewhat central to the creationist dogma.

old comment by Current

*I thought only jesus was entitled to decide what christians should believe or do?
*Evidence seeems to point to the contrary *Wrong. Creationism is part of a religion, evolution is not. *It is presented as the dominant scientific viewpoint, because it is. *I suppose it is true, but creationists have a religious bias. *True, and a lot more than the basics tenets if you ask me. *True, if you ignore the implicit accusation. *Wrong when you say that evolution is racist. The ToE never says one race is better than the other. The rest is essentially true. *I'm sure that most christians can keep the important philosophical aspects of their religion and ignore it's flawed science and history. In fact, the greater part of them do it.

old comment by Canadiest

"Darth Wang

\"Macroevolution\" is just a creationist buzzword indicative of their moving the goalposts once they realized that evolution did occur. They simply drew an invisible line and said, with no evidence or reasoning to back it up, that \"evolution can't progress beyond this point\". Whenever evidence is found that crosses the line, they simply move it again."

Exactly, it's the companion gambit to their "Irreducable complexity" or "too Complex" claims. Since when do undereducated, unqualified creationists get to be the people who control a abitrary limit to scientific principles? As you mentioned: goalpost moving, theirs can be moved to infinity and they now think they can box science up by establishing unvalidated limits, for the good of humanity of course.

old comment by Canadiest

By the way "anti-Creationism-biased sources"

These are the sites or You tube series that De-bunk creationist lies and unproven assertions. These are mostly done by people educated in fields like Biology, Geology, Archeology and/or History.

As an example there's a huge published liar for Christian myth called David Barton whos kept many historians busy for years trying to inform the public of his highly dishonest books.

Meanwhile, Texas Christian and private schools are putting his bullshit books in the curiculm. He's a proven liar, completely debunked by professional historians, his last book was removed by it's Christian publisher for inaccuracies (polite for LIES) yet many grade school children are being taught from his books.

It's an outrage I tell you!

"Every Christian should be a Creationist.”
If it stood up to scrutiny, everyone would be.

"Creationism is at least as defensible as Macroevolutionism from a scientific standpoint.”
No, it’s not.

"Macroevolution requires at least as much religion as Creationism.”
PRATT.

“The primary reason Macroevolution is so popular is because it is the dominant viewpoint”
It’s popular because it’s the dominant theory? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to WORK?

“of the origin of life presented to the populace,”
No, it’s not.

“and not because it is grounded in good science or common sense.”
Bad Christain! Lying is a sin!

"Both Creationists and Macroevolutionists can be smart, competent scientists.”
But if your theory requires a supernatural element, it’s not competent science.

"Creationists should know about at least the basic tenets of Macroevolution.”
Then you already failed.

"Similarly, it would be good for Macroevolutionists to know about Creationism, and not receive all their information on Creationism secondhand from anti-Creationism-biased sources.”
They already know it’s literally religious in nature. That moves it out of science. What else do they need to know?

"Macroevolution is an inherently racist doctrine,”
Nope.

“There are NO races of humanity.”
I think you misunderstand the term ‘favoured races’ as used by Darwin.

"The origin of Man explains why Man needs a Savior.”
Also why snakes don’t have legs. Similar stories tell us why the robin’s breast is read, the elephant’s nose is long, frogs don’t have pussies, and so on.

“is also why atheists are just as adamantly anti-Creationist.”
The entire story of the Fall could be an allegory, changing nothing about the need for a savior. But it’s enough to note all the mistruths about evolution in the above screed to be anti-creationist. You’re either lying or ignorant. Or both, i suppose. Both is good.