Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 85035

Evolution is an organized belief system that encourages humans to deny their most important responsibility as part of the created.

Modern biology, creationists contend, has become corrupted by the notion that either strict evolution or alien implantation is acceptable, but that our origin by the direct hand of God is (shudder, shudder) simply unthinkable. Many evolutionists get visibly angry (angry? … excuse me? What happened to that dispassionate science stuff and all…?) if one questions their atheistic beliefs. They call creationists "inherently unscientific" as one means of avoiding discussion and thus side-tracking creation theory. But we do actually have 3 theories today for the origin of life on Earth: evolution on Earth; or alien implantation - after evolution elsewhere in the universe; or thirdly, miraculous creation (either recent or ancient) based on pretty darned good scientific evidence and logic. (Please read a few of our articles.)



Paul Abramson, www.creationism.org 69 Comments [12/2/2011 4:09:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 78
Submitted By: Karana
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Horus IX

"Magic Man Dun It"is not a scientific answer. Even if your Gawd did it, he needs to show how he did the process which it was done, and have a full on peer review paper about how it is done.

FIRST

12/2/2011 4:19:21 AM

Rohanwotan2

First, demonstrate that a god exists. Second, demonstrate that it is YOUR god. Next, figure out how the existence of such a being disproves evolution. As a bonus, explain what creationismhas on offer to replace germ theory. Demons? Sins? Spells? What, exactly explains disease and disease transmission if not germ theory based on evolution?

12/2/2011 4:20:44 AM

\m/>_<\m/

ok, so for that guy, life seeded on earth from outer space is more acceptable than having evolved from lower lifeforms?

12/2/2011 4:33:46 AM

Atheissimo

'Many evolutionists get visibly angry (angry? … excuse me? What happened to that dispassionate science stuff and all…?)'

Scientists =/= Vulcans

12/2/2011 4:34:57 AM

From the frozen north, Death cometh

I order for a hypothesis to be taken seriously it has to have testable predictions and some explanatory power.

Creationists (or ID proponents for that matter) have neither. When pressed on the issue, they can't come up with any way of finding out if they are right or not... So they instead try to nitpick theory of evolution as if that would validate their own claims. Sorry, but that is not the way scientists find out the truth.

12/2/2011 4:36:30 AM



Oh, playing one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others. Let's see, two of them are based on no empirical evidence. Two of them are only hypotheses. Two are based on mythology or fantasy. One is based on scientific principles. One is truly a scientific theory. One is grounded in reality. I know! Evolution.

Amirite?!

12/2/2011 4:37:13 AM



Still waiting on this evidence and logic you boast about.

12/2/2011 4:41:41 AM

Mudak

What am I missing here? Ignoring the fact that evolution doesn't speak to how life began (a common strawman argument) where are the three theories about which he speaks?

The way it's laid out, it appears he's showing either 2 or 4 "theories":
1. Evolution or alien implantation
2. Miraculous creation (recent or ancient)

(to make it four theories, just split by the 'or')

12/2/2011 4:43:57 AM

David B.

"miraculous creation (either recent or ancient) based on pretty darned good scientific evidence and logic."

From the FAQ.

"the founders of modern science were all creationists, such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo and many others"

All of those people were long dead before Darwin was even born. Arguing that they weren't "evolutionists" for intellectual reasons is dishonest.

"The idea that what we see around us happened to explode itself (Big Bang) via random chance?"

That is not what the Bing Bang model proposes. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest.

"[Dinosaurs] lived concurrent with man down through the thousands of years of our existence"

Contrary to all objective paleontological studies including those performed by devout Christians such as Bob Bakker.

"The interpretation (or belief) that they all died off millions and millions of years ago is in dispute between creationists and evolutionists."

It's in dispute between creationists and everyone else. Hell, there are even plenty of creationists who believe this.

12/2/2011 4:44:10 AM

David B.

[cont.]

"There is good evidence that the Earth is only thousands of years old."

Never seen any, just the same old "the Moon's too close/dusty/perfectly positioned" or "the sea's not salty enough" crap.

"Some creationists bend strongly towards accepting most of the evolutionary interpretations but stop at the point of life falling together all by itself in the first place. These creationists argue for an "initial cause" (or "First Cause"), i.e. that "Someone" ... catalyzed early events and then evolution was the process used by this "God" after that."

But don't you use the fact that biologists argue over the finer points of evolution as evidence that the science isn't "settled" or that the evidence can't be that strong.

"But other creationists, like those contributing to this web site have continued learning ... and have come to the understanding (or belief, if one prefers) that there really is no good scientific evidence supporting evolutionism at all; and there is no way that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old."

Which undermines your "miraculous creation (either recent or ancient)" claim, since you are also saying the OECs are flat wrong.

And so on...

Really all that has to be said is that people like the fundtards behind creationism.org know that science works. That's why they try and imitate it.

12/2/2011 4:44:47 AM

Mr Blur

"Evolution is an organized belief system..."

Wrong

12/2/2011 4:46:11 AM

Wyzard

Many evolutionists get visibly angry (angry? … excuse me? What happened to that dispassionate science stuff and all…?) if one questions their atheistic beliefs.

Angry? Maybe frustrated is a better word. There is only so much "blocking of the ears and LA-LA-LA I can't hear you" that a person can take

They call creationists "inherently unscientific" as one means of avoiding discussion and thus side-tracking creation theory.

Because creationists are unscientific. I have read a lot of creationist arguments, and I have found them all devoid of real science.

or thirdly, miraculous creation (either recent or ancient) based on pretty darned good scientific evidence and logic. (Please read a few of our articles.)

Please - produce your evidence. If you have any, why didn't you present it at the Dover trial where ID got handed it's ass? Your "logic" consists of "I don't understand how this could have happened so goddidit!"..or should that be "unnamedintelligentdesignerdidit"?

12/2/2011 4:47:15 AM

Prager

"our origin by the direct hand of God is (shudder, shudder) simply unthinkable"

It's not that it's unthinkable, it's that there's no evidence to support the claim.

12/2/2011 4:55:59 AM

checkmate

thirdly, miraculous creation (either recent or ancient) based on pretty darned good scientific evidence and logic.

No. Take the Bible out of the equation and the creationists have shit.

12/2/2011 5:01:04 AM

Swede

Evolution is a natural process of adaptation of existing life, through random mutation and natural selection.

Alien implantation? Are you high?

The origin of life is uncertain, and has nothing to do with evolution, it's abiogenesis you're talking about.

We get irritated when we are constantly hearing stupid things like these, and the ones saying them refuses to see sense.

There is no creation theory. Where is the tangible evidence, the peer reviews, the falsifiability, the advantage that creation can bring to modern science?

"pretty darned good scientific evidence and logic"? The word(s) Goddidit is not logic, nor is it evidence for anything.

12/2/2011 5:01:25 AM

checkmate

@Swede

Alien implantation? Are you high?

Alien implantation doesn't mean the spark of life on Earth was brought here by little green men.

I just means that it didn't start on Earth itself but came (implantation) from outside (alien) the Earth, via comets or whatever. This is indeed one of the leading hypothetical scientific models.

"After evolution elsewhere in the universe" doesn't mean that fully grown animals where dropped by parachute, it means that some form of proto-life-matter that evolved (= was not created) somewhere else in the universe got here in the earlier stages of Earth's development and became part of the promordial soup.

To be honest, Paul Abramson doesn't sound like one of the usual creationist nutcases. Based on his comments quoted here, he actually sounds rather intelligent and could perhaps otherwise be a decent thinker if he wasn't blinded and dumbed down by his faith.

12/2/2011 5:49:04 AM

Raised by Horses

If we're getting "visibly angry", it's because dunces like you continue to pump out vacuous tripe like this while gleefully ignoring the many, many, MANY refutations of your biblical creationist fairytale.

12/2/2011 6:10:48 AM

Really?


You know what's funny? The thing that made me realize creationism was false, was Hovind. I used to buy into that garbage, too. But when someone lies about A-Y, all of which are clearly and unambiguously proven as false, it only stands to reason that Z, while a little harder to prove, must also be a lie.

12/2/2011 6:11:47 AM

Arctic Knight

"But we do actually have 3 theories today for the origin of life on Earth: evolution on Earth; or alien implantation - after evolution elsewhere in the universe; or thirdly, miraculous creation...."

No, what you have listed is one theory and two ideas that barely rate a hypothesis.

12/2/2011 6:14:38 AM

Adey

And, of course, there is no way on the website of refuting their lies with evidence to the contrary. What are they afraid of? A drop in revenue?

12/2/2011 6:45:36 AM

dionysus

Many evolutionists get visibly angry (angry? … excuse me? What happened to that dispassionate science stuff and all…?) if one questions their atheistic beliefs.

We get angry when you lie and blatantly quote mine great scientists to make it appear that they agree with you when they actually disagree completely. We get angry when you try to use politics to get your way instead of submitting your work to peer review like every other hypothesis in science has to do to become a scientific theory and THEN get put into textbooks. Other than that we don't really give a shit that you believe an Iron Age book is the ultimate guide to science. In fact, we find it hilarious. It's the underhanded tactics you use that piss us off.

12/2/2011 6:49:21 AM

Mister Spak

"Modern biology, creationists contend,"

But creationists are full of shit, so nothing that follows this has any validity.

12/2/2011 6:52:18 AM

nutbunny

Please read a few of your articles?!

You have been found wanting.

12/2/2011 6:52:42 AM

D Laurier

"Evolution is an organized belief system that encourages humans to deny their most important responsibility as part of the created"
No. It's not.
Evolution is an observable biological process of genetic diversification over geerations within a breeding population.

12/2/2011 6:59:16 AM



"Many evolutionists get visibly angry (angry? … excuse me? What happened to that dispassionate science stuff and all…?) if one questions their atheistic beliefs."

First, not all "evolutionists" are atheists. Second, I've watched LOTS of evolution vs creationism "debates," and I don't think I've ever seen anyone get very emotional about defending evolution. That would be like getting angry about the law of gravity. Why would you?


"But we do actually have 3 theories today for the origin of life on Earth: evolution on Earth..."

You reveal your ignorance here. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth; it's what happens after life starts. I don't think you even know what evolution is. You lose.

12/2/2011 7:31:31 AM
1 2 3