Paul Abramson #fundie

Paul Abramson #fundie creationism.org

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.)

70 comments

old comment by 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.

old comment by 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.

old comment by 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"?

old comment by 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.

old comment by 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.

old comment by 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.

old comment by

"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.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"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."

Because your god is unevidenced and, via Occam's Razor, unnecessary.

Granted, aliens are also unevidenced but at least they're plausible since we actually have examples of life existing within the universe--something which we don't have for gods of any description.

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

You try repeating the same fucking answers to a drooling simpleton over and over again and then having them turn around and ask it all over again and see how calm you stay.

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

No. It's a means of pointing out that creationists are "inherently unscientific" since they, you know, don't perform any science and don't adhere to any sort of scientific methodology.

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

Except that you don't. You have a single conjecture (calling it even a hypothesis would be a major stretch), which is, "Goddidit!" which has no evidence, isn't scientific, can't be repeated, has no evidence in favor of it, and is not really any sort of answer anyway.

old comment by pete

1. The theory of evolution is, as stated, a scientific theory. No Belief required.

2. There are several hypotheses regarding the origin of terrestrial life which have barely been raised to the level of a theory. The theory of evolution, in and of itself, doesn't really cover the origin of life.

3.Speaking only for myself; I don't get angry when someone questions the theory of evolution. I do get angry when some silly fundy implies that I'm lying because they can't or won't understand a dispassionate presentation of facts and fall back to "God didit". I'm also not fond of people who tell lies lie and/or move the goal posts when they have been provided a evidence based answer.

4. There is no such thing as "creation theory". If the religious folk could come up with one tiny shred of evidence for creationism i might be inclined to elevate creationism to the level of theory but, thus far, no such evidence has been presented.

old comment by Joe Mama

If I were running things, I think I'd make it a felony for creationists to claim that there is a lot of evidence for creationism without showing said evidence. And the bible doesn't count.

Seriously, I've never seen one argument in favor of creationism that wasn't an attack on evolutionary theory, argument from design (which in its own way is an attack on evolution), or a bible quote.

As far as alien seeding goes, whether life on this planet were deliberately put here by a higher alien intelligence or by bacteria on comets, where did that life come from then? If it came from another planet, abiogenesis and evolution would have had to have happened elsewhere.

old comment by David B.

@QuasiRodent: "He's right, there's no such thing as evolutionism"

Ooh, I was hoping someone would say that!

You know, sometimes creationists get accused of making a word up when it just isn't so; like "Darwinist" (coined by Alfred Russell Wallace), or "macro/micro-evolution" (coined by entomologist Yuri Philipchenko) or "evolutionist" (which dates back at least to the 1870s, when T.H. Huxley used it in a letter to Nature, volume 1 no less).

But I was quite sure "evolutionism" was genuine "fundie wordsalad" dressing. Ahem...

"Permanence And Evolution: An Inquiry Into The Supposed Mutability Of Animal Types"
by Sidney Edward Bouverie Bouverie-Pusey (1882)[*].
"[W]hile Darwinism proper is improbable, evolutionism in any form is as yet unproved; while, on the other hand, the more we investigate the facts of inheritance, the more we are compelled to regard differences so slight, that they would usually be considered casual variations, as within the limits of our existing knowledge strictly permanent."

Apparently, on further research, "evolutionism" seems to pre-date even Darwin, and historically referred to a "belief in the mutability of organisms". So in rejecting evolutionism, the poster is saying he doesn't think organisms can change in character at all and all the different breeds of dog, cat, cow, horse, sheep, duck, chicken, turkey, rabbit, goldfish, wheat, barley, corn, rye, hops, apples, oranges, grapes and bananas in the world are either individual creations by God or just figments of our imagination.

[* I found earlier examples, but how could I resist using the one written by someone called Sidney Edward Bouverie Bouverie-Pusey? Now that's a name!]

old comment by Justanotheratheist

I don't get angry if my atheist beliefs are questioned, per se. What infuriates me is people preaching ancient fairytales as truth or "science" in the absence of any proof for their veracity, people who think praying helps, people who'd rather give bibles than food to those who need food, etc etc etc.

And, molst of all, I get a tiny little bit upset at all of the countless ghastly things that have been done in the name of god and religion. Not only Christianity, mind, but all of them. You're damned right if you think I get a bit pissed off at the thought that my life could be negatively impacted by an argument over who's got the right invisible sky daddy.

old comment by

The funny thing is that he's reflecting his own phobias. You know, since snakes don't speak and people can't live 900 years, many mainstream Christians have accepted that the Bible is not meant to be taken literarily. Moreover, the theory of evolution is not necessarily incompatible with the notion of the existance of a god(after all, you can always wonder who created the world and made it evolve, after all). And the last straw, he's using a computer to say it, you know, the biggest achievement of science until now. Maybe his obsession to deny evolution comes from the fear that, if the Genesis is not literarily true, people won't believe in God AS HE DOES?.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Evolution is an organized belief system"

Got news for ya, bub: Charles Darwin is buried and memorialised in Westminster Abbey, the central place of worship of the Church of England.

He is one of only five non-royalty people buried there. Upon the discovery of what he theorised (nowadays proven fact; Kitzmiller vs. Dover, and all that jazz), he was an agnostic right to his grave.

The Church of England is the basis of modern Protestant Christianity, as you know it today, Paulie.

Therefore...:

image

Moral: The reason why the C-of-E have done so - even though Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" sold more than the Bible at it's time of publishing - is because the vicars, bishops &archbishops openly admit that much of the Bible is purely fable and metaphor. As in it's not to be taken literally.

Here endeth the lesson.

"(Please read a few of our articles.)"

You link to - and therefore acknowledge as credible - Kent 'Oh, Mark 12:17 doesn't apply to me!' Hovind. Your argument is invalid.

...and that's before I bring Kitzmiller vs. Dover into the equation, pal.

Paul Abramson #fundie creationism.org

70 comments

Confused?