Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Why Is Pushing Creationism So Damn Important to Wingnuts?

Posted by   + Show Post

This is a title from an article which you can read if you click on the link:

Why Is Pushing Creationism So Damn Important to Wingnuts?

However I wanted to discuss the actual question.  Why is it so important for some to push Creationism and to deny Evolution?

by on Jan. 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Replies (461-470):
ashleyrenee24
by Ashley on Jan. 24, 2013 at 7:15 AM


Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:


You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from. 

Of course we know how the information content of a species' gene pool can increase over time.

If you'll pick a single numeric calculable definition of the amount of information contained in a gene pool, and then stick with it, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

Maybe you should drop science for awhile, and revisit mathematics. It is mathematically impossible for Darwinian evolution to have occurred. There's that blind faith I'm talking about.

WARNING   WARNING    WARNING

Did everyone notice what cammibear did there?

STEP 1 - cammibear made a claim ("You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from.")

STEP 2 - someone offers to explain, refuting the claim

STEP 3 - rather than carrying on the discussion of her claim, cammibear makes a COMPLETELY UNRELATED CLAIM (and one that's so wild and improbable that people can't help but react to it), in an attempt to distract people away from noticing that her original claim has just been sunk.

That's just proof she knows nothing about evolution.

romalove
by Roma on Jan. 24, 2013 at 7:17 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting ashleyrenee24:


Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:


You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from. 

Of course we know how the information content of a species' gene pool can increase over time.

If you'll pick a single numeric calculable definition of the amount of information contained in a gene pool, and then stick with it, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

Maybe you should drop science for awhile, and revisit mathematics. It is mathematically impossible for Darwinian evolution to have occurred. There's that blind faith I'm talking about.

WARNING   WARNING    WARNING

Did everyone notice what cammibear did there?

STEP 1 - cammibear made a claim ("You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from.")

STEP 2 - someone offers to explain, refuting the claim

STEP 3 - rather than carrying on the discussion of her claim, cammibear makes a COMPLETELY UNRELATED CLAIM (and one that's so wild and improbable that people can't help but react to it), in an attempt to distract people away from noticing that her original claim has just been sunk.

That's just proof she knows nothing about evolution.

It's different than that, if you don't mind my saying so.

She's been "miseducated" about evolution in ways that will only strengthen her religious beliefs.  It's like being vaccinated against evolution by having junk science injected.  It is a deliberate non-understanding.

Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Bears repeating

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:


You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from. 

Of course we know how the information content of a species' gene pool can increase over time.

If you'll pick a single numeric calculable definition of the amount of information contained in a gene pool, and then stick with it, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

Maybe you should drop science for awhile, and revisit mathematics. It is mathematically impossible for Darwinian evolution to have occurred. There's that blind faith I'm talking about.

WARNING   WARNING    WARNING

Did everyone notice what cammibear did there?

STEP 1 - cammibear made a claim ("You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from.")

STEP 2 - someone offers to explain, refuting the claim

STEP 3 - rather than carrying on the discussion of her claim, cammibear makes a COMPLETELY UNRELATED CLAIM (and one that's so wild and improbable that people can't help but react to it), in an attempt to distract people away from noticing that her original claim has just been sunk.



Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Also bears repeating

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:


You assume evolution, and then use those assumptions to prove evolution. That's circular reasoning.

No.

Biologists started off by hypothesising evolution, then they made predictions based upon that, then they tested those predictions against reality.   It is the fact that reality successfully backed up those predictions by passing the tests that is the evidence.

Only if you assume millions of years

No.

Geologists started off by hypothesising an age of the Earth that is in the billions of years, then they made predictions based upon that, then they tested those predictions against reality.   It is the fact that reality successfully backed up those predictions
by passing the tests that is the evidence.

you cannot test millions of years. Reality (or the same exact evidence) also backs up creation. The difference lies in the assumptions.

You are not testing "millions of years".   You are testing predictions based upon a hypothesis.

The objective evidence from repeatable independent measurements does not equally back up the null hypothesis that species don't share a common ancestry.

The objective evidence from repeatable independent measurements does not equally back up the hypothesis that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.


You are taking it as an article of faith that the consensus of scientists is wrong but, when challenged, you have not produced the evidence to back up your statements.   The scientists have.  The academic journals are full of it.


You can deny reality, but your denial doesn't change what is.  Nor will it persuade anyone, except children and those who already believe as you do.

This is why you are desperate to teach it while the people being taught are still children.



tscritch
by Silver Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 12:07 PM

 What SCIENTIFIC studies/tests have been done with creationism to qualify it to be taught in a science class?

cammibear
by Gold Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Your the desperate ones. It's why you have bullied anybody that doesn't accept your assumptions out of academia. Creationists have their own scientific journals because evolutionists have taken over secular journals, and nothing that supports anything other than evolution assumptions is considered credible. That's what I consider to be desperate. It's desperate, it's arbitrary, and it's a double standard.

Your independent measurements support your hypothesis because of the millions of years assumptions. Oh look...a million year old fossil. How do you know? It's in a million year old layer? How do you know? Because it has a million year old fossil. Those assumptions are placed on your independent measurements.

Reality is that without a Creator God, you have no basis of knowing anything. Accepting evolution assumptions will always end in the same wrong foolish conclusions. ;)




Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting cammibear:

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:


You assume evolution, and then use those assumptions to prove evolution. That's circular reasoning.

No.

Biologists started off by hypothesising evolution, then they made predictions based upon that, then they tested those predictions against reality.   It is the fact that reality successfully backed up those predictions by passing the tests that is the evidence.

Only if you assume millions of years

No.

Geologists started off by hypothesising an age of the Earth that is in the billions of years, then they made predictions based upon that, then they tested those predictions against reality.   It is the fact that reality successfully backed up those predictions

by passing the tests that is the evidence.


you cannot test millions of years. Reality (or the same exact evidence)
also backs up creation. The difference lies in the assumptions.


You are not testing "millions of years".   You are testing predictions based upon a hypothesis.

The objective evidence from repeatable independent measurements does not equally back up the null hypothesis that species don't share a common ancestry.


The objective evidence from repeatable independent measurements does not
equally back up the hypothesis that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.


You are taking it as an article of faith that the consensus of scientists is wrong but, when challenged, you have not produced the evidence to back up your statements.   The scientists have.  The academic journals are full of it.


You can deny reality, but your denial doesn't change what is.  Nor will it persuade anyone, except children and those who already believe as you do.

This is why you are desperate to teach it while the people being taught are still children.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
cammibear
by Gold Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 12:35 PM
Uniformity in nature, irreducible complexity, age Indicators.

Same evidence, different conclusions.


Quoting tscritch:

 What SCIENTIFIC studies/tests have been done with creationism to qualify it to be taught in a science class?


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
DivingDiva
by Gold Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 12:37 PM



Quoting cammibear:

Your the desperate ones. It's why you have bullied anybody that doesn't accept your assumptions out of academia. Creationists have their own scientific journals because evolutionists have taken over secular journals, and nothing that supports anything other than evolution assumptions is considered credible. That's what I consider to be desperate. It's desperate, it's arbitrary, and it's a double standard.

Your independent measurements support your hypothesis because of the millions of years assumptions. Oh look...a million year old fossil. How do you know? It's in a million year old layer? How do you know? Because it has a million year old fossil. Those assumptions are placed on your independent measurements.

Reality is that without a Creator God, you have no basis of knowing anything. Accepting evolution assumptions will always end in the same wrong foolish conclusions. ;)




Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting cammibear:

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:


You assume evolution, and then use those assumptions to prove evolution. That's circular reasoning.

No.

Biologists started off by hypothesising evolution, then they made predictions based upon that, then they tested those predictions against reality.   It is the fact that reality successfully backed up those predictions by passing the tests that is the evidence.

Only if you assume millions of years

No.

Geologists started off by hypothesising an age of the Earth that is in the billions of years, then they made predictions based upon that, then they tested those predictions against reality.   It is the fact that reality successfully backed up those predictions

by passing the tests that is the evidence.


you cannot test millions of years. Reality (or the same exact evidence)
also backs up creation. The difference lies in the assumptions.


You are not testing "millions of years".   You are testing predictions based upon a hypothesis.

The objective evidence from repeatable independent measurements does not equally back up the null hypothesis that species don't share a common ancestry.


The objective evidence from repeatable independent measurements does not
equally back up the hypothesis that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.


You are taking it as an article of faith that the consensus of scientists is wrong but, when challenged, you have not produced the evidence to back up your statements.   The scientists have.  The academic journals are full of it.


You can deny reality, but your denial doesn't change what is.  Nor will it persuade anyone, except children and those who already believe as you do.

This is why you are desperate to teach it while the people being taught are still children.


I'm genuinely curious as to what kind of information these journals cover.  Could you post an article or two that show examples of a scientific article from such a journal?  Please don't just tell me to Google it.  I want to see something that, in your opinion, is an example of a use of the scientific method from a creation-based journal.  


Piskie
by Bronze Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 12:38 PM
So what would you consider irreducible complexity, and what age indicators?


Quoting cammibear:

Uniformity in nature, irreducible complexity, age Indicators.



Same evidence, different conclusions.




Quoting tscritch:

 What SCIENTIFIC studies/tests have been done with creationism to qualify it to be taught in a science class?



Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
mandaday
by Silver Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 12:46 PM
1 mom liked this
I have a different question. Most religions have a creation theory. What evidence is there that the Judeo-Christian version is the most credible of these and thus worthy of being taught in schools over the others?
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN