Misconceptions about what creationist believe
Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Sendraks wrote:I'm not sure how these qualify as "deadly myths" given that some creationsists certainly do believe those seven things.
In short, not all creationists believe in the same bollocks. They believe in a variety of different bollocks and come up with different apologetics to explain their bollocks. Case in point, the apologetics around transitional fossils, which amounts to nothing more than rejecting the fossils as being those of transitional species.
What was the purpose of this post? Was it to serve as an education that the idiotic stuff creationists believe is actually more diverse and idiotic than anyone thought? Because, most of this idiocy is well known.
Wortfish wrote:Not really.
Wortfish wrote: All creationists believe in natural selection, adaptation and speciation.
Wortfish wrote:In fact, the young earth creationists believe in a sort of hyper-evolution in which new species formed extremely rapidly from the created kinds.
Wortfish wrote:There are many strawmen erected for creationism on this site and others.
Wortfish wrote: Here is a list of 7 common misconceptions about what creationists are supposed to believe and what they actually do believe:
Wortfish wrote:1. Creationists believe the Earth is 6000 years old
Wortfish wrote:Creationists accept natural selection as a conserving and, at times, destructive force in biology (Nature's executioner).
Wortfish wrote: Creationists also accept that adaptation takes place, often by way of "beneficial" loss-of-function mutations, as with antibiotic resistance in bacteria where those organisms in the population with a defective target gene survive.
Wortfish wrote:
4. Creationists do not accept that speciation happens and believe in the fixity of species
Wortfish wrote:Again, this is not what creationists believe.
Wortfish wrote: On the contrary, creationists have to believe in speciation and rapid adaptive radiation because they think that God created the "kinds", like the cat kind, which have since diversified into many species.
Wortfish wrote:
5. Creationists believe that God magically poofed new organisms into existence from nothing
Wortfish wrote:Again, this is not what Genesis actually states.
Wortfish wrote:Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”
So God commands that the land produce vegetation and does not simply poof them into existence from nothing.
Wortfish wrote:
Genesis 2: 21-22: So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Wortfish wrote:
Even if these verses are to be taken figuratively, the principle behind it shows that God can take a pre-existing part, modify it and make it into something else, just as evolution is supposed to do.
Wortfish wrote: He doesn't have to create from scratch each time.
Wortfish wrote:Creationists do not reject the existence of the actual fossils, only their designation as "transitional".
Wortfish wrote: They regard specimens like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik as "mosaic" species that, like the platypus, have features shared with other animals.
Wortfish wrote:
7. Creationists believe all DNA was intelligently designed and there is no such thing as junk DNA:
Wortfish wrote:
On the contrary, creationists believe that in a post-Fall world,
Wortfish wrote: degeneration due to the accumulation of slightly harmful mutations is inevitable.
Wortfish wrote:John Sanford outlined this in his book, "Genomic Entropy", where he proposes that the human genome is steadily deteriorating.
Wortfish wrote:Sendraks wrote:I'm not sure how these qualify as "deadly myths" given that some creationsists certainly do believe those seven things.
In short, not all creationists believe in the same bollocks. They believe in a variety of different bollocks and come up with different apologetics to explain their bollocks. Case in point, the apologetics around transitional fossils, which amounts to nothing more than rejecting the fossils as being those of transitional species.
What was the purpose of this post? Was it to serve as an education that the idiotic stuff creationists believe is actually more diverse and idiotic than anyone thought? Because, most of this idiocy is well known.
Not really. All creationists believe in natural selection, adaptation and speciation.
Wortfish wrote:In fact, the young earth creationists believe in a sort of hyper-evolution in which new species formed extremely rapidly from the created kinds.
Sendraks wrote:
So they don't believe in evolution. The believe in set of apologetics which supports their assumed conclusion. The whole idea of it was contrived as a rejection of evolution as part of the ID agenda.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
1. Kind isn't a rigourous term and as such has no relation to biological evolution.
2. God creating kinds constitutes neither speciation nor a flexibility of species. Rather the opposite.
Except that's exactly what is being described. On god's command the earth produces vegetation ex-nihilo.
So at best, you could argue that it isn't god directly who creates things out of nothing.
Which would be a silly technical minutiae.
Could it be that you left that bit out because it refutes your position?Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Utter horseshit. This is not at all analogous to evolution. Evolution works with living organisms, not inamite matter like dust or ribs.
He needed to create the pre-existing parts Wortfish. How did he do that exactly?
Wortfish wrote:
They accept that evolution, in the sense of change in living organisms, occurs but they deny that all organisms are related through universal common ancestry.
Wortfish wrote:In most scientific journals, the word "evolution" tends to refer to the limited creationist concept rather than the over-arching concept of UCD. So, you might read in Nature about the evolution of pigmentation in salamanders or the evolution of a gene for digestion etc... Creationists don't have a problem with this at all.
Fallible wrote:Why do you think you can talk for all creationists?
Animavore wrote:How did God create man from star dust when he created the Earth and vegetation before stars? Are you saying one of these stars exploded and the dust fell to the pre-made Earth and seeded mankind?
Wortfish wrote:Animavore wrote:How did God create man from star dust when he created the Earth and vegetation before stars? Are you saying one of these stars exploded and the dust fell to the pre-made Earth and seeded mankind?
Scientists Astrophysicists believe have evidence that some stars are formed from dust clouds.
Sagan was being poetic when he said we are star dust.
Wortfish wrote:Sendraks wrote:
So they don't believe in evolution. The believe in set of apologetics which supports their assumed conclusion. The whole idea of it was contrived as a rejection of evolution as part of the ID agenda.
They accept that evolution, in the sense of change in living organisms,
Wortfish wrote:In most scientific journals, the word "evolution" tends to refer to the limited creationist concept rather than the over-arching concept of UCD.
Wortfish wrote: So, you might read in Nature about the evolution of pigmentation in salamanders or the evolution of a gene for digestion etc... Creationists don't have a problem with this at all.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest