Question by Meatball: Creationists, why do you hypocritically ignore the applications of evolution?
There’s more traffic in this hour; let’s proceed:
——————————
Modern biology and genetics rely on the Scientific theory of evolution. Scientific theories are not theories by any old definition. They are facts.
99.9% of scientists accept evolution. It’s no debate with them; evolution is a truth. Why? Because it’s been supported by evidence countless of times.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
Many, many Christians accept evolution, and it’s because they are open-minded and intelligent. Why do you support this delusion and anti-science? Creationism is not accredited.
And prayer doesn’t help anybody.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-prayer-prescription
The last time people tried to pray someone to health rather than admitting them to the hospital, for modern medicine, a twelve-year old girl died.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html
Don’t you think defiling evolution is self-destructive? Geneticists are making ground on the search for a cure for cancer. Agriculture uses the principles of evolution to maintain our crops against disease and insect infestation. But what does creationism have to offer other than: “God did it”? Creationism is inapplicable and is an intellectual dead-end.
So, creationists, if evolution is false as you say, where does medicine come from? Does it fall from the sky? Or does God direct scientists to make medicine for us? But whether He does or does not, it doesn’t change the fact that productive scientists base their work on the Scientific theory of evolution; and this, for certain, is reality.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852151/
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html
@damned: being passive will lead nowhere. We must defend the truth.
I would also like to point out that in today’s college biology textbooks, the theme integrated throughout the book is evolution. Please stop disregarding education, for the sake of your denial.
Just because you don’t use medicine on a regular basis does not dismiss the fact that you Do use medicine. Let alone, people often rely on medicine just to stay alive.
Evolution demonstrated in a lab:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Evolution of E. Coli.
@ L C
thanks for not reading the post. >_>
turn a blind eye, huh?
And as I’ve said, I must defend the truth. It is being defiled by anti-intellectuals (such as yourself, perhaps?)
@theone, yes, they are credible, much more so than your creationist “scientists”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
I am not wasting my breath – or my typing for that matter – there are people out there who are not oppressed by dogma, and want to find truths in this universe, rather than those blurted out by pastors, and men with false credentials.
@caveit:
They did not adhere to scientific standards. That’s why no scientists. There has yet to be a creationist paper published in a scientific journal.
@mimi
Thanks. You demonstrated that you can’t put up a decent argument against mounting evidence. Typical creationist.
@phantasmag:
While I disagree that there should be any purpose to anything natural, (emergent complexity create structures without the intervention of a “creator”)
It was a good read. :)
@Barry W:
your post is meek, because I provided two links on Why evolution is Integral to modern medicine.
Btw: The eye is not irreducibly complex:
Nor Any organ, for that matter.
@mrsM:
XD a definition of theory from an english dictionary? rolfmao. You’re right, theory means theory.
The Scientific theory of evolution is a fact.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
“u might as well of typed it in a foreign langauge ..u shud’ve got a snake to tell them or a donkey or plant a rib and let it grow into a woman so she can tell them cause they understand that”
Yes, but as I’ve said, not all creationists are utterly hopeless.
@Barry W:
I’m not going to explain myself to someone who doesn’t understand the definition of “evolution” is.
Evolution/darwinism is not a religion.
“I love how people like you hold so desperately to your delusion of superior intellectual capacity. Well, I guess you need to have something to put your faith in.”
On the contrary, religion is corroding away as science imposes in on the “god of the gaps” fallacy. I don’t see many desperate scientists out there. They know it’s the truth. But your creationist arguments revolve around finding any errors in the theory of evolution. It seems that You are desperate.
“By the way, you assume that I did not read your post incorrectly… par for the course.”
Btw, your post doesn’t offer any counterpoints. Typical, you just keep going off-tangent.
So based on the answers, creationists Do disregard the applications of evolution in their everyday lives.
Creationism hasn’t helped anyone, in contrast to the theory of evolution.
@Man_of_Valor:
No counterpoints. Next.
Best answer:
Answer by zz
God created Adam on the 6th day
Give your answer to this question below!
Welcome to AgroLeads.com. 
18 Responses
they love dust man and rib woman
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Only if you read half of the things you credited !
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
They don’t like to read.
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Although you wrote a lot, you convinced me of only one thing. You believe evolution to be true. I, however, still do not.
Is it possible that you actually thought that little diatribe would convince anyone?
I love how people like you hold so desperately to your delusion of superior intellectual capacity. Well, I guess you need to have something to put your faith in.
By the way, you assume that I did not read your post incorrectly… par for the course.
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
meatball>fireball.
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
meatball, LOL
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
there is a major difference between evolution which “denies” the existence of God
and an evolution which tracks the Learning process of a creator which enables progression of creating life.
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/expelled-no-intelligence-allowed/
Watch this.
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
So Christians who don’t accept evolution are close-minded and unintelligent?
Because they don’t believe what everyone else believes? Isn’t that a close-minded statement…just saying.
And why do you say prayer doesn’t help people? Because of that example of a 12-year-old girl dying. I’m sure there are many who would disagree and say praying did help them.
You could write a lot of “facts” with links to them…but so could any other Creationist.
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
That’s too much information for them. You have to do it slowly, on a case by case basis.
Good links though, I’ll probably use those eventually in the future. Thanks.
@Mimi- By close-minded, I think she means to wanting to learn things that may conflict with any beliefs or doctrines of religion.
As for the praying thing, there has never been any actual evidence (Besides Anecdotal evidence, which is pathetic, would you believe me if I said I had a Unicorn in my room?) that prayer actually helps or hinders the health of a sick person. If you really wanted to, you could gather up a large congregation of believers, find a volunteer that has terminal cancer (and doesn’t want to bother with any sort of treatment at all), and see if your prayer just makes it disappear. The only reason it hasn’t been tried is because it’s rather unethical. But if you really wanted proof…
@Phantasmagoric Ineffablist – I think you bring up a rather good point. Both sides are dangerous extremes. I personally don’t agree with the meaningful universe idea, but I think that people shouldn’t overstate any evidence they have, and there is still so much to learn, we shouldn’t set ourselves to only believe in one thing no matter what, whether it be a religious doctrine or a scientific theory. After all, questioning things is the way that humans make progress.
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
In this conflict between ‘scientism’ and ‘creationism’, I do not see either side as holding the entire truth. I think the creationists are right that we live in a meaningful and purposeful universe and I think the science of evolution, cosmology, and so forth is obviously right, because it’s based on empirical fact…which is showing us that the universe is very old, at least 13.7 billion years old and life is about 4 billion years old…which would obviously contradict a literal interpretation of genesis, which would have it that the earth is about six thousand years old, so there is definitely something that science is correct about and the creationists are wrong about.
Often when the scientifically minded lay person responds to the creationist, they will often over exaggerate what science has proven to us and attempt to use science as proof of the idea that all life on earth is this merely mechanical process of random genetic mutation and non random environmental selection. They will claim that this is completely explanatory of all life on earth. I disagree with that, so in that sense I think the creationists are right to argue against that. I don’t agree with the creationist’s idea that the story of genesis is literally true, what I think is that evolution is a meaningful process of unfolding.
To me it’s a bit short sighted to think that Darwin’s theory of variation under natural selection is completely explanatory of the diversity of life on earth. There is more to evolution than just random gene mutation and selection by a pre given environment; we got to come to terms with how it is possible that individual organisms are capable of self organizing themselves. My body is made of matter and yet it is alive, to understand how that is possible I think we got to employ complexity theory. We got to comes to terms with self organization and what that means is basically an organism is not a machine. Machines are put together from the outside piece by piece. Whereas an organism grows itself from the inside out and each of its organs are related to the other organs in such a way that they bring forth one another for the sake of the whole.
What is interesting is both the intelligent design camp and the neo Darwinian camp both view organisms as machines. The only difference is the outside agent that constructs the organism, for an I.Der its god or some intelligent designer and for the neo Darwinist it’s a pre given environment. I reject that whole paradigm, the paradigm of an organism as a machine. Instead, I think we have to understand organisms as auto poetic or as self producing systems. What this requires of our perspective on nature as a whole is that we see the natural world as creative, not as created by a creator, but as inherently creative. So, matter itself on a cosmic scale is capable of emerging to higher degrees of order when given enough time.
Based on the scientific facts that we have, we still need to interpret these facts. So, when I enter this culture war between scientism and creationism, I don’t take sides. I say yes to the creationists that the universe has a purpose, meaning, and value. I say yes to the scientistic crowd that evolution is true and species weren’t created as fixed forms 6,000 years ago. I think theres room to take truth from both these camps who are at war with one another and realize a grander truth, that we are participating in a 14 billion year process of cosmogenesis,
edit~
I did not say creator, I said the natural wolrd is inherently creative. Daniel Dennett says “freedom evolves”, and I happen to agree with this particular statement of his. A single cell organism doesn’t have much freedom, it has more freedom than a molecule, because it displays certain ends and purposes in its behavior. It seeks for food and swims away from toxins, so it’s free in that minimal sense to navigate its environment. Now, when you get to something like a human being, a very complicated multi cellular organism with a nervous system, the freedom in our possession has been increased many many times. I see the Divine as working from the indside out, there is a inner and outer of all things.
Matter is a process of becoming, rather than substance. If you look at the evolution of matter, you will see that after the big bang it was sort of like a quantum foam of energy expanding and as it cooled off, the first protons and electrons solidified and then found each other. Then the first atoms were produced, then these hydrogen atoms due to gravitational attraction formed stars, which created heavier elements, which created the possibility of planets. Which then organized these atoms into larger molecules, which then became amino acids, and then eventually free living cells emerged and complexified into muliti cellular creatures which over time evolved into a creature such as the human being with an incredibly complex nervous system. So, matter is a process of becoming.
<:3( )~
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Clone of Ice -cloning FIREBALL-I hope fireball shoots a ball of fire through your Ice.Or through your balls-ouch!
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
You make an excellent case that “evolution” or “darwinism” is in fact a religion.
You can’t defile a fact. You defile a belief or a symbol.
The principles you describe as used by science are not evolution, they are genetics. And genetics was discovered by Gregor Mendel, a monk, who studied the creation to learn about God. And Mendel was before Darwin.
Where does medicine come from? Well the majority comes from the world…mold that produces toxins to bacteria (penicillin); the bark of trees (quinine); the human immune system (antibodies) and nature (aspirin, morphine, etc.). It is the study of the nature of the world that produces useful information, i.e. medicine.
Evolution is the study of life, not the study of the source of life. It deals with mutation, but cannot explain the organization of changes that require multiple (coordinated) mutations…such as the eye.
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Ummm, Actually the Theory of Evelution is a “theory” NOT a fact might want to look up the differance no wait I’ll do it for you
Fact: the quality of being actual : actuality a : something that has actual existence
Theory : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
Now I am a Christian and I do believe God uses evolution but I don’t think we came from monkeys but thats just me.
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
u might as well of typed it in a foreign language ..u shud’ve got a snake to tell them or a donkey or plant a rib and let it grow into a woman so she can tell them cause they understand that…evolution ignores ? is evolution a sentient being that it has the capacity to ignore like it goes oh no i’m not having none of that errrr i don’t think so.. a snake can make a woman ruin everything by speaking can’t they cuckoo
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
if you listen to yourself you would understand why evolution is a farce. a blonde meatball is definitely what you are. maybe you should go to http://www.drdino.com and learn more on your level. evolutionists ignore the inconvienent truth that evolution is a phony religion.
=== no counterpoint? so you have watched all 16 hours of why evolution is a farce? so explain why man can make diamonds but cannot make granite? how do you explain halo rings in the granite? arguing evolution is like arguing how long a candle has been burning in a room you just entered. how many examples do you need? you confuse yourself by believeing a theory is a fact.
Posted on July 5th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
yeah, christians want to distance themselves from animals. so they will never accept the truth.
Posted on July 6th, 2011 at 12:16 am
I don’t think you are trying to convince Creationists to accept evolution. I think you are just trying to convince yourself that evolution is real. The alternative, God, makes you feel very uncomfortable.
Sorry to disappoint you, but your percentage is incorrect. Did you know that many of the most famous scientists who ever lived were Creationists? Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Johannes Kepler, James Clark Maxwell, and so on. Here is a short list of modern scientists who are Creationists:
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Evolution is no debate for some scientists because they know that the alternative is special creation, just like you. They know that there is zero proof for molecules-to-man evolution but they choose to accept it as fact, just like you. Acknowledging that there is a Creator means that one day they will have to stand before Him and give an account for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
Posted on July 6th, 2011 at 12:42 am
Add A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.