Gottservant #fundie

Gottservant #fundie christianforums.com

Creation is winning by Evolutions rules

As technical as you want to be, Creation science is out-doing - out-surviving, out-evolving, out-creating - Evolution science. Just look at the evidence!

Creation - existed from the dawn of time
Evolution - existed later than the dawn of time

Creation - followers prepared to die for the belief
Evolution - followers not prepared to die for belief

Creation - messaging spreading to all parts of the world
Evolution - message spreading to some parts of the world

Creation - specific changes in creation predicted
Evolution - specific changes in creation yet to be predicted

Creation - eternal hypotheses (Heaven, Hell, Judgement Day, etc.)
Evolution - temporal hypotheses (life, death, etc.?)

Ok, so Evolution is losing, for the moment. But let's make this a fair fight!

Evolution - An author (Darwin et al.)
Creation - An eternal Saviour (the Lord Jesus Christ)

Evolution - no commitment to belief
Creation - life-long commitment to belief

Evolution - no commitment to theory (you don't change evolution)
Creation - total commitment to religion (you change at all costs)

Evolution - changing from finding to finding
Creation - constant from the first finding (God)

Evolution - number of people in Hell = all of them
Creation - number of people in Hell = less and less

Take a look! As far as standards go, the Lord has led us to victory all the way. Who knows? Perhaps evolution will lift its standards. Imagine that, Creationism showing Evolution how to have real standards!

45 comments

old comment by David D.G.

What the frell?!?
This poster is really a piece of work. "Creation is winning by Evolutions rules" -- bah! Creationism can't even begin to follow SCIENCE'S rules; the moment God is invoked, it becomes an invalid hypothesis. The "rules" this person thinks he is stating make no sense to me, and a few are especially bizarre, namely the following: Creation - specific changes in creation predicted Evolution - specific changes in creation yet to be predicted Evolution - no commitment to theory (you don't change evolution) Creation - total commitment to religion (you change at all costs) These, in particular, strike me as being about as contradictory to his own point, and to reality in general, as they can get (at least, as fas I can tell -- they're virtually incoherent in this presentation). That's all I will say at this point; I don't have the patience for a point-by-point rebuttal with someone whose mindset is so out of touch with reality. ~David D.G.

old comment by McCulloch

Creation - invented by homo sapiens
Evolution - existed since the beginning of life on the planet Creation - false no matter how many are prepared to die for the belief Evolution - would continue even without homo sapiens Creation - belief in creation is waning as educational standards improve, even in the USA. Evolution - is more likely to be believed the greater level of education the person has Creation - makes no testable predictions Evolution - is a scientific model which makes testable predictions Creation - non-falsifiable hypotheses (Heaven, Hell, Judgement Day, etc.) Evolution - testable hypotheses (life, death, etc.?) Evolution - Science, tested and criticized by many scientists Creation - Divine revelation, not subject to criticism Evolution - changes and adapts with new data. Creation - unchanging and unyielding. Ignores data not in keeping with idea. Evolution - no Hell Creation - number of people in Hell = most of them.

old comment by Papabear

"Creation is winning by Evolutions rules
As technical as you want to be, Creation science is out-doing - out-surviving, out-evolving, out-creating - Evolution science. Just look at the evidence!" Yes, let's look at the evidence, please. "Creation - existed from the dawn of time Evolution - existed later than the dawn of time" So what? That is of no consequence. "Creation - followers prepared to die for the belief Evolution - followers not prepared to die for belief" So what? The 9/11 terrorists were willing to die for their beliefs. Are you saying that makes them correct? How fervently one believes some assertion(s) to be true has no influence over the truth of that assertion(s). "Creation - messaging spreading to all parts of the world Evolution - message spreading to some parts of the world" Really grasping at those straws, aren't you? Both creationism and the ToE are available to inquiring minds over much of the world. So what? That has no effect on the truth of their assertions. "Creation - specific changes in creation predicted Evolution - specific changes in creation yet to be predicted" Creationism does not predict specific changes. The ToE does not have anything to do with creation. The ToE DOES predict that species will change to better adapt to their environments. "Creation - eternal hypotheses (Heaven, Hell, Judgement Day, etc.) Evolution - temporal hypotheses (life, death, etc.?)" So what? The ToE is science, it doesn't deal with such things as religious assertions of an afterlife. "Ok, so Evolution is losing, for the moment." No, so far you have just made several pointless comparisons. "But let's make this a fair fight!" As of yet, you have brought up nothing worth fighting about. "Evolution - An author (Darwin et al.) Creation - An eternal Saviour (the Lord Jesus Christ)" Well, we can show that Darwin and many others have contributed to the ToE. On the other hand, you cannot conclusively show that Jesus is eternal, is a savior of anyone, is Lord, is the Christ, or even actually existed. "Evolution - no commitment to belief Creation - life-long commitment to belief" So what? Another pointless comparison. Belief is unrelated to truth. "Evolution - no commitment to theory (you don't change evolution) Creation - total commitment to religion (you change at all costs)" What does this mean? Scientific theories are modified as better evidence becomes available. That's a good thing. Creationism is dogmatic. It does not accept any evidence which requires adjustment of it's dogma. "Evolution - changing from finding to finding Creation - constant from the first finding (God)" Pay attention! I just answered that. "Evolution - number of people in Hell = all of them Creation - number of people in Hell = less and less" You'll need to show that hell is real before this becomes an assertion of any import. As it stands now, it's baseless crap. "Take a look! As far as standards go, the Lord has led us to victory all the way. Who knows? Perhaps evolution will lift its standards. Imagine that, Creationism showing Evolution how to have real standards!" Hardly. You've given it your best shots and missed on every attempt. Just a pathetic, weak debater, defending a pathetically weak theology. Thanks for playing our game. Here's your Rice-o-Roni, now get out of here.

old comment by Amigone201

Creation - existed from the dawn of time
Evolution - existed later than the dawn of time

What? You mean people had to wait until they existed to come up with the theory of evolution?

Creation - followers prepared to die for the belief Evolution - followers not prepared to die for belief

What followers? All of them? Do you know everybody in the world? Did you ask them how strongly they believed in their position? And what bearing does that belief have on whether it's correct or not?

Creation - messaging spreading to all parts of the world Evolution - message spreading to some parts of the world

Why are you making shit up? People who are educated learn that evolution is the best explanation. Paranoid religious crazy talk takes hold wherever people can't explain things scientifically. And again...so what? Science isn't a democracy.

Creation - specific changes in creation predicted Evolution - specific changes in creation yet to be predicted

That's funny, I haven't heard creation change at all in the last two thousand years. And what does the second part mean?

Creation - eternal hypotheses (Heaven, Hell, Judgement Day, etc.) Evolution - temporal hypotheses (life, death, etc.?)

What? What is "life, death, etc."? And why is evolution automatically wrong because it doesn't answer moral questions? Why should it?

Ok, so Evolution is losing, for the moment.

Oh yeah, evolution's in big trouble now...

Ok, so Evolution is losing, for the moment. But let's make this a fair fight!

Yes, please. Please quote me something that is, at the very least, coherent.

Evolution - An author (Darwin et al.) Creation - An eternal Saviour (the Lord Jesus Christ)

Oh, I get it. This is a "fair fight" because Jesus's writings aren't as valid as Darwin's.

Evolution - no commitment to belief Creation - life-long commitment to belief

Why do I suspect that he's still trying to discredit evolution, even though he says he's not and everything he quotes makes creation look worse and worse? Yes please, let me adhere to some crazy fundie idea that must be right because it hasn't changed in centuries.

Evolution - no commitment to theory (you don't change evolution) Creation - total commitment to religion (you change at all costs)

Aside from the fact that this is basically the same thing you just said, this time it's worded in such a way that makes no sense. What "change" are you talking about? You changing or evolution changing? Why are you comparing apples to oranges?

Evolution - changing from finding to finding Creation - constant from the first finding (God)

Why did you end this one with the word "God?" Is God now a punctuation mark too? And why, oh why, oh why do you keep insisting that a theory's eternal, unbending uniformity makes it more right?

Evolution - number of people in Hell = all of them Creation - number of people in Hell = less and less

Oh yeah? Prove it.

Take a look! As far as standards go, the Lord has led us to victory all the way.

Oh yeah, you sure showed us.

Who knows? Perhaps evolution will lift its standards. Imagine that, Creationism showing Evolution how to have real standards!"

Yeah, that would be a tickler, wouldn't it Gottie?

old comment by Professor Crosis

Creation is winning by Evolutions rules Titles of papers are to be capitalized, and the possessive requires an apostrophe.
As technical as you want to be, Creation science is out-doing - out-surviving, out-evolving, out-creating - Evolution science. Just look at the evidence! Structurally, this is a reasonable thesis in that you are setting the stage for the rest of your argument. You'll need plenty of evidence, though. Creation - existed from the dawn of time Evolution - existed later than the dawn of time Longevity in and of itself is not the standard by which theories are to be judged - a theory gains credibility by being tested and accurately predicting the results. Creation "science" has rarely been tested and has never successfully predicted the results. Evolution has been tested and has predicted the results. Creation - followers prepared to die for the belief Evolution - followers not prepared to die for belief Truth exists independently of belief. Islamists, for instance, are quite clearly willing to die for their beliefs - likely more so than creationists - but you, presumably, do not take that as evidence that they are right. Creation - messaging spreading to all parts of the world Evolution - message spreading to some parts of the world This is the same fallacy as above. Belief does not prove itself true. Creation - specific changes in creation predicted Examples? I know of none that have been successfully predicted, and in a persuasive paper it is your job as author to provide evidence. Evolution - specific changes in creation yet to be predicted You have not done your research. Many of evolution's predictions have been confirmed. Creation - eternal hypotheses (Heaven, Hell, Judgement Day, etc.) These hypotheses are inherently untestable and therefore meaningless from a scientific perspective. Evolution - temporal hypotheses (life, death, etc.?) These are not the predictions evolution makes. You skimped on the background work, and it is showing. Ok, so Evolution is losing, for the moment. You have yet to come up with a single argument that was both accurate and relevant. Even if you had, this comment would be unnecessary and unpersuasive. But let's make this a fair fight! Please do. Your standards thus far have been abysmal. Evolution - An author (Darwin et al.) Creation - An eternal Saviour (the Lord Jesus Christ) There is no proof for this Savior, and "that would be nice" is not scientific evidence. Evolution - no commitment to belief Creation - life-long commitment to belief A repeat of a previous fallacy. In fact, this argument makes evolution appear stronger, since if evidence were to appear against it, it would be abandoned. The "commitment to belief" you praise serves no purpose except to hide weaknesses in a theory. Evolution - no commitment to theory (you don't change evolution) This is self-contradictory. The theory is changed to accommodate evidence when necessary because there is no commitment to it being a fixed, absolute statement never to be questioned. Creation - total commitment to religion (you change at all costs) As before, such commitment serves no beneficial purpose in science. Evolution - changing from finding to finding Creation - constant from the first finding (God) Constancy in the face of evidence that does not fit your theory is not a virtue. Evolution - number of people in Hell = all of them This is unclear - do you mean this is how many people evolutionists believe will be in hell, or how many you believe will be in hell if evolution is accepted? If the former, your statement is blatantly false, as many evolutionists do not believe in hell in the first place and those who do generally do not believe that acceptance of evolution has any bearing on your eternal status. If the latter, your logic is circular at best since you have not demonstrated that hell exists in the first place. Creation - number of people in Hell = less and less This is also unclear. Do you mean fewer will be entering, or the total will shrink? If the former, this is again circular logic - you are assuming creationism to be true and thus are not making an argument in its favor. If the latter, this contradicts the doctrine that hell is eternal and is therefore inconsistent with your belief. Take a look! As far as standards go, the Lord has led us to victory all the way. Zero credible arguments, and several that actually apply against your own position, is not what I would call a victory. Who knows? Perhaps evolution will lift its standards. Imagine that, Creationism showing Evolution how to have real standards! Difficult to imagine indeed. But it is irrelevant, comes off as gloating, and is almost certainly inappropriate for a persausive paper, as it will turn off your audience. Unless you want your final impression on them to be one of arrogance, the last three sentences should be cut. Final grade: F. Not only is your paper unpersuasive, it will probably convince more people that your position is untenable. See me after class.

old comment by NonHomogenized

Creation is winning by Evolutions rules

Somehow, I don't think you know what evolution's rules are

As technical as you want to be, Creation science is out-doing - out-surviving, out-evolving, out-creating - Evolution science. Just look at the evidence!

Yes. After all, creationism has "speciated" into YEC, OEC, and ID. The Theory of Evolution has had most of its branches go extinct. Of course, the theory of evolution is only 150 years old, and is accepted by most educated people in first world countries, whereas creationism is in excess of a thousand, and has only ignorant bumpkins believing it...

Creation - existed from the dawn of time Evolution - existed later than the dawn of time

Actually, Creationism (in any form) has only existed for a few thousand years. Evolution has existed for at least 3 billion. Although, I suppose, you might be speaking of the theory of evolution, which is only 150 years old. But so what? Just because we haven't known about it for long doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Does Bernoulli's principle also not work? Better tell those aircraft designers, builders, and pilots.

Creation - followers prepared to die for the belief Evolution - followers not prepared to die for belief

Again, this has nothing to do with the truthfulness of either. I have met people who claim that drugs are the true way to enlightenment, and who would not have any real objections to ODing. Does that make them right?

Creation - messaging spreading to all parts of the world Evolution - message spreading to some parts of the world

Oh no, only educated people learn about evolution. Have you considered that the flaw here might just be that not everyone gets educated, rather than that only educated people understand evolution?

Creation - specific changes in creation predicted

Name one.

Evolution - specific changes in creation yet to be predicted

You mean, other than a molecular mechanism of heredity (DNA), mutation in said mechanism, moths with a 12 inch probiscus, genes, speciation, single nucleotide polymorphisms, endogenous retroviruses, vetigial features, everything we've discovered about genetics... oh, hell, do I really need to continue? This could take all day.

Creation - eternal hypotheses (Heaven, Hell, Judgement Day, etc.) Evolution - temporal hypotheses (life, death, etc.?)

So fucking what? This has exactly nothing to do with the validity of either.

Ok, so Evolution is losing, for the moment. But let's make this a fair fight!

No, the only one here who's losing is you. And that is because you are a loser.

Evolution - An author (Darwin et al.) Creation - An eternal Saviour (the Lord Jesus Christ)

A myth versus a scientist? I know which one I'll take. Given your apperant propensity for invisible friends, sadly, I know which one you'll take, too.

Evolution - no commitment to belief Creation - life-long commitment to belief

Yeah, that's the important difference, all right. Evolution has a commitment to facts, while creationism has a commitment to belief.

Evolution - no commitment to theory (you don't change evolution) Creation - total commitment to religion (you change at all costs)

What? No, evolution has changed many times to accomodate new data. Creationism only changes to get around laws (like the prohibition of teaching religion in US schools).

Evolution - changing from finding to finding Creation - constant from the first finding (God)

Yes. One changes in accord with new knowledge, and the other doesn't. I agree completely. However, you seem to think that changing in accord with new knowledge is a weakness, whereas I know it to be a strength.

Evolution - number of people in Hell = all of them Creation - number of people in Hell = less and less

So, christians who believe in evolution go to hell? You idiots have a knack for making your made-up god look worse and worse, you know that?

Take a look! As far as standards go,

You don't have any

the Lord has led us to victory all the way. Who knows? Perhaps evolution will lift its standards.

I don't think evolution (or science in general) will ever lower its standards into the sewer like that.

Imagine that, Creationism showing Evolution how to have real standards!

Ha ha ha! Yeah, that'll be the day!

old comment by Maronan

Creation is winning by Evolutions rules
As technical as you want to be, Creation science is out-doing - out-surviving, out-evolving, out-creating - Evolution science.

Through this introduction, you have proven that you don't even know what evolution is. Evolution pertains to biology, not ideas.

Just look at the evidence!

If you have evidence for creationism, bring it out. I'm not holding my breath. On second thought, I am holding my breath; I need to protect myself against the stench of the creationist sewage you're about to drag in.

Creation - existed from the dawn of time Evolution - existed later than the dawn of time

What's this supposed to mean? When you say "creation," do you mean the universe or the idea of creationism? If the former, then yes; "creation" has always existed by definition, and you're guilty only of an equivocation fallacy rather than an outright lie. If you mean creationism, you're a really bad liar. Do you mean to tell me that people believed in creationism seconds after the big bang when matter as we know it didn't exist? As for "evolution," do you mean the process of evolution or our knowledge of it? Evolution has been going on since the beginning of life on Earth. (In theory, it could have been going on before that; there might have been life on another planet.) People have known about evolution for over 150 years. Keep in mind that you were supposed to present evidence for creationism, not these red herrings.

Creation - followers prepared to die for the belief Evolution - followers not prepared to die for belief Evolution - no commitment to belief Creation - life-long commitment to belief Evolution - no commitment to theory (you don't change evolution) Creation - total commitment to religion (you change at all costs)

Commitment to any one idea is a very bad thing indeed. Humans are not perfect, and we will be wrong far more often than we'd like to admit. This is why it's important NOT to commit to an idea; you have to accept that it may be wrong, and you must reject it if it's proven wrong. To you, the creationists' commitment to their ideas is a strength; to me, it shows that they're unwilling to admit to any mistakes they might make, and must be taken with a grain of salt.

Evolution - changing from finding to finding Creation - constant from the first finding (God)

Do you really consider this a strength? Stubborn refusal to change in the face of new evidence is a fatal flaw. That said, I agree with you here, and in several of your above quotes. Creationists are highly committed, and will not change their beliefs even when proven wrong. On the other hand, evolution is changed when contradicted by evidence and expanded to account for new evidence. Since no scientists are "committed" to evolution, they are able to stay with the times and even make new discoveries.

Creation - messaging spreading to all parts of the world Evolution - message spreading to some parts of the world

This is not important. Facts are facts, regardless of how many people know them. If most people in a region have never heard of evolution, it proves that their region does not have an adequate school system, not that evolution is less likely to be true.

Creation - specific changes in creation predicted Evolution - specific changes in creation yet to be predicted

What predictions has creationism made? You must actually present them; you can't merely assert that they exist. Of course, evolution predicted genetics, mutations, speciation, antibiotic resistance, disease resistance, and a host of others.

Creation - eternal hypotheses (Heaven, Hell, Judgement Day, etc.) Evolution - temporal hypotheses (life, death, etc.?)

"Heaven" and "hell" are not hypotheses. A hypothesis must be testable; there has to be a test that could disprove it. What experiment could you do to disprove heaven or hell? Furthermore, "life" and "death" are NOT validated hypotheses of the theory of evolution. You are clearly among the 99% of creationists who rail against evolution without even knowing what it is.

Evolution - An author (Darwin et al.) Creation - An eternal Saviour (the Lord Jesus Christ)

This is an utter waste of time. All you've said is: "Somebody figured out that evolution happened," a tautology, since we're talking about it, "and creationists believe in a mythical person who magically rose from the dead," which far from strengthens your position.

Evolution - number of people in Hell = all of them Creation - number of people in Hell = less and less

What are you talking about? Hell doesn't exist. This is little more than a scare tactic. Unfortunately, Gottservant, scientists do not use fear or threats in place of evidence.

Take a look! As far as standards go, the Lord has led us to victory all the way.

"Victory" in what sense? What are you talking about?

Who knows? Perhaps evolution will lift its standards. Imagine that, Creationism showing Evolution how to have real standards!

What "standards" are you talking about here? Please explain yourself more clearly. @Crosis

@Hadanelith
Crosis: Your 'Professor' mode is impressive. You should use it more often.
Thanks. Not sure whose bit it was originally (Maronan used it from time to time, and I want to say either Hadanelith or Papabear did as well), but I enjoyed it enough to shamelessly copy it a few times.

I first got the "professor mode" idea from Mad Dog. I don't know how Mad Dog came by it. @Libkitten

I'd bet money that if you took ten self-proclaimed Christians off the street, held a gun to their head, and told them that you'd kill them unless they denounced Creation for your ears, not many of them would die for their belief. People are self-preserving by nature.

Ironically, this would mean that creationism would be selected against by evolution!

old comment by GigaGuess

Ooookay...

1.) You're right. Evolution has only existed since life emerged. So a shorter time than since the dawn of time, I suppose.

2.) Fanatics willing to kill and die doesn't make someone right. I didn't see you converting to Islam after 9/11.

3.) Again, you state the fact that people who blindly ignore something makes them right.

4.) But...I thought we were perfect and unchanging? You know, made in God's image and all? The Bible DIDN'T predict change.

5.) Yet again, you say this as though it means something. I mean first you need to conclusively prove Heaven, Hell, etc.

6.) Jesus didn't say anything about Genesis. Like, nothing at all. The event occurrd millennia before he was even born, by your own book.

7.) That's the fun thing about science, it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not.

8.) Seriously, you're not getting this, it's almost like...you might wanna sit for this...Evolution isn;t a religion!

9.) Listen to the man who says he's seking truth. Fear the man who claims to have found it.

10.) Once again, prove the existence of Hell in the first place. While we're at it, reconcile it's existence with your God of Love.

old comment by Swede

There is no "Creation science", silly. The Kitzmiller vs Dover verdict made that abundantly clear.

Evolution "rules" don't include willingness to die for a belief. The whole point of evolution is to stay alive long enough to have viable offspring that can stay alive long enough to have viable offspring of its own.

Darwin didn't write evolution, stupid! He merely described what the evidence shows.

So, which rules do you imagine Evolution has? It seems more like you're saying that Creation is winning its own game because it has written its own rules. Evolution is a natural process; diversity and adaptation to a changing environment, through random mutations and natural selection. It neither has nor professes to have any standards.

Pseudophilosophy of deceit and confusion, for sure... I'll only address one argument, because it still seems relevant in 2022. People have been manipulated to start wars as well as to die in them. Religion is one of the tools, especially that it touches the irrational, so also used as part of the emotional appeal and fear propaganda to suspend rational thought. Nothing of that has anything to do with the verification of scientific facts, for that you need to follow the evidence where it leads, it's technical, not dogmatic or emotional. Proposed alternatives have simply not provided explanations that are verifiable, explain all the available data better than the modern synthesis and can be worked with to make useful predictions for future research. That's really what is needed to dismiss evolution, especially when the current model really works (for instance, we often know where to dig to find more transitional fossils and we keep discovering more, the discovery of the genetic code only came to confirm and improve the understanding, etc.)

Gottservant #fundie christianforums.com

45 comments

Confused?