Comprehensive creationist claim list

[liberalismo]

I have noticed that the same questions and assertions about evolution or creationism are put forth in just about every single discussion on the topic and they are identical. All of these questions and claims have been complied into a comprehensive list which attempts to answer the claims or questions.

How often do we see people say things like:

If humans came from monkeys, why do we still see monkeys?

or

Isn't Evolution just a theory?

or

Didn't Darwin recant on his death bed?

or

There is no proof for evolution.

or

If people believe they came from monkeys they will start acting like monkeys.



Just about every question or claim that someone makes in regard to evolution or creationism is on this list. I KNOW that there will be people who will comment against evolution in this thread, making the same exact claims detailed on the list, without ever even reading the list. I WILL IGNORE SUCH POSTS. Or there will be people who will try to post creationist websites in retort and demand that they be read.

But this thread isn't about that, it's just about trying to get some people who have questions or claims against evolution to check out the website and type a keyword of their claim or question into the search bar and locate the exact claim on the list and simply read it.

You don't have to believe it, but this will answer the questions that I see over and over and over again, and will let you know what biologists and evolution proponents actually claim. Most evolution supporters read tons of creationist websites and books, I myself just got done reading "A Case for a creator" by Lee Stroble.

So if you've got a question or claim, it's likely on this list. Just find the claim and read the short answer or explanation.

Here is the link:


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[MCWAY]

I have noticed that the same questions and assertions about evolution or creationism are put forth in just about every single discussion on the topic and they are identical. All of these questions and claims have been complied into a comprehensive list which attempts to answer the claims or questions.

How often do we see people say things like:

If humans came from monkeys, why do we still see monkeys?

or

Isn't Evolution just a theory?

or

Didn't Darwin recant on his death bed?

or

There is no proof for evolution.

or

If people believe they came from monkeys they will start acting like monkeys.



Just about every question or claim that someone makes in regard to evolution or creationism is on this list. I KNOW that there will be people who will comment against evolution in this thread, making the same exact claims detailed on the list, without ever even reading the list. I WILL IGNORE SUCH POSTS. Or there will be people who will try to post creationist websites in retort and demand that they be read.

But this thread isn't about that, it's just about trying to get some people who have questions or claims against evolution to check out the website and type a keyword of their claim or question into the search bar and locate the exact claim on the list and simply read it.

You don't have to believe it, but this will answer the questions that I see over and over and over again, and will let you know what biologists and evolution proponents actually claim. Most evolution supporters read tons of creationist websites and books, I myself just got done reading "A Case for a creator" by Lee Stroble.

So if you've got a question or claim, it's likely on this list. Just find the claim and read the short answer or explanation.

Here is the link:


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

If you're going to talk about Creation vs. evolution, of course, you're going to have people present the opposing side's view, if you present one side's arguments.

Given that this list is extremely LOOOONNG, chances are no one is going to read or address every single item on it. They will instead look for whatever items happen to peak their interest.

With that said......

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

BTW, there's no "demand" that the site be read. If you're interested, read it. If not, then don't.

[Butterbean]

If people believe they came from monkeys they will start acting like monkeys.

What the?  haha I've never heard of that one 



I clicked on one of the assertions in your link.  The first sentence in the reponse claims:

"Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."

I disagree.  For instance, 2 eggs plus 2 eggs = 4 eggs   

, I myself just got done reading "A Case for a creator" by Lee Stroble.

What did you think of the book liberalismo?

[liberalismo]

If you're going to talk about Creation vs. evolution, of course, you're going to have people present the opposing side's view, if you present one side's arguments.

Given that this list is extremely LOOOONNG, chances are no one is going to read or address every single item on it. They will instead look for whatever items happen to peak their interest.

With that said......

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

BTW, there's no "demand" that the site be read. If you're interested, read it. If not, then don't.

No. I'm saying that if you have something to say about evolution or a question about it, chances are it will be on that website. All I'm asking is for people who have questions or claims about evolution to check out what they have to say about that single claim or question. I'm definitely not asking anyone to read ALL of the list, just what question or claim they might have and see what it says.

I've read just about every article on Answering Genesis in the past, including the one you posted. The problem with that link: It misunderstands what evolution is. Evolution in the our context means biology not stellar or whatnot. The list I posted has at least 2 entries addressing the question about evolution and if it has been proven true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html


The point i'm making is that I always see the same assertions posted about evolution, when they are so easily addressed by simple research on the person's part who makes the assertion. All I'm asking is if you could just see what evolutionists actually say about the claim you make or question you ask via that list I posted, so that you may better understand the opposing side.

[liberalismo]

What the?  haha I've never heard of that one 



I clicked on one of the assertions in your link.  The first sentence in the reponse claims:

"Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."

I disagree.  For instance, 2 eggs plus 2 eggs = 4 eggs   

That is just a passing phrase used to emphasize the fact that scientific things can't be proven 100%, but can be shown to be very very likely given the facts. If you want to get deeper on a philosophy level, nothing in this world can be proven except your own existence. Going back to Descartes "I think therefore I am".

What did you think of the book liberalismo?

I think the Stroble wrote the book with a predetermined worldview already established, and made it seem as if it was some sort of journey to discovery. All of his "interviews" were made to seem random but were infact clearly preselected to include only the most well known creationists or intelligent design proponents. Essentially every argument in the book was a misrepresentation of evolution, or a misunderstanding of the facts. One example that comes to mind was his interview of Michael Behe(author of Darwin's Black Box which I've also read) and discussion of "irreducible complexity" and the bacterial flagellum. The reality is that there is really no such thing as irreducible complexity in the natural world, or artificial for that matter, and all of his examples of such (the mouse trap or the bacterial flagellum) have been shown to be false, since for instance the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex since not only has the evolution of the bacterial flagellum been established and studied, but also if reduced by 2 or 3 or even a dozen parts, the flagellum functions as a secretory apparatus which viruses and bacteria use to insert themselves into DNA.
That's just one example among the countless of misrepresentations in Stroble's book, I made a mental list of them but have since forgot most. Others include false statements about the fossil record or human ancestor fossils and other things.

[liberalismo]

ALso, Did you read the full entry on the one you mentioned? Or did you read just the first sentence?

[MCWAY]

That is just a passing phrase used to emphasize the fact that scientific things can't be proven 100%, but can be shown to be very very likely given the facts. If you want to get deeper on a philosophy level, nothing in this world can be proven except your own existence. Going back to Descartes "I think therefore I am".




I think the Stroble wrote the book with a predetermined worldview already established, and made it seem as if it was some sort of journey to discovery. All of his "interviews" were made to seem random but were infact clearly preselected to include only the most well known creationists or intelligent design proponents. Essentially every argument in the book was a misrepresentation of evolution, or a misunderstanding of the facts. One example that comes to mind was his interview of Michael Behe(author of Darwin's Black Box which I've also read) and discussion of "irreducible complexity" and the bacterial flagellum. The reality is that there is really no such thing as irreducible complexity in the natural world, or artificial for that matter, and all of his examples of such (the mouse trap or the bacterial flagellum) have been shown to be false, since for instance the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex since not only has the evolution of the bacterial flagellum been established and studied, but also if reduced by 2 or 3 or even a dozen parts, the flagellum functions as a secretory apparatus which viruses and bacteria use to insert themselves into DNA.
That's just one example among the countless of misrepresentations in Stroble's book, I made a mental list of them but have since forgot most. Others include false statements about the fossil record or human ancestor fossils and other things.

From what I remember about Strobel, he was an atheist who became a Christian later in his adult life (due in part to his wife's becoming a Christian and sharing the Gospel with him). So, "the journey to discovery" thing appears to be legit.

No. I'm saying that if you have something to say about evolution or a question about it, chances are it will be on that website. All I'm asking is for people who have questions or claims about evolution to check out what they have to say about that single claim or question. I'm definitely not asking anyone to read ALL of the list, just what question or claim they might have and see what it says.

I've read just about every article on Answering Genesis in the past, including the one you posted. The problem with that link: It misunderstands what evolution is. Evolution in the our context means biology not stellar or whatnot. The list I posted has at least 2 entries addressing the question about evolution and if it has been proven true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html


The point i'm making is that I always see the same assertions posted about evolution, when they are so easily addressed by simple research on the person's part who makes the assertion. All I'm asking is if you could just see what evolutionists actually say about the claim you make or question you ask via that list I posted, so that you may better understand the opposing side.

I see the point of your posting that list. But, from what I've seen, it appears that (as the saying goes), the evolutionists keep moving the goalposts. Considering that many of the scientists at AiG once believed in evolution (per their own testimonies), it's rather odd that, somehow, they keep "misunderstanding" what evolution is.

From a philosophical/religious perspective, the end goal of evolution is to explain the origin of life, WITHOUT the need for a supernatural Creator. Many evolutionists, past and present, have expressed that in no uncertain terms.

[liberalismo]

From what I remember about Strobel, he was an atheist who became a Christian later in his adult life (due in part to his wife's becoming a Christian and sharing the Gospel with him). So, "the journey to discovery" thing appears to be legit.

I see the point of your posting that list. But, from what I've seen, it appears that (as the saying goes), the evolutionists keep moving the goalposts. Considering that many of the scientists at AiG once believed in evolution (per their own testimonies), it's rather odd that, somehow, they keep "misunderstanding" what evolution is.

From a philosophical/religious perspective, the end goal of evolution is to explain the origin of life, WITHOUT the need for a supernatural Creator. Many evolutionists, past and present, have expressed that in no uncertain terms.

It's not really relevant. All I'm saying is that if you think of something to say against evolution, or a question to ask about it...Check out that website first. If you've got further questions, after researching it, then post them. But All I'm saying is that in almost all circumstances, most people who argue for evolution will only say the exact same things that are on that or other similar websites. They've got just about every objection or question to evolution addressed there on a very neat and orderly list. Just read the 1 entry for the 1 question you have at 1 time.

[MCWAY]

It's not really relevant. All I'm saying is that if you think of something to say against evolution, or a question to ask about it...Check out that website first. If you've got further questions, after researching it, then post them. But All I'm saying is that in almost all circumstances, most people who argue for evolution will only say the exact same things that are on that or other similar websites. They've got just about every objection or question to evolution addressed there on a very neat and orderly list. Just read the 1 entry for the 1 question you have at 1 time.

It is relevant, in part because AiG can, for the most part, counter the answers on that list with one of their own (see the "Get Answers" section of the site, http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers# )

So, at the end of the day, the argument goes from a mere scientific one to more of a philosophical/religious one.

[liberalismo]

It is relevant, in part because AiG can, for the most part, counter the answers on that list with one of their own (see the "Get Answers" section of the site, http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers# )

So, at the end of the day, the argument goes from a mere scientific one to more of a philosophical/religious one.

My problem is that most people who object to evolution don't read the sites like the one I posted, which is why I see the same questions and claims posted over and over by the same people. In most cases they don't even read the creationist websites. I don't believe that AIG provides any reasonable rebuttal, but that's not the point. The point is that if people had read sites like the one I posted, they wouldn't make the same claims or ask the same questions over and over. The reason the list was created was due to the fact that 99% of all of the claims or questions are the same and can easily be addressed. Whether or not you are satisfied with their answers is beyond the point, the least people can do is read them and understand them.