Is Satan a creationist?

[Lotan]

This one's pretty simple really. Satan* just loves to deceive people, and so do creationists (eg. quoting out of context, carving human footprints next to dino tracks, repeating discredited arguments, etc etc etc). So, are these creationists doing the devil's work for him?

*Devil: Greek word diabolos - dia=through; ballo=to throw (38 ref.) - slanderer,
misrepresenter, deceiver, divider, accuser, divider

[Jose]

Oh, heavens no. Creationists are protecting us from ourselves, who have been possessed. Possession is the only rational explanation for anyone to believe something as silly as evolution. L. Ron Hubbard comes right out and says that evolution is silly, and he's been to heaven three times so he must know.

Don't we have to imagine that Satan is a creator, in order to explain much of what's out there in the world? That's another way to look at it, I suspect. God created everything just as it says in Genesis, but then Satan came along and created fossils, radioactivity, red shifts, and all that stuff. Or maybe it was Coyote--it's the kind of thing that trickster would do.

[axeplayer]

Are creationists really the only ones who qoute out of context? What about the evo's argument to discredit the literalism of Genesis by referring to the verse in Joshua where Joshua requests that God make the day longer than normal so that he may defeat his enemies? (the evo's use it as proof that the Bible says that the earth is the center of the universe... ) What about Peking man? did the evo's not completely draw blind conclusions as to the origins of the "monkey man"? or the fossil (cant remember the name) where the evolutionist added stuff to the fossil to make it look like a transitional species? And do evo's not repeat discredited arguments? the human eye? the bird wing? the bacterial flagellum? So, Lotan, before you began pointing fingers at the creationists I think you need to take the plank out of your own eye.

[Jose]

A couple of points, axe. There is a lot of uncertainty among Christians and biblical scholars as to how literally to take the bible. It's not the evolutionists only who question this. For my biblical questions, I seek advice from ministers, from one of whom I quote "They're stories. They aren't meant to be factual. They're stories."

Now, there have, indeed, been fossil fakeries. The most recent was a forgery by a collector (not a scientist) who sold the fossil to a scientist claiming it was correct. Hey, the fakery sold for more money! It first seemed interesting, but note: evolutionists figured out that it was a fake, and discredited it. Evolutionists aren't trying to foist some sort of lie onto you. They were handed one, and reported to the world that it was, in fact, a forgery. That sounds like honesty to me. (and, of course, the reason it was so easy to detect is that the fossil was not a realistic transitional. It was the creationist caricature of one--you know, half animal A and half animal B.)

And what's your evidence that the human eye, bird wing, and bacterial flagellum are "discredited"? Creationists, and particularly ID proponents pretend to discredit them by showing that they don't fit a make-believe notion of evolution. The ID folks have said nothing about how evolution really works. So, you're going to need to provide the evidence that these are evolutionists being satanical. I'd say that inventing a false model of evolution, in order to "prove" design, is pretty low. If I believed there was a Satan, which I don't, it might be amusing to consider Lotan's idea that they might have gotten their ideas from him.

[Lotan]

Are creationists really the only ones who qoute out of context?

Well, they've certainly raised it to an art form. I'm sure there are probably others (politicians?) too, but I'm not sure if these others are claiming to defend God's truth. Besides, it's wrong regardless of who is doing it.

What about the evo's argument to discredit the literalism of Genesis by referring to the verse in Joshua where Joshua requests that God make the day longer than normal so that he may defeat his enemies? (the evo's use it as proof that the Bible says that the earth is the center of the universe... )

Evolution is a biological theory. The issue of Bible literalism is a matter for textual criticism, not biology. Whether the earth is the center of the universe or the sun can stand still are matters for cosmology, or maybe mythography.

What about Peking man? did the evo's not completely draw blind conclusions as to the origins of the "monkey man"?

I don't know axe, did they? Were they just wrong, or did they know the right answer but tell everyone something else anyway?

or the fossil (cant remember the name) where the evolutionist added stuff to the fossil to make it look like a transitional species?

Was it Archaeoraptor liaoningensis ? If so, then it was a farmer who "added stuff" to the fossil...
"The Archaeoraptor fossil only had a few months of glory as the missing link between dinosaurs and birds before it was exposed as a composite. We now know that the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur were glued together by a Chinese farmer."
...from here.
You can read more about it on the thread "Why are creationists so dishonest" where you will also find links to other examples of creationists' deceptions.

And do evo's not repeat discredited arguments?

I'm not even sure what an "evo" is, or what you think one is.

the human eye? the bird wing? the bacterial flagellum?

As Jose pointed out, you would first have to provide evidence that these organs are not the product of evolutionary development before you can argue that they somehow disprove evolution.

So, Lotan, before you began pointing fingers at the creationists I think you need to take the plank out of your own eye.

I think you suffer under the mistaken assumption that evolutionary biologists, and scientists in every other field who produce results that conflict with your literalist biblical world view, actually base those results on whether they agree with the bible or not. In other words, science doesn't need to resort to deception to prove anything because the evidence proves it for them.
On the "Why are creationists so dishonest" thread I linked to lots of examples of creationists' deception and no one denied that they were fact. Therefore, I feel that it is fair to say that creationists resort to deception in order to advance their agenda. If you are suggesting that I, personally, have tried to deceive anyone on this forum I can only tell you that I would consider it to be pointless for me to do so.

[steen]

Are creationists really the only ones who qoute out of context?

They are the ones who have it set up systematically, certainly. As for "evo's" first of all it is not clear who they are. If you are saying that they are the scientists who do the research as you later imply, then no your claim is false. You obviously are completely unaware of the scrutiny going on during the application of the Scientific Method. If you are talking about individual posters, then that certainly is a possibility, which is why you are always welcome to ask for the reference documenting the claim. After all, that is how science works, through documentation.

But of course, per "sauce for the goose.." that also goes for the creationists. We would insist on no less evidence from you as well.

What about the evo's argument to discredit the literalism of Genesis by referring to the verse in Joshua where Joshua requests that God make the day longer than normal so that he may defeat his enemies? (the evo's use it as proof that the Bible says that the earth is the center of the universe... )

Hmm, are you saying that Evolutionary Biologists set out to disprove the Bible? Certainly there are things in the Bible that are plain wrong if you try to read them literally, but then that's not the purpose of the Bible. God surely would be saddened if you read the message of love and compassion for others as a absolutist science textbook. Not to mention that we then have to change Pi to 3.0 even though it si wrong when we use it in math. That aside, if you *DO* read the Bible literally, per Joshua the sun does indeed travel accross the sky. Now, I am not sure how that is possible unless it is the sun that circles the Earth.

You can say that it merely was a primitive way of explaining to tribesmen who were clueless about astronomy, but then you would open up the accusation of "interpreting" something the creationists just insisted should be read literally.

So tell me, what *IS* the implication of Joshua?

But I digress. We were talking about the "evos" deliberately setting out out to disproving the Bible, at least that was your implication. Perhaps there are some atheists who seek to do that, but certainly those who study the changes in biological organisms have no issue with Joshua's day. Why should we care? Are you under the misguided impression that Biologists somehow are talking about Evolution as a way to attack the Bible or "disprove" God? Yes, it sounds silly, but I have heard such claims from creationists before. I just want to be sure you are not one of those who fall under that misguided impression?

What about Peking man?

Yes? What about the peking man?

did the evo's not completely draw blind conclusions as to the origins of the "monkey man"?

I am not sure what you are talking about. Could you clarify?

or the fossil (cant remember the name) where the evolutionist added stuff to the fossil to make it look like a transitional species?

Ah, yes. Now you either listened to false gossip or are making false accusations yourself. Why would we need to "create" a transitional fossil? We got a bunch of them already. And if you are trying to accuse "evolutionists" of actions that non-scientists and chinese farmers do (see the above posts), then that would be downright dishonest. So I am sure that's not what you did, right?

And do evo's not repeat discredited arguments? the human eye? the bird wing? the bacterial flagellum?

Creationists making unsubstantiated claims in the form of "I just can't believe that it evolved, so it MUST have been designed" is not a discredit of any scientific finding. Do you have actual EVIDENCE regarding the above forms, or are you merely repeating old creationist claims that have long been showed to be nonsense? I would suggest that you look at the creationist claims archive of talk.origin to more closely scrutinize the validity of some of the claims you are making. After all, unsubstantiated claims are beginning to be an embarrassment to even some creationist organizations. Even "Answers in genesis" has found it necessary to set up a web page of "arguments we think creationists should NOT use" just to avoid the worst embarrassments of display of ignorance.

Part of what they say is this:
"The other articles provide examples of arguments that should no longer be used; some arguments are definitely fallacious, while others are merely doubtful or unsubstantiated."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

So, Lotan, before you began pointing fingers at the creationists I think you need to take the plank out of your own eye.

Based on your post? You haven't shown anything where those of rational mind with acceptance of Evolution has made any mistake. We saw a lot of claims for you that were unsubstantiated and some that just plain didn't make sense, almost as if you argued against something that isn't Evolution to begin with.

As such, your post does raise a serious question. Do you actually know what Evolution is? Do you know what the Scientific Theory of Evolution is? Because from your post, it seems that you believe it to be "anything not creationism," which of course is nonsense. From where I sit, it seems like you are arguing against evolution without even rather basic knowledge of what it actually is. That would, of course, be a display of poor integrity, so I hope you can answer to the satisfaction that this is not the case, thanks.

[micatala]

What about the evo's argument to discredit the literalism of Genesis by referring to the verse in Joshua where Joshua requests that God make the day longer than normal so that he may defeat his enemies?

I'm not sure what you mean by quoting out of context.

I would point out (as I have in the Copernicus and Darwin thread) that Luther and others used the verse in Joshua (and other scripture) in an attempt to refute the Copernican theory. In their minds, this verse clearly implied that the sun moved and the earth did not.

[Lotan]

I would point out (as I have in the Copernicus and Darwin thread) that Luther and others used the verse in Joshua (and other scripture) in an attempt to refute the Copernican theory.

Does this mean that Martin Luther was an "evo"? 8)

[juliod]

So, are these creationists doing the devil's work for him?

That brings up a good point. Regardless of whether evolution is true, will god punish christians for being creationists? Might he be upset with them for placing him in a box? For being absolutely sure that Genesis is not just a revelation in metaphor to the spiritually-deprived bronze-age middle-easterners?

DanZ

[jerickson314]

Not to mention that we then have to change Pi to 3.0 even though it si wrong when we use it in math.

This argument is worse than nearly any argument any creationist has ever put forth. I'll prove it in a bit, I have to go eat now.