Feed on Posts or Comments 27 April 2018

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 03 Nov 2009 12:59 am

Creationists fight back with a new term – we are now evolutionists

Creationists, apparently, are tired of getting put in the creationist box. So they are fighting fire with fire by creating a new box and a new term to go with it: the evolutionist. You can see the use of the new term here:

Interesting but logically unchallenging [#2020]

I just want to ask you some questions. I’m assuming you’re an evolutionist.

That makes scientists gravityists too. And atomists. And photonists. And quarkists. And…

By the way, Christians are no longer the only creationists. There are now Islamic creationists too, as described by Richard Dawkins in this interview:

This article goes into more depth: An Islamic Creationist Stirs a New Kind of Darwinian Struggle

Learn more about God’s perfect creation in this video:

11 Responses to “Creationists fight back with a new term – we are now evolutionists”

  1. on 03 Nov 2009 at 4:33 pm 1.Spence said …

    Evolution is more than just about scientist. There is no argument among the masses over gravity, Petrology or Ornithology. Evolution deals with much of the past. The past is not observable and the past is not testable therefore it is much more debatable and consequently questionable. In many respects it goes against the very basic tenets of science in observation, testing & repeating.

    It is telling just offended some scientist can become when others do not necessarily believe everything they put out there based on numerous assumptions. There are plenty of other Phds running around subscribing to alternate theories. I haven’t seen any Phds taking on gravity…..

    Another little box is the way evolutionist categorize everyone who questions evolution as creationist. They are clueless to just have many variations are out there that fall under “creationist”.

  2. on 03 Nov 2009 at 8:01 pm 2.AntiRoss said …

    That’s idiotic Spence. It is not based on assumptions, but millions of facts, and loads of experiments. Assumptions indeed.
    Perhaps you would like to tell us what gravity is, while you’re at it.

  3. on 03 Nov 2009 at 8:24 pm 3.Bishop said …

    I have always seen the historical sciences as more like detective work than science. Agnosticism is the only valid position to take. Even within evolution there is really no concrete evidence proving we evolved from any other species. We take some facts and put a case together of what may have happened. As with the OJ trial, we see what we want to see. Sure there are available facts but they do not conclusively prove we evolved from anything.

  4. on 03 Nov 2009 at 8:37 pm 4.Stranger said …

    >Even within evolution there is really no concrete
    >evidence proving we evolved from any other

    There are thousands of pieces of evidence. You simply have never bothered to look at it.

  5. on 04 Nov 2009 at 1:18 am 5.Heidi said …

    “Another little box is the way evolutionist categorize everyone who questions evolution as creationist.”

    Would you prefer “willfully ignorant person,” perhaps? Because it is abundantly clear that people who don’t “believe” in evolution are people who have flat out refused to educate themselves about it from unbiased sources.

  6. on 04 Nov 2009 at 3:07 am 6.Spence said …

    Tell you what Heidi. You offer just one irrefutable portion of evidence. Now in view of the fact that you depict yourself as the educated individual I’m confident you would not need to confer with an outside source.

  7. on 04 Nov 2009 at 4:24 am 7.Stranger said …

    > offer just one irrefutable portion of evidence.

    Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. Apes have 24. This difference creates a test for evolution.



  8. on 04 Nov 2009 at 12:48 pm 8.Spence said …

    There are two species of flies called Drosophila that look alike but have only 25 percent of their DNA sequences in common. Yet the DNA of humans and chimpanzees share as you noted 97.5%. This means the DNA of two virtually identical flies is 30 times more different than that betweens humans and chimpanzees. The conclusions based on chromosome or similarities does not necessarily conclude common ancestry. It is an assumption not a fact that conclusively proves evolution.

  9. on 04 Nov 2009 at 9:17 pm 9.Stranger said …

    Nice plagiarism spence:


    Highly unlikely the plagiarized fact is true given information on this page:


  10. on 05 Nov 2009 at 12:42 am 10.Spence said …

    You talking chimp I didn’t plagiarize considering I have never been on the site. It is a fact they quote from a book. You cannot plagiarize a fact. Reading the article, based on your allegation, YOU plagiarized your proclamation.

    The only rationale we need to acknowledge this fact is to illustrate your statement about a similar number of chromosomes with apes does not in any way prove your position. But you are accurate. If it is on the web it MUST be true. Thanks anyway Heidi.

  11. on 06 Nov 2009 at 7:54 pm 11.yup said …

    just like for you since creation is in your bible it MUST be true. Nice try Spence. Why don’t you try bringing us evidence to SUPPORT creation. Good luck with that.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply