Views From the Other Side: Archive of Creationist Articles

[Zixinus]

The article is just another pompous, arrogant fundie that has no idea what he's talking about (hint: life didn't come from organic matter. Organic matter came from inorganic matter under very specific circumstances) and dismisses or is simply ignorant of evidence and proven theory.

The only thing I find remarkable is how he portrays "evolutionists" or "naturalists". You see, my dad given me an interesting book about hypocrites. One of the practises of hypocrites is something called "mirroring": the augmentation of your own negative properties on your opponent.

For example, where the twat quotes himself:

"The entire philosophy is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—a rejection of everything supernatural—requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all its supporting theories must be taken by faith as well."2

Or here:

The irony of that is utterly lost on many in the scientific community today, where evolution has become an article of faith—unshakable faith, it turns out.

Let's replace a few words to his side or him:

"The entire philosophy is built on a faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—an acceptance of everything supernatural—requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all its supporting theories must be taken by faith as well."2

And it provides perfect fodder against himself.

The irony of that is utterly lost on many in the clerical community today, where creationism has become an article of faith—unshakable faith, it turns out.

I also find it amusing that he knows absolutely nothing of abiogenesis. I recall, although I can't name their type, of several experiments where inorganic matter was taken and put into an environment that mimicked what geology points to what early Earth looked like. There has been nothing less than a whole slew of these but who's surprised? It's too much to expect a creationist to know what he wants to refute, even if they apparently well-educated.

[Serafina]

Actually, life came from organic matter, since organic matter is all carbon-containing material (with very few exceptions).
And organic material is quite abundant, given that carbon is also abundant. We have found it on asteroids etc. - not proof that they carry(ed) life, but rather that the building blocks of life are rather simple and common.

Of course, the organic matter ultimately came from inorganic matter, but that's a few steps back still.

[Rye]

The article is just another pompous, arrogant fundie that has no idea what he's talking about (hint: life didn't come from organic matter. Organic matter came from inorganic matter under very specific circumstances) and dismisses or is simply ignorant of evidence and proven theory.

LOL

No.

No, that's very, very wrong.

Well, I suppose carbon came ultimately from the solar fusion of "inorganic" elements, but life definitely did come from organic matter, unless hydrocarbons don't have carbon in them any more.

I also find it amusing that he knows absolutely nothing of abiogenesis. I recall, although I can't name their type, of several experiments where inorganic matter was taken and put into an environment that mimicked what geology points to what early Earth looked like. There has been nothing less than a whole slew of these but who's surprised? It's too much to expect a creationist to know what he wants to refute, even if they apparently well-educated.

I think you mean the Miller-Urey tests and the natural synthesising of amino acids, and various other research that supplies the other key building blocks for life. Carbon was always present though.

[Zixinus]

Ah, I meant to write: life didn't come directly from inorganic matter. Life came from a collection of organic (but not alive) matter that in turn first came from inorganic matter under very specific circumstance.

Of course, sometimes I think and type two different things. That, and the above thought could have used some refining, I admit.