Jump to content


Photo

Issues With Evidence


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:32 PM

By the same token then Christians should be able use the same line of reasoning and  use the universe by inference as proof that God exists. I think they are using a double standard.

The function of a courtroom is for an  aid in deciding what "truth" is in a situation where there is little or no empirical evidence. Using their (evos) logic the only place to discuss evo would be in a courtroom situation.  Evolution then would be sujective "truth." it would not objective truth as they seem to claim.
This cleared up my confusion also. We see it the same.

  I see what you are saying. Again sounds like they have a double standard.
Your profile lists you as an agnostic that’s why I used  the thing about suspension of disbelief. Actually you do come across as a creationist most of the time—no problem for me. Be what you want to be.

Hey I am not an agreement freak! I can handle disagreement without a meltdown or an atempt at negative control tacticts. :lol: I know you are all to out to get me. You are all plotting. You took a vote last night and decided to be against me didn't you and without  any empiracal evidence either.

View Post


Yep its full-on double standards however unfortunately it is never seen in that light. To them, they already believe evolution is true hence they are allowed to do this, (because to them evolution is already true)

Yes I am agnostic. To put it more specifically, I am a theistic agnostic ie- "I believe in God, but I don't believe in religion" :lol:

Lol it was a close vote 13 /12 :lol:

#22 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:35 PM

Why are the Evo's so adamant about not having ID or creation taught along side their side of the story? I know here in Louisiana Gov. Jindal passed a bill where critical thinking would be taught along side the theory of evolution, and man all the radical Evo's went into an uproar, threatening to cancel conventions that they held in Louisiana and trying to boycott the bill. If their side of the story is so strong, why get so upset about teaching critical thinking in the classroom? I guess they want to indoctrinate our youth with only their worldview.

#23 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:37 PM

Why are the Evo's so adamant about not having ID or creation taught along side their side of the story? I know here in Louisiana Gov. Jindal passed a bill where critical thinking would be taught along side the theory of evolution, and man all the radical Evo's went into an uproar, threatening to cancel conventions that they held in Louisiana and trying to boycott the bill. If their side of the story is so strong, why get so upset about teaching critical thinking in the classroom? I guess they want to indoctrinate our youth with only their worldview.

View Post


Nothing can challenge evolution because to do so puts it into question. A true proven fact need not protection, but can stand on it's own. That is not the case here.

#24 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:40 PM

Your right Ike, it just goes to show how weak their view is. If they thought it was so strong they would not have a problem with it or use the "separation of church and state" to hide behind.

#25 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:42 PM

Nothing can challenge evolution because to do so puts it into question. A true proven fact need not protection, but can stand on it's own. That is not the case here.

View Post


Exactly :lol:

You'd think they'd be willing to "put their money where their mouth is"... :lol:

#26 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:46 PM

Science would never accept a debunk from a creationist so the point is mute. To prove this can you name one that was accepted? Point made.

With due respect, TE's are Christians who are more worried about being accepted by science more than God. I have yet to see a TE show where God's word even implies God used evolution. So the only logical explanation is being accepted by the world view of what truth is as being more important. And that some how God will accept that. Evolution in turn becomes god for the reason that it's put above God and dictates truth to God. Giving man more power of opinion of truth than God.

Example: If the Bible says this, and evolution disagrees. Which will you accept in your heart as truth? And if you deny one to accept the other, what are you actually calling the one you denied? If there can be only one truth, then your acceptance of evolution in your heart also makes God a liar in your heart. How else will you be able to explain to God your rejection of His word when asked point blank?

Will you use Darwin's book? The evidence you can observe only? What do you think the response will be when God says: You have my word, what was your problem? This is called erring from truth on purpose because there is no excuse when you have access to God's word.

James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

The brethren cannot err from truth unless he has access to it.

View Post

Amen Bro. I kinda noticed that too. High fives! God rules!

#27 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:49 PM

Gilbo you should just change your view to Christan :lol:

#28 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 January 2011 - 10:57 PM

Yes I am agnostic. To put it more specifically, I am a theistic agnostic ie- "I believe in God, but I don't believe in religion"

Why didn't you just say so! Here I am pulling the few hairs left on my head out with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel trying to figure you out with agnostic constantly playing in the backgrouns noise of my mind. OK Makes sense to me now. Glad we had this tete a tete.

Oh who was the odd vote? :lol:

#29 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 23 January 2011 - 11:27 PM

Was not the Scopes trial based on evidence of a tooth that turned out to be an extinct pigs tooth?

View Post


Actually, Nebraska Man (later proven to be a mistake) was not brought up in the Scopes trial.

#30 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 24 January 2011 - 12:10 AM

When a human being is accused of murdering another human he or she is often given a  trial. That trial usually  takes place in a courtroom with lawyers, witnesses,  a judge and a jury. Obviously, if the accused has actually murdered the victim, he or she knows that.

All the evidence that the accused did or didn’t do it is on display right in front of everyone in the court room in the person of the accused. If only we could read minds.

The fact that we can be deceived is the greatest proof that the concept of evidence has some issues. A dead body is evidence and yet the deceased victim  cannot tell us who  killed him  anymore than a fossil (evidence) can tell us that its precursor,  a plant or animal  evolved or was created.

Why does evo science not want a courtroom trial?  Their claims of absolute surety of evolution’s certainty fly in the face of the purpose for the courtroom trial.  It is  the very reason for such an institution.  We simply cannot look at a human being and read their mind. And since that is true of a human that is alive, it is doubly true  of a rock (fossil) that is dead and cannot possibly tell us what actually happened.

No! A fossil (evidence)  cannot tell us  whether it evolved or was created. What is left with no observing witnesses is pure speculation. Evo science must therefore avoid the courtroom trial with lawyers, judge, and jury. With such circumstantial evidence--evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute--their case  lacks merit and most likely would be dismissed!

View Post


The irony is that creationism would fare no better in the courtroom.

#31 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 24 January 2011 - 12:12 AM

Your right Ike, it just goes to show how weak their view is. If they thought it was so strong they would not have a problem with it or use the "separation of church and state" to hide behind.

View Post


I propose a compromise, teach creationism alongside evolution in schools and teach evolution alongside creationism in church. Any takers?

#32 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 January 2011 - 12:30 AM

I propose a compromise, teach creationism alongside evolution in schools and teach evolution alongside creationism in church. Any takers?

View Post


It's already being done:

Posted Image

And evolution has already tried to move in on religion by making up evolution Sunday.

http://en.wikipedia....volution_Sunday

Now, you gonna let us into schools now? Let's be honest, it's never going to happen because evolution cannot be questioned.

#33 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 January 2011 - 12:33 AM

I propose a compromise, teach creationism alongside evolution in schools and teach evolution alongside creationism in church. Any takers?

View Post


Heres a better compromise, teach people HOW to think not WHAT to think, at school and let them follow whatever endeavour on their own, in their own time.

#34 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 January 2011 - 01:28 AM

Heres a better compromise, teach people HOW to think not WHAT to think, at school and let them follow whatever endeavour on their own, in their own time.

View Post

Home run. Precicely what God is doing.

#35 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 January 2011 - 01:50 AM

I propose a compromise, teach creationism alongside evolution in schools and teach evolution alongside creationism in church. Any takers?

View Post

See there is the commandment not to teach false doctrine and untruths. We would have to do that to teach evolution in church. But church sponsored shools do teach Reading ,Writing, History and Arithmetic.
Plenty of people see evo science as a religion so they already do teach religion in school ( evo religion) commonly refered to as biology. What’s one more religion?

#36 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 24 January 2011 - 02:51 AM

I have to agree with you also on the matrix scanman.  That's why, really, if I had the money, I would go back to school and get a double major in molecular biology and geology. ;) Just to get into the lab.  I've done alot of reading, but I want to see it for myself.  I'm almost 50 now and I don't want to go back into debt.

But the few amateur observations I've made on limestone do not jive with the conventional wisdom.  I have alot of questions.

View Post


Usually when a student's observations do not jive with accepted ideas in geology, it turns out that they are not considering what they see correctly. I found that to be true in my case as I gained more knowledge of the subject. Particularly in the case of limestones one can tell sometimes tell a great deal about the environment in which an included fossil lived from a study of such "matrix" material.

If you got your wish and majored in science you might find that you would come to the same conclusions that many of my fellow students back in grad school had reached. Probably the majority of them had been Young Earth Creationists before starting the study of geology, yet not one remained so after just a course or two. The great antiquity of the Earth became apparent to them and they no longer found evolution to be an unacceptable notion. Were they diminished by this change? None of them seemed to think so in the discussions I had with them. In fact some seemed to think that a burden of conflict had been lifted from them and everything in their life was better integrated. At that point they all remained religious and followers of Christ in spite of the change in viewpoint.

#37 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 24 January 2011 - 03:32 AM

Heres a better compromise, teach people HOW to think not WHAT to think, at school and let them follow whatever endeavour on their own, in their own time.

View Post



Precisely, because when a person gets to the point where they truly want to know about the origin of life--as opposed to just believing what people tell them to think about the origin of life--the information about ideas is easily accessible. Surely most people know where to look for the two most popular explanations-- school for evolution and religion for creationism. I don't see the point in mixing them, but I'm not against it.

And even if though they don't mix them on equal ground now, creationists don't worry, it doesn't mean it will stay that way forever ever. If it ever reaches the point where the majority of the academic scientific community concludes that creationism is the more scientifically accurate approach to understanding how life on earth happens, surpassing the current prevailing idea of evolution, as the widely accepted view, then creationism, without a doubt, would be taught in schools as a legitimate science. I would assume that the idea of evolution would receive as much face time from teachers as creationism does today. And a funny thing too, I bet you there would still be organizations that would still believe in evolution even though the science would say otherwise. That would be a tough spot to support evolution, I'll tell you that much.

#38 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 January 2011 - 03:34 AM

Usually when a student's observations do not jive with accepted ideas in geology, it turns out that they are not considering what they see correctly. I found that to be true in my case as I gained more knowledge of the subject. Particularly in the case of limestones one can tell sometimes tell a great deal about the environment in which an included fossil lived from a study of such "matrix" material.

If you got your wish and majored in science you might find that you would come to the same conclusions that many of my fellow students back in grad school had reached. Probably the majority of them had been Young Earth Creationists before starting the study of geology, yet not one remained so after just a course or two. The great antiquity of the Earth became apparent to them and they no longer found evolution to be an unacceptable notion. Were they diminished by this change? None of them seemed to think so in the discussions I had with them. In fact some seemed to think that a burden of conflict had been lifted from them and everything in their life was better integrated. At that point they all remained religious and followers of Christ in spite of the change in viewpoint.

View Post


If evolution were not a religion itself, people would not have to give up a religious belief in order to believe it. Conversion is not scientific, neither is conformism.

Also what you speak of where people were not allowed to think outside the box ( it turns out that they are not considering what they see correctly), also proves that evolution has to be indoctrinated.

#39 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 24 January 2011 - 03:39 AM

It's already being done:

Posted Image

And evolution has already tried to move in on religion by making up evolution Sunday.

http://en.wikipedia....volution_Sunday

Now, you gonna let us into schools now? Let's be honest, it's never going to happen because evolution cannot be questioned.

View Post


Your already in, lot's of high schools have bible study clubs. Each side may be taking small steps, but they are steps nonetheless. And in college every creationists knows that both sided are taught about, especially in philosophy and any other course where it's academically beneficial.

#40 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 January 2011 - 03:54 AM

Your already in, lot's of high schools have bible study clubs. Each side may be taking small steps, but they are steps nonetheless. And in college every creationists knows that both sided are taught about, especially in philosophy and any other course where it's academically beneficial.

View Post


Nice try, we are not in class as you are in church.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users