Jump to content


Photo

Why Pick Evolution To Argue Against?

evolution science theory creation bible

  • Please log in to reply
352 replies to this topic

#21 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 August 2016 - 03:59 PM

My observation is that most of the objections are based on:

1)  Evolution does not require a God.

2)  The long time frame  and most of all....

3)  It is in conflict with a literal reading of Genesis.

Piasan, what about evolution-doubters that don't necessarily accept a literal Genesis, such as Hugh Ross, Stephen Meyer, and an assortment of various agnostics, some of whom believe aliens sperminated planet earth. Are they disputing evo because of Genesis? :gotcha: 

I was pretty specific that my reference was to "most" of the objections..... not all of them.

 

I would argue that those like Ross, Meyer, etc. represent a minority of "evolution-doubters" much smaller than the minority the 25% or so of those who accept evolution and are atheists.  Yet creationists argue evolution = atheism all the time.



#22 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 August 2016 - 04:14 PM

I see. My interpretations has always been that evolution could be a process put in place by God.  

Gallup polls over the last 30 years show that's exactly how a substantial majority of evolutionists see it.

 

 

mh7klzb21ue_tb0a1h_86q.png



#23 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 04:18 PM

Tassadar, I appreciate your good attitude. I have put you through the Kirk maelstrom and you have shined, I have tested you in the fire of my shining smite-staff.... We shall discuss things on a more cordial level, since you seem like a reasonable chap.

 

 

I think this could represent a false-dichotomy if the law of the excluded middle does not apply. 

 

What I mean is - when I listen to an evolutionary scientist, read what he says, think about his arguments, the disagreement is by a degree of portion. That is to say, I will probably accept a lot of things the evolutionist says;

 

1. I accept he is a genuinely qualified person which I can respect, and won't correct him on any details of evolutionary theory.

2. I will accept perhaps some of his evidence and argument.

 

I also accept a lot of things the theory of evolution argues. I accept natural selection, mutations, gene flow, changes in allele frequencies, beneficial mutations, adaptation (micro evolution), genetic drift, possibly exaptation for some instances, my goodness, there is actually a LOT I would agree with, what I wouldn't agree with is his final conclusion that we all stem from a monophyletic trunk, on a phylogenetic tree. (one single ancestor), and that all kinds of animals and plant life are related on that tree of life.

 

(a good example of a beneficial mutation, is the heterozygous allele for sickled cells, in helping to cure malaria, which I regard as an example of a beneficial mutation. Also there is the anti-freeze fish. Those true facts are impressive, certainly some change can be shown. I would not pretend otherwise.)

 

So is it fair, if I can accept maybe 75% of what the expert says, to portray it in this fashion? I think your argument makes out I reject the whole of the studies of the evolutionary scientists, over generations, when creationists would accept PARTS of evolution but not the WHOLE. 

 

Beware the fallacy of composition - just because individual parts of a plane cannot fly, doesn't mean the plane as a whole cannot fly. With evolution it's the opposite, the parts fly but the WHOLE doesn't fly. ;) Ultimately even an evolutionary scientist doesn't have a PHD in truth

Whoo made it through!

 

I see now where you are coming from. I think in the end it comes down to what you believe God actually did. If you interpret the bible in a way that contradicts current science then I think that's that. My point was that I don't have the knowledge to look into fields that are not my expertise to even say "well I agree with 75% of the theory of relativity but not sure about 25%" That doesn't make sense to me. UNLESS you substitute God as your expert witness. In which case there really isn't any explanation on heaven or earth that could convince you otherwise, though I suppose this depends on how strong your faith is. I would caution on this though. The bible is being interpreted by man. Has been interpreted incorrectly plenty of times in the past. But honestly if you aren't hurting anybody who am I to say what is the right way to read the bible? I only have issues when people use the bible to impose restrictions on other people. 

 

I think I will avoid getting into details about evolution but needless to say I agree with some of the points you made about mutations but disagree with your overall conclusion. Though I'm curious, do you feel your interpretation of the bible is "the truth" and what makes it more truth than my interpretation. And if there can be many interpretations of the bible how can we even know if there is a truth in the bible that is actually definable? 



#24 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 04:34 PM

Gallup polls over the last 30 years show that's exactly how a substantial majority of evolutionists see it.

 

 

mh7klzb21ue_tb0a1h_86q.png

Thanks for the poll! But, piasan, wow....the percentage that believe humans were created in present form is alarmingly high in the US. Out of curiosity I looked at any data from other countries. This is data from 2006 on the public acceptance of evolution in other countries...we beat out Turkey! Yay!

country.jpg?w=670&h=608



#25 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 04:58 PM

 Welcome to the forum. I think you will be able to tell more about what is taught in the courses you attended. 
 

I think one mustn't confuse scientific disciplines with specific paradigms that do exist within scientific disciplines. One also mustn't confuse scientific speculation with operational or empirical science that has been established on centuries of inductive experimentation and deductive reasoning.

 

Evolution is pushed politically with an agenda. Of course there maybe other ideas pushed in that way. But you can't deal with all issues at the same time. 

 

Concerning your analogy with the Doctor:

1. I rarely see one, mostly only for compulsory check-ups. Fortunately I'm blessed with good health and when I feel sick, it usually goes away after a view days.  

2. When consulting with a doctor I ask them to explain problem and procedure to me, since I want to understand what is happening and what he's doing. I mean, I also pay for this. 

3. Medical Doctors are legally accountable for what they are doing. That means, if something goes wrong, they may have to pay for this. Evolutionists can tell any story they want. It doesn't matter, if it's true or false. They will not be legally accountable for this. The worst thing that can happen to them is that they get shun by their colleagues, get difficulties finding positions, won't get tenure or funding. So they have a motive to tell things that won't offend the decision makers in that terrain. 

4. Medicines and medical procedures are intelligently designed based on empirical findings, scientific law and years of experimentation and experience. That's far safer and reliable then conjecture of just so stories. 

 

Point three and point four from above apply to geotechnical engineers as well. Again there is liability and physics applied to empirical findings.  
 

 

 

Eloquence doesn't replace reproducible proof. There is also a lot of formally trained dissidents from the evolutionary paradigm. For me logical analysis of the arguments and deconstructing evolutionary thought is enough. I have some formal education in that field. But my personal preference is to study and investigate things my self and on my own. Rather use ingenuity and creativity to solve problems. That's sometimes more difficult, but keeps the brain going. 

 

Hi MarKForbes,

 

Thanks for the welcome!

 

I don't quite agree that evolution has a political agenda. In my opinion it is an established scientific discipline. Don't really think age of the decipline matters too much, but  tt is nearly 2 centuries old. There are far newer fields of science that are just as credible as well. There is empirical evidence of evolution. I really don't want to get bogged down in arguing the evidence because I feel like both sides have done it to death. I don't think it really gets us anywhere. 

 

Thank you for your responses to my analogy.

1. Glad to hear you are in good health!

2. I think asking an explanation is definitely a good thing. The more you understand the better. However I think you would agree that most patients with cancer do not understand the intricacies of the chemo they are getting, which can be quite deadly if handled improperly. They have to trust the expertise of the oncologist. 

3. All scientists are accountable. When you publish a paper your names goes on that paper. Your title, your institution, your career. You put everything on the table. If you falsify data, cheat...then that's it. Your livelihood is lost. And this does happen. So I disagree. Research scientists, just as engineers and doctors, are accountable. 

4. I think we have to just agree to disagree on the empiric evidence. 

 

I completely agree about self learning and self study. I didn't mean to come off as if a degree is the gold standard in measuring someone's intelligence or something. But I do think that if you are going to refute the experts in a field then you do need training in that field. That's especially the case if you are trying to refute something that is overwhelming accepted.



#26 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 865 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 07:47 PM

Hi Blitzking,

 

Sorry I should have been more clear, but I didn't actually realize there was a difference being perceived between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution. I was giving general examples of science that seem to be accepted by posters here (an assumption on my part) but evolution is singled out. Evolution does in fact conform to the empirical Scientific Method. I have formally studied it, I'd imagine a lot of "pro-evolution" posters on this board have studied it. If you have not, you should since it seems you have strong opinions about it. If you haven't then quite frankly, in my opinion, you do not have enough knowledge to actually stand on to debate the subject (but of course you have the right to do so). I want to be clear, I'm all for self learning and self education. However the internet can be a very polarizing place. There is so much misinformation on here that it can make you believe pretty much anything depending on your source. Going back to my previous example...who are you going to trust, a doctor who learned stuff on the internet or one that went to medical school. If you are trusting someone to build a house for your family, are you going to trust the guy that learned it on the internet or the contractor that's been building houses for the last 20 years? How do you know what parts of these science even have empirical or observational evidence. Furthermore if you have cancer and 90% of the oncologists tell you "hey you really need this chemo or you will likely die in the next year" but 10% of the doctors tell you "hey you know you are feeling fine, no need for chemo....i mean it's common sense...if you were going to die in a year you would feel something right now". Who would you trust? I'd hope the 90%. Even though you may feel well you would trust the science and the experts in the field. I think the same goes for evolutionary biology, or any other science. You should trust the consensus of the experts, unless you have the training, knowledge, evidence to stand against it.

 

I don't agree with you that evolution has "zero to do with science" and the vast majority of experts in that very field/related fields would disagree with you. I am not going to go into details. I've read a lot of amazing posts that are from way more knowledgeable people than me on this board so I don't think there is any understanding to be gained by rehashing old arguments. I was just curious why there is such strong opinions on bible vs. evolutionary science when I never really felt that the two were mutually exclusive. It's almost like the whole church vs. Galileo thing and in the end it was clear that the bible was just fine with earth not being the center of the universe. I think the bible is just fine with evolution as well.

 

Thanks for your response! 

 

 

 

Hi Goku,

 

Thanks for the welcome. I see, I didn't really look into the other sub-forums but now I see your point. Will def take a look at baraminology, never heard of it until now.

 

By the way, amazing posts. Very articulate. Learned quite a bit from them!

Hello Tassadar.

 

You mentioned,

 

"Sorry I should have been more clear, but I didn't actually realize there was a difference being perceived between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution."

 

Yeah, society has indeed been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing that variation and adaptation are somehow evidence for Mindless MYO Mud to Man "Evolution" simply by labeling Variation or Adaptation with the clever little phrase "Micro" Evolution because it contains the word "evolution" so it is extrapolated to mean that therefore a Frog can turn into a Prince WITHOUT a kiss from the princess... All that little frog needs is Time....  I am sure the title of this website is not lost on you.. :yoda:

 

"Evolution does in fact conform to the empirical Scientific Method."

 

Again, please Clarify what you mean with that duplicitous, ambivalent and purposely vague term "Evolution"

Do you mean Finches beak sizes, Bear coat thickness, Canine variation, Moth colors, Etc??

 

OR

 

Are you talking about the Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all of the flora and fauna on planet Earth?

 

BECAUSE,

 

If you are talking about the Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all of the flora and fauna on planet Earth, This statement of yours is 100% FALSE ""Evolution does in fact conform to the empirical Scientific Method."

 

You seem well studied and fairly intelligent so I don't think it is necessary to lay out the requirements of the Empirical Scientific Method to you as it would seem insulting..

 

"I think the bible is just fine with evolution as well."

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, But you would have to call Jesus a liar or Ignorant concerning the Creation..

 

"I don't agree with you that evolution has "zero to do with science" and the vast majority of experts in that very field/related fields would disagree with you."

 

Well if that is the case, it should be very easy for you to do what NO ONE has done before..

Simply provide some Empirical Scientific Evidence to support your hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO mud to Man!!

 

" There is so much misinformation on here that it can make you believe pretty much anything depending on your source."

YES!! You are making my case.. and indeed THAT IS WHY the Empirical Scientific Method was Established!!! It was in order

to stop snake oil salesman and agenda driven con artists from promoting THEIR particular paradigms for self aggrandizement..

 

"How do you know what parts of these science even have empirical or observational evidence. Furthermore if you have cancer and 90% of the oncologists tell you "hey you really need this chemo or you will likely die in the next year" but 10% of the doctors tell you "hey you know you are feeling fine, no need for chemo....I mean it's common sense...if you were going to die in a year you would feel something right now". Who would you trust? I'd hope the 90%."

 

You (Again) are making a false equivalency between Empirical Science (What is KNOWN or what we KNOW) and OPINIONS of humans... Maybe this Testimony before congress made by someone they called to give his input on the subject can help clear things up for you a little..

 

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

 

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

 

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]

 

 

“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#27 Tassadar

Tassadar

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • California

Posted 28 August 2016 - 11:05 PM

Again, please Clarify what you mean with that duplicitous, ambivalent and purposely vague term "Evolution"
Do you mean Finches beak sizes, Bear coat thickness, Canine variation, Moth colors, Etc??
 
OR
 
Are you talking about the Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all of the flora and fauna on planet Earth?

 
It is one in the same. The distinction is made in science simply for scale. It is all part of the same theory. For example we can think of gravitational forces in our solar system vs. the gravitational forces of the entire galaxy. Same concept, just larger scales. I do believe we evolved from simple amino acids. As do the vast majority of biologists. You can put in whatever distinctions you like, it does not affect the science.

 

 

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, But you would have to call Jesus a liar or Ignorant concerning the Creation..

 

So your point is that your religion is right and mine is wrong? I mean to a certain degree I suppose we all believe our religion is right. But I do not dictate what other people should or should not believe about the bible. The fact that there are so many different sects is a testament to both how profound our religious text is and to how very interpretable it is. 

 

 

Well if that is the case, it should be very easy for you to do what NO ONE has done before..

Simply provide some Empirical Scientific Evidence to support your hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO mud to Man!!

 

There is no point in arguing this. It will just go in circles. I think my original point still stands. What makes you think you know better than the vast majority of experts in the field? What you think God meant in Genesis is your interpretation of it. It is not evidence against Evolution which is not a religious subject. 

 

 

You (Again) are making a false equivalency between Empirical Science (What is KNOWN or what we KNOW) and OPINIONS of humans... Maybe this Testimony before congress made by someone they called to give his input on the subject can help clear things up for you a little..

 

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

 

No offense my friend but you have a severe misunderstanding of how science works. I guess consensus is a tricky word. It can be good or bad. However in general consensus is how we progress. For example, prior to the general acceptance of germ theory people thought diseases were transmitted through "bad air", which as you could imagine probably had some evidence to it. However overtime the evidence mounted that it was actually more likely particles that we could not see. Believe it or not washing your hands between surgeries wasn't even a thing until germ theory came into prominence. Now we are taught in class rooms about bacteria. Most of us will never even see bacteria with our own eyes. But we accept it as truth because there is a scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is brought on by evidence. But their was a transition period where not everyone accepted germ theory, simply because the evidence was not compelling enough yet. Consensus may builds slowly and sometimes consensus is wrong. The scientific method and peer review (though it certainly isn't perfect) is the single greatest engine to build consensus in a rigorous manner. We can share ideas and critique each others views. Together we reach the more accurate explanation. It may not explain everything but it gets us moving in the right direction. So if creationists have so much evidence I suggest they get publishing. However the opposite is happening. Evolution has gained so much evidence that it is now the predominant theory "life", taught in every high school along side math, physics and chemistry. 



#28 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 28 August 2016 - 11:49 PM

 It is one in the same. The distinction is made in science simply for scale. It is all part of the same theory. For example we can think of gravitational forces in our solar system vs. the gravitational forces of the entire galaxy. Same concept, just larger scales. I do believe we evolved from simple amino acids. As do the vast majority of biologists. You can put in whatever distinctions you like, it does not affect the science.

Careful here. According to the forum rules you are not allowed to equivocate "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution".



#29 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 August 2016 - 02:13 AM

....
3. All scientists are accountable. When you publish a paper your names goes on that paper. Your title, your institution, your career. You put everything on the table. If you falsify data, cheat...then that's it. Your livelihood is lost. And this does happen. So I disagree. Research scientists, just as engineers and doctors, are accountable. 
4. I think we have to just agree to disagree on the empiric evidence. 
....

Careful. The issue at hand isn't the data but the interpretation thereof. 
If a doctor or professional interprets the data wrongly, and makes a decision on it. That can lead to the immediate death or harm to people. And he will be liable for that. With a scientist that just publishes paper it's different.
 

Thanks for the poll! But, piasan, wow....the percentage that believe humans were created in present form is alarmingly high in the US. Out of curiosity I looked at any data from other countries. This is data from 2006 on the public acceptance of evolution in other countries...we beat out Turkey! Yay!

That present form statement can be easily misunderstood.

Biblical Creationists won't believe that the presently living humans were actually created. Adam and Eve were created, the rest is descendants of them, hence a reproduction. Meaning: we were made by our fathers with our mothers.  That is a seemingly small, but still very important statement, since it is sin that came in between and that changed the human form also over generations. One may notice e.g. that the age range did changed after the flood, for example. And that change would have implication i.e. on growth and development of the individual. 

 

 It's also important what the exact wording is of the question. 

 

country.jpg?w=670&h=608

 

 

Interesting that the Scandinavian countries top the results. They got almost cradle to grave state care, for which they got taxed over the top as well. Of course that also means that they're exposed to state propaganda round the clock. They're states have never been that repressive as for instance the Communist states were. The people in Communist countries, that made believe in Evolution part of their state ideology, are less credulous to what they're told, since they're used to be lied to by state media and educators. But of course they may also think that it's "just science" and not some speculative philosophy that influence the interpretation of data. 

 

Many Americans are also suspicious on what comes from the state. And there is more private initiative concerning education and social associations. I'm not that sure on how Turkey works, but I guess there are other limitations since it was until recently a rather poor country. 
We got another thread here, there it's shown that children tend to chose an involvement of intelligence in origins; Based of course on intuition and common sense. 



#30 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 August 2016 - 03:35 AM

 

 

 Tassadar: Though I'm curious, do you feel your interpretation of the bible is "the truth" and what makes it more truth than my interpretation. And if there can be many interpretations of the bible how can we even know if there is a truth in the bible that is actually definable? 

 

I can agree that in some Kircumstances, the bible can be interpreted. But sometimes the meaning is pretty overt. I think to read Genesis and come away with a picture that God was not even there when the universe was created when it states that He was a direct Special Creator of a Special creation, seems a stretch too far. For example, when God said He made man in God's image, can we entertain the notion that this means the universe created itself by big-bang accident and mud led to man, and God was at a far distance. It seems highly misleading if this is what the bible meant. 

 

I suppose you could argue that Moses and his men wouldn't have understood scientific detail so God gave the meaning in a different way.

 

For me personally, I don't believe in a creation just because of Genesis. I would say that belief is predicated upon the fact that I see a creation. The creation itself is mind-boggling, but because it is mundane or, "every day", we tend to overlook it. I myself try to do a base-study in anatomy, of various species and to my mind they just can't have evolved.

 

For example the Archer fish shoots a jet of water from it's mouth and the jet has to create a parabolic trajectory to compensate for the difference between a jet through water, and air. It has to have the software to calculate the difference. The force of the jet has to get stronger nearer the end of the jet, which is called kinematic gathering. This is because the prey, to be knocked off it's perch, has to have a force stronger than the force holding it there. 

 

When I study these things, I have to ask the question Darwin asked of his theory, in so many words he said that if there is one species that could be found which could not have evolved this would falsify evolution. Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists don't even ask themselves if species X could have conceivably evolved. It would seem a much more realistic conclusion, that the Archer fish was created, not just because of what I explained about it, but also because it's body contains all of the features and elements of intelligent design;

 

- specified complexity

- irreducible complexity

- information

- correct materials

- contingency planning

- goals and sub-goals

- energy efficiency

- directed energy

- immense information storage density

- aesthetics and symmetry

 

Conclusion: There are many reasons I believe life requires an omniscient designer God. It's not all about the bible, because if I am 100% honest, I am not all that sure about what genesis means anymore. But I think what it must mean whatever the factor of interpretation, is that God created life. Now if He done it how Hugh Ross said He done it, so be it, or if He done it how Ken Ham said he done it, so be it, but to my mind there is a creation, and had to be a creative act. While I am not sure about the fine details of Genesis, I am sure about the aerodynamics of a butterfly. :)

http://creation.com/...fly-flutters-by

 

 

 

Tassadar: t. My point was that I don't have the knowledge to look into fields that are not my expertise to even say "well I agree with 75% of the theory of relativity but not sure about 25%" That doesn't make sense to me

 

Yet you seem to admit that you haven't studied intelligent design, is that fair to say? That is very common. People who are taught evolution are told intelligent design is religion and that animals only "appear to be designed". Those two things are usually about as far as evolutionist get, in thinking about intelligent design, because the scientific community does not acknowledge intelligent design.

 

Obviously I can't explain intelligent design in this thread, but basically intelligent design is found in life, and if logical rules are to be obeyed, then intelligent design must count as evidence of intelligent design otherwise intelligent-design arguers, have been dogmatically and metaphorically HANDCUFFED.

 

Think about it - if evidence of intelligent design is all of those features I listed and evolutionists say we can't say that is evidence of design, then what evidence would we expect to see if life was intelligently designed? You're a smart guy, so have a think about my point.  

 

Also consider the point that intelligent design has been proven to be a result of intelligent designers, inductively, into the hundreds of millions but evolution hasn't proven anything, it is merely conjectured that evolution could create intelligent design, posteriori. (after the fact) Yet we see intelligent designers every day, cause intelligent design. So it truly is absurd to say that intelligent design is not evidence of intelligent design or an intelligent designer. What else could we expect to find if life is designed? If evolutionists don't allow us to qualify the evidence that would usually be regarded as evidence of design then what can we do, are our hands not tied? For the only option left logically would be to say, "therefore as evidence of design we would expect there to be NO design in this lifeform".

 

So evolutionists would argue that we can't say design is evidence of design, and obviously "not design" can't be evidence of design so....QUESTION; what can we say is evidence of design, if we can qualify neither? God's signature in a ball point pen? ;)



#31 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 August 2016 - 05:43 AM

Tassadar, I also wrote this a couple of years back, so as to deal with the creationist-stereotyping that exists;

 

http://creationworld...-rejection.html



#32 River Jordan

River Jordan

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Inland Northwest

Posted 29 August 2016 - 11:49 AM

what I wouldn't agree with is his final conclusion that we all stem from a monophyletic trunk, on a phylogenetic tree. (one single ancestor), and that all kinds of animals and plant life are related on that tree of life.

 

 

I haven't been here in quite a while, but I stopped by, saw this, and it piqued my interest.

 

So Mike goes to a presentation given by an evolutionary biologist and at the end he doesn't agree with universal common ancestry.  My question is....so what?  Unless Mike goes on to give a counter presentation, write a rebuttal paper in a prominent journal, or engages the relevant scientific community in some other way, his objection is meaningless (in a scientific sense).  No evolutionary biologist knows of Mike's stance or the reasons behind it, and when Mike dies his objection dies with him, while at the same time the field of evolutionary biology continues on as before.

 

The last time I was here I posted a flier for a national conference in evolutionary biology and asked if any of the creationists here who believe they have a real, genuinely scientific case against evolutionary theory would attend and possibly even present their arguments.  We all know how that went....a series of excuses and hand-waving and not one creationist went.

 

I guess that's what baffles me more than anything about creationists on internet forums.  They come across as soooooo confident that they can single-handedly take down evolutionary theory from a purely scientific standpoint, yet not one of them ever takes it beyond anonymous posts on obscure internet boards.  Why?

 

From my POV it comes across as overcompensating bluster.  



#33 River Jordan

River Jordan

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Inland Northwest

Posted 29 August 2016 - 12:04 PM

Thanks for the poll! But, piasan, wow....the percentage that believe humans were created in present form is alarmingly high in the US. Out of curiosity I looked at any data from other countries. This is data from 2006 on the public acceptance of evolution in other countries...we beat out Turkey! Yay!
country.jpg?w=670&h=608


The Miller et al. paper that figure comes from (CLICK HERE pdf) found that the two primary factors that explain the low acceptance of evolution in the US are fundamentalist Christianity and how the Republican Party has made anti-evolution part of their political agenda.  They also found an inverse relationship between education in genetics and denial of evolution.

 

But the good news is that this appears to be on the wane.  Recent surveys show millennials' acceptance of evolution (either with or without God) is around 73%.  So unless there's some game-changer on the horizon, it won't be long before the US is more in line with the rest of the developed world.



#34 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 August 2016 - 12:24 PM

I haven't been here in quite a while, but I stopped by, saw this, and it piqued my interest.
 
So Mike goes to a presentation given by an evolutionary biologist and at the end he doesn't agree with universal common ancestry.  My question is....so what?  Unless Mike goes on to give a counter presentation, write a rebuttal paper in a prominent journal, or engages the relevant scientific community in some other way, his objection is meaningless (in a scientific sense).  No evolutionary biologist knows of Mike's stance or the reasons behind it, and when Mike dies his objection dies with him, while at the same time the field of evolutionary biology continues on as before.

 I'm also not sure whether I follow what Mike says there. It's a big vague.
 
  

The last time I was here I posted a flier for a national conference in evolutionary biology and asked if any of the creationists here who believe they have a real, genuinely scientific case against evolutionary theory would attend and possibly even present their arguments.  We all know how that went....a series of excuses and hand-waving and not one creationist went.

Didn't know about this (or rather didn't recall this). Are you sure, they would have given, let's say approximately One hour time, to an "Evolution Denier"?  

 

I guess that's what baffles me more than anything about creationists on internet forums.  They come across as soooooo confident that they can single-handedly take down evolutionary theory from a purely scientific standpoint, yet not one of them ever takes it beyond anonymous posts on obscure internet boards.  Why?
 
From my POV it comes across as overcompensating bluster.

And why would they have to. There is more expenses involved attending a conference then having an internet debate. Not all off us can travel the world on a taxpayer/ state institutional ticket, where others got to pay the expenses. I disagree with quite a lot of things peddled as "fact", still I don't attend those conferences that may be available. 

 

Besides that. If it really would be worth the effort. Those academic dudes should already be aware of the arguments AGAINST Matter-to-Man-Evolution. They've been given since the rise of Darwinism. I recently posted some objections to it:
https://archive.org/...rieschDarwinism
If they really are that curious, objective and educated, they actually should be aware of the objections against and problems of Darwinian Evolution plus they should deal with them like grown ups. Still they choose fallacious counter arguments and sticking to the paradigm. That illustrates that we're not dealing with science here, but some sort of postmodern religion, ideology, if you like. It's like with the Emperors new Clothes. As long as the alpha's in the community admire them and there is no major dissent from the followers, they continue to admire them. It's a humane way of doing things. 

 

But lets stick to the forum. Could you present the arguments against Evolution in a fair and honest way? I'm asking since you seem to have been on the forum for more then two years. 

 

 

 



 



#35 River Jordan

River Jordan

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Inland Northwest

Posted 29 August 2016 - 02:49 PM

Are you sure, they would have given, let's say approximately One hour time, to an "Evolution Denier"?

 

I don't know, since no one bothered to try. 

 

And why would they have to. There is more expenses involved attending a conference then having an internet debate. Not all off us can travel the world on a taxpayer/ state institutional ticket, where others got to pay the expenses. I disagree with quite a lot of things peddled as "fact", still I don't attend those conferences that may be available. 

 

 

So not one creationist who thinks they can overturn evolutionary theory can afford to attend any scientific conference?  That's rather convenient.

 

Besides that. If it really would be worth the effort. Those academic dudes should already be aware of the arguments AGAINST Matter-to-Man-Evolution. They've been given since the rise of Darwinism.

 

 

So these arguments have been around for over 150 years.  What effect have they had on how the biological sciences are conducted?

 

If they really are that curious, objective and educated, they actually should be aware of the objections against and problems of Darwinian Evolution

 

 

You're expecting evolutionary biologists to spend time looking around internet forums for objections to evolutionary theory, but have no expectations that creationists should spend time presenting their arguments to evolutionary biologists?

 

Isn't that a textbook example of a double standard?

 

plus they should deal with them like grown ups. Still they choose fallacious counter arguments and sticking to the paradigm.

 

 

I'm confused.  Now you seem to be saying that evolutionary biologists are aware of these 150 year old arguments.  

 

That illustrates that we're not dealing with science here, but some sort of postmodern religion, ideology, if you like. It's like with the Emperors new Clothes. As long as the alpha's in the community admire them and there is no major dissent from the followers, they continue to admire them. It's a humane way of doing things. 

 

 

Do you think the same of professional scientists in all fields, or is this sort of thing restricted to evolutionary biology?

 

But lets stick to the forum. Could you present the arguments against Evolution in a fair and honest way? I'm asking since you seem to have been on the forum for more then two years.

 

 

????????  You're asking me to present the arguments against evolutionary theory?  Why?  And to be clear, I haven't been here in about two years.  I joined, posted briefly, then left.



#36 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 August 2016 - 04:19 PM

Nice try, but it looks like a silly game to me. 

What do you have on this forum? Mostly working people, perhaps 20 people that are Creationists/Critical of Evolution. Most of us are probably working people. And now finding out that nobody of them attended this specific conference becomes the basis for a meaningful argument, I don't think so. 

 

I recall having head a conversation with a university teacher (not tenured then) on dating methods like the carbon14 test. I was pre-university age then, and I guess he realized that. So instead of listening to my argument, his response was in the line of: "Are you an expert?" Meaning: do you have a (5year) degree in that science. Being a bit inexperienced, I was baffled. Now I know how to counter that type of veiled response. E.g.:

 

"It's a nice rhetorical device, but is it a scientific argument you are making there?"  

 

Because it definitely isn't a response based Logic or on relevant testable evidence. It's a case of academic snobism revealing an arrogant attitude towards the people that actually enable him to have studied and now have an easy-going well paying job. It's also quite interesting that he used that argument, given that he tried to defend the ideas of someone who wasn't a trained biologist neither. At best Darwin was a failed medicine student with some hobbies relating to biology. 

 

Be it as it may. From what I take the Conference was despite the name mostly, if not completely irrelevant what is at question. Probably lots of uninteresting research papers on some pin pointed subject garnished with a bit of Evo-babble. What I'd be interested is more in the line of theoretical biology, philosophy of biology as a science etc. Yes we deal with some scientific facts. i.e. several laws of physics, mathematics and perhaps  chemistry. But in the end it's about the rationale that can be based on this. And their Darwinism fails the test quite miserably. Yes, there is "change over time", but in the wrong direction. To which they respond with all kind of sciency sounding, yet lame excuses. 

 

I was asking you to present the arguments against Darwinian Evolution to see whether you actually know them. Can you do that? Then please do so!



#37 River Jordan

River Jordan

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Inland Northwest

Posted 29 August 2016 - 04:51 PM

Mark,

 

Since you ignored just about everything I posted to you and instead responded with a bit of a monologue, I'll go ahead and do the same.

 

You and other creationists here are quite confident that you have genuine, valid, and completely scientific arguments that will overturn evolutionary theory and replace it with creationism.  We see this reflected in your last post ("And their Darwinism fails the test quite miserably").  If you are correct, the historical and scientific importance of this cannot be overstated.  For pretty much the last century +, every scientific organization around the world that has weighed in on the issue has unequivocally supported evolution and declared creationism to be religious and non-scientific.  During this same time pretty much every accredited university has taught evolution rather than creationism and has expected incoming freshmen to have a basic understanding of evolutionary theory.  Not one requires any foreknowledge of creationism. 

 

So the state of the "debate" from a scientific perspective is quite clear and has been for a very long time.....evolutionary biology is long-standing and well-established science, while creationism is (again from a scientific perspective) irrelevant.  Now many here chalk this up to conspiracy, indoctrination, enforced orthodoxy, "snobism", etc., but those explanations have one thing in common.....they acknowledge the current state of the "debate" as I described (it's what they seek to explain).

 

Thus, if your claims about having a scientific case that overthrows evolutionary theory are true, it would be the single most important scientific paradigm shift in the history of the natural sciences, and possibly in all the sciences, ever!  I mean, this isn't a minor "turns out this fossil is 15 million years old instead of 10 million years old" adjustment.  This is "almost everything we thought we knew about biology is wrong".

 

Yet none of you can manage to do what Darwin and Wallace did some 150 years ago....present your ideas and arguments to the scientific community.  And your reasons?  It's too expensive.  The scientists would be mean.  We'd never be allowed in anyways.  And so on.

 

I hope you appreciate just how ridiculous that looks.  In effect you're all saying "I could single-handedly change the biological sciences forever in an historically unprecedented way, but I won't because it's not worth doing".  All I can say to that is, yeah right.

 

And finally, I wonder if you appreciate something else at play here.  From what I've seen here, most of these arguments that you folks feel are so devastating to evolutionary biology are copied from creationist organizations like AiG, ICR, Creation.com, and the Discovery Institute.  So if the arguments are actually theirs, why aren't they presenting them to the scientific community?  Lack of money and/or time is no excuse.  They seem to have plenty of funds....certainly enough to bankroll a few trips to some conferences.  So why don't they go?



#38 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 865 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 August 2016 - 09:38 PM

 
It is one in the same. The distinction is made in science simply for scale. It is all part of the same theory. For example we can think of gravitational forces in our solar system vs. the gravitational forces of the entire galaxy. Same concept, just larger scales. I do believe we evolved from simple amino acids. As do the vast majority of biologists. You can put in whatever distinctions you like, it does not affect the science.

 

 

So your point is that your religion is right and mine is wrong? I mean to a certain degree I suppose we all believe our religion is right. But I do not dictate what other people should or should not believe about the bible. The fact that there are so many different sects is a testament to both how profound our religious text is and to how very interpretable it is. 

 

 

There is no point in arguing this. It will just go in circles. I think my original point still stands. What makes you think you know better than the vast majority of experts in the field? What you think God meant in Genesis is your interpretation of it. It is not evidence against Evolution which is not a religious subject. 

 

 

No offense my friend but you have a severe misunderstanding of how science works. I guess consensus is a tricky word. It can be good or bad. However in general consensus is how we progress. For example, prior to the general acceptance of germ theory people thought diseases were transmitted through "bad air", which as you could imagine probably had some evidence to it. However overtime the evidence mounted that it was actually more likely particles that we could not see. Believe it or not washing your hands between surgeries wasn't even a thing until germ theory came into prominence. Now we are taught in class rooms about bacteria. Most of us will never even see bacteria with our own eyes. But we accept it as truth because there is a scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is brought on by evidence. But their was a transition period where not everyone accepted germ theory, simply because the evidence was not compelling enough yet. Consensus may builds slowly and sometimes consensus is wrong. The scientific method and peer review (though it certainly isn't perfect) is the single greatest engine to build consensus in a rigorous manner. We can share ideas and critique each others views. Together we reach the more accurate explanation. It may not explain everything but it gets us moving in the right direction. So if creationists have so much evidence I suggest they get publishing. However the opposite is happening. Evolution has gained so much evidence that it is now the predominant theory "life", taught in every high school along side math, physics and chemistry. 

 

" No offense my friend but you have a severe misunderstanding of how science works"

 

Hmm.. I sense Criterion's Rule starting to kick in... He must be a Prophet...

 

You sir, don't know me from Adam yet you feel like you can make baseless accusations about me

merely because I don't believe that I am an accidental Ape that evolved from a Worm like you do..

 

So, if I don't believe Opinions, Polls, Wishful speculations and Hopeful assumptions that means

that "I have a severe misunderstanding how science works??"

 

You have it BACKWARDS, I know FULLY WELL how "Science Works"  The question I must now as

is... DO YOU??

 

I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain to you how Science ACTUALLY DOES WORK, but I can see

I was wrong..  In order to evaluate Science (What we KNOW or What is KNOWN) The EMPIRICAL Scientific

Method must be utilized (Otherwise we can hardly say we "KNOW" something now can we!)

 

Here, it is real Simple..

 

The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation.

 

 

Notice the key words Observation and Experiment..

 

Now, please tell us how you hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO mud to Man can TESTED using OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT Without a TIME MACHINE!!!!!

 

Now, if you want to change the Meaning of Science OR invent another word to satisfy your Emotional attachment

to the Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor

for all, Go ahead,  We can even use Latin words if it makes you feel better.. We can say

 

AESTIMO      what we Guess..

COGITARE    what we Think

UT SPERO    What we Hope

 

But if you are going to sit there and tell this whole audience and all of the lurkers on here that Science (What is KNOWN) is determined by majority rules

or what most Scientists SAY that they believe or ANY OTHER process that ESCHEWS the Empirical Scientific Method you are barking up the wrong

tree because there are way too many smart people here INCLUDING REAL SCIENTISTS that WONT buy the fallacy that you are selling..

 

Sorry to have to tell you Mr Tassadar, you have been Brainwashed and Indoctrinated (Indeed the whole society has) into believing that Abiogenesis / Darwinism has anything to do with the truth,,,

 

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

 

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

 

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins



#39 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 August 2016 - 07:23 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Rover Jordan: My question is....so what?  Unless Mike goes on to give a counter presentation, write a rebuttal paper in a prominent journal, or engages the relevant scientific community in some other way, his objection is meaningless (in a scientific sense). 

 

First of all, you have misunderstood the context of the question in how it was asked to me. A none-arrogant person, asked me out of interest, why he thought I would, from his perspective, single out evolution and say it is false.

 

I gave an explanation as to why the law of the excluded middle does not apply if two proposals are not mutually exclusive.

 

What I was trying to explain was a fairly tricky bit of logic. Basically the theory of evolution can be scientifically correct in it's parts without it's conclusion being true, because science doesn't deal with truth, or dogmatic statements about proof. So then, I can accept what an evolutionary-scientist says, accept that he has thought it through properly, but still argue that his conclusion that all life stemmed from a common ancestor, is a non-sequitur. I can take the very same facts and explain them without having to invoke millions of missing transitionals. (but an actual scientist would never argue such a thing anyway, because he also has a higher level of knowledge about science, and how it works, that it is not dogma, nor a matter of proof).

 

But unlike you, a truly qualified evolutionary scientist KNOWS that he isn't arguing what you are arguing as an amateur evolutionist. Real scientists know they can't affirm-the-consequent because it breaks logical rules. Real scientists are not claiming that evolution is a proven dogma. What they actually argue is that it is the best scientific explanation of the facts that they have. Rejecting that explanation because you don't think it is true, has nothing whatsoever to do with faulting the evolution-theory, as that is a separate issue of weighing up what you believe is actually true personally, which has nothing to do with science. 

 

So basically your argument depends on the logical error of CONFLATION. You are conflating the scientific veracity of evolution, (which I do not question) with it's overal truth-value. (whether it did actually happen).

 

There is nothing in the science, and no axiom that states that evolution must be accepted as 100% truth. My argument is that I don't accept evolution is true, on a personal level, you have mistakenly jumped to a false conclusion that I am arguing I can falsify evolution's hypothetics.

 

I never made that claim. I am saying I don't believe macro evolution happened, there are many sound reasons why I don't, and those reasons don't state anything about evolution theory. So take your strawman and stick it where the sun don't shine.

:acigar:

 

 

Jordan:  No evolutionary biologist knows of Mike's stance or the reasons behind it, and when Mike dies his objection dies with him, while at the same time the field of evolutionary biology continues on as before.

 

So all that matters to you as a Christian (I assume you are one), is what happens in the temporary realm? I guess you missed bible-study when it said this; "for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal".

 

At least PRETEND you believe the bible, by FEIGNING interest in the kingdom of God.  :rotfl3: 

 

 

 

 

Jordan: The last time I was here I posted a flier for a national conference in evolutionary biology and asked if any of the creationists here who believe they have a real, genuinely scientific case against evolutionary theory would attend and possibly even present their arguments.  We all know how that went....a series of excuses and hand-waving and not one creationist went.

 

Am I supposed to take this seriously, as some kind of argument against me? Hitler also killed Jews before I was born, is it my fault because I wasn't there to stop it? Good grief, Bilbo my lad.

 

 

 

Jordan: I guess that's what baffles me more than anything about creationists on internet forums.  They come across as soooooo confident that they can single-handedly take down evolutionary theory from a purely scientific standpoint, yet not one of them ever takes it beyond anonymous posts on obscure internet boards.  Why?

 

Your proposal is a ridiculous red-herring, by definition (semantics) they do not accept creationist literature as they class it as pseudo-science, so how could I refute evolution in some kind of scientific arena or scientific journal created by evolutionists? Think about it, even if I gave a world-class argument, they would simply handwave it away by saying false things about my argument such as all of the usual rhetoric; EXAMPLE; "the guy doesn't understand science, his argument is a misunderstanding of the facts, an uneducated nitwit".

 

All of the TRUE examples of ad-hominem bluff and "bluster".

 

 

Jordan: From my POV it comes across as overcompensating bluster.

 

 Come back in another five years when you can do more than just shout at people for not accepting evolution.

 

 Accept that we will always have genuine reasons to believe it is silly to believe butterflies and trees and people randomly came from slime. Those reasons are sound logical reasons, that say nothing of evolution theory, so how can your accusation be true if my reasons for believing God miraculously designed the creation are not even predicated on anything to do with evolution-theory?

 

Hahahaha! get out of that one with your rhetorical, half-witt sophistry why don't ya? :P (that's the price of trying to stand toe-to-toe with mikey Kirk, his brains aren't going to exit stage left just because you know how to say things in a LOUD voice). Good grief, where do these guys come from? Kindergarten?

 

  :acigar:



#40 River Jordan

River Jordan

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Inland Northwest

Posted 30 August 2016 - 09:50 AM

Basically the theory of evolution can be scientifically correct in it's parts without it's conclusion being true, because science doesn't deal with truth, or dogmatic statements about proof. So then, I can accept what an evolutionary-scientist says, accept that he has thought it through properly, but still argue that his conclusion that all life stemmed from a common ancestor, is a non-sequitur.

 

And my point is, no evolutionary scientist will ever be aware of your claims or arguments.  They will remain as they always have been.....scientifically irrelevant.

 

Real scientists are not claiming that evolution is a proven dogma.

 

 

I never said anything like that.  Rather, I noted that evolutionary biology is long-standing and well-established science as evidenced by its status within the life sciences over the last 150 years or so.  And nothing that you post here will change that.

 

What they actually argue is that it is the best scientific explanation of the facts that they have. Rejecting that explanation because you don't think it is true, has nothing whatsoever to do with faulting the evolution-theory, as that is a separate issue of weighing up what you believe is actually true personally, which has nothing to do with science.

 

 

Ah, so your rejection of the conclusions of evolutionary biologists is a personal issue rather than a scientific one.  Thanks for clarifying.

 

I never made that claim. I am saying I don't believe macro evolution happened, there are many sound reasons why I don't, and those reasons don't state anything about evolution theory. So take your strawman and stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

 

Now I remember why I stopped posting here.  Thanks for your time.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: evolution, science, theory, creation, bible

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users