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

#41 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 August 2016 - 10:12 AM

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.

....

I guess the real reason is you not wanting to respond to this:
 

 

 

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!

But that's just  due to my impression, when you dodged the question the first time. 

 

Why don't you deal with that first and ask me to do the same with the Arguments pro Darwinian Evolution right after that? 

 

That's at least how I would do it. 



#42 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 August 2016 - 10:53 AM

 

 

RiverJordan: 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.

 

What does the highlighted part even mean? If there was a theory you were divorced from your wife and the theory was mathematical, I could state that because certain people don't believe the reasons were mathematical that what their claims will only ever be regarded as is mathematically irrelevant.

 

What does it matter, if the matter is not ultimately mathematical? LOL! (Therein lies the fallacy in your reasoning.) (you see, I can do this all day)

 

"No......you cannot get away" - Khan. :P

 

The real question is, why should we grant your assumption that a creation can only be explained scientifically, when usually a creation would be explained as being caused by a Creator? It is the begging-the-question fallacy, that you assume God's creation can only be understood scientifically.

 

If I were to ask you; "what if you found out from God, that evolution didn't happen, when you died?", what would you say to Him? "That's scientifically irrelevant!"

 

No, what would happen is He would say, "your scientific theory is irrelevant, because it didn't happen, I created the world, it can only exist by my wisdom".

 

 

 

 RiverJordan: 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.

 

 

I know but logically speaking I am afraid it would not matter if it had been established for 4,000 years. If it didn't happen, then it didn't happen, no appeal to science can change that. All you have here is argumentum ad verecundiam. You have elephant-hurled "150 years" at me, even though I have expressly and distinctly and blatantly stated that I would accept the large portion of that 150 years worth of work would have credence even if it did not allow the non-sequitur that, "evolution is therefore true".

 

That isn't how science works.

 

"If evolution is true then there would be 150 years of work and plenty of evidence.

There is 150 years of established thought and evidence therefore evolution is true."

 

INCORRECT; Affirmation of the consequent, fallacy.

 

If evolution is false and did not happen, a trillion scientists might well live to accept it, and nothing they post in their literature, will change that the cause of a giraffe was not evolution.   :acigar:

 

Think about it. If you got in a time-machine and found out God created life, what would you then think of these arguments you use? Would it matter if 4 billion people called me "bald" if I had hair? :crazyguy: 

 

 

 

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

 

That's to twist my words. Is it my fault it is too hard for you to understand? We don't live in a simple world. It is not as simple as you want to portray it to be, as some sort of false dichotomy.

 

See the way you have changed the original argument so that now it is that I "reject the conclusions". You've changed the goal-posts. If I only reject the conclusions of an evolutionary scientist, that does not mean I reject all of his work and all of his comments, reasonings, and inferences. We might probably agree with the scientific parts of his views, but disagree about our personal conclusions as to what that scientific evidence actually means.

 

 

And that's a totally scientific attitude, it happens all the time, very few scientists would insist that a theory should be held up as some sort of proof. 

 

Also, scientists do have a belief everything can be explained scientifically but just because they provide scientific explanations doesn't mean their assumption is right. If their assumption is wrong, that skews all of the data.

 

EXAMPLE of how a false assumption can lead to something false;

 

We assume only three people are on an island. One person is murdered, Bob and Lisa are left alive, Bob has a watertight argument as to why he could not have done the crime, ergo Lisa is guilty.

 

This argument is true as long as the premises are correct, but if in fact there were four people on the island, the assumption there were only three, has skewed and thwarted the whole argument like a fly in ointment.

 

Absolutely the same when people assume a natural process could create intelligently designed things. There is no reason to believe in such a contradiction. There is also no proof that everything can be explained scientifically just because scientific explanations have been provided. I can also provide mathematical explanations for why people divorce if I use all of my cleverness and imagination to make a plausible mathematical explanation.

 

 



#43 River Jordan

River Jordan

    Banned

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

Posted 30 August 2016 - 11:22 AM

Mark,

 

I didn't respond to that part because it has nothing to do with the point I was making in this thread, and I've found that discussing science with fundamentalist creationists is as much a waste of time as discussing beer brewing techniques with a fundamentalist Muslim.



#44 River Jordan

River Jordan

    Banned

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

Posted 30 August 2016 - 11:42 AM

Mike,

 

I think you've lost track of the point I've been making in this thread.  I specifically noted the status of evolutionary theory in the sciences over the last 150 years in order to set the context of this "debate" and the claims of some of the creationists in this forum.  To reiterate, evolutionary theory (including universal common ancestry) is accepted and seen as established science within the life sciences, and has been for over a century.  Some of the creationists here seem to think that they have a valid, purely scientific argument that would change that.

 

My point is, if that is true, why aren't they presenting their arguments to the scientific community?  As I showed in the old thread I linked to, the answer involves a lot of excuses and hand-waving, which means all these grandiose claims are nothing but empty bluster.  Some day this forum will cease to exist and everything that's ever been written on it will be gone forever, and meanwhile the science of evolutionary biology will continue on as before.

 

That's what I mean by the creationist arguments and grandiose claims being "scientifically irrelevant".  Since they are never presented to the scientific community, they have absolutely no effect on science.  They are irrelevant to how the life sciences are carried out.



#45 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 30 August 2016 - 12:06 PM

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!

 

A basic understanding of baraminology is necessary in order to truly grasp the modern creationist paradigm. You will find that most creationists in this day and age that debate this stuff accept speciation and even the 'evolution' of new genera depending on the specific case, and while biologists classify those things as macro evolution creationists consider it micro evolution.

 

If we take the evolutionary tree of life we want to place all extant species (certainly all eukaryotes at the very least even under the most conservative view) on the same tree indicating that all life has a common ancestor. Modern creationists still use the tree of life, only instead of one tree of life there is an orchard of many separate and distinct trees. Each tree represents a "kind" and is known as a "holobaramin" in baraminology, and any and all speciation within a given tree is considered "micro evolution". As a general rule of thumb, at least with vertebrates, each "kind" is roughly equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family - the human species is the obvious exception where only our species is on the human 'tree' (ignoring neanderthals etc. at the moment; in my experience most creationists consider neanderthals the same species as us). So you will find that most creationists believe dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes all descended from a single common ancestor, but bears are a separate kind and have no ancestral link with dogs as each are within two separate holobaramins.

 

Working with the orchard paradigm of creationism macro evolution would be defined (in a historical sense) as evolution that would link two or more trees within the orchard. So, theoretically, if you can show that dogs and bears have a common ancestor you would have demonstrated macro evolution under the modern creationist paradigm in the sense that you are showing that two distinct kinds/holobaramins of animals are related evolutionarily. I'm sure the creationists would protest, saying that such a demonstration would not verify the big bang theory, formation of the solar system, abiogenesis, and the long string of evolutionary descent from prokaryotes to humans which is all umbrellaed into macro evolution, but you have to start somewhere.

 

It's been a few years since I read this article, but as I recall it is the quintessential introduction to baraminology that goes a little more in-depth than what you would find at creationist websites geared for the general public: http://www.creationr...araminology.htm 

 

Anyone familiar with cladistics should notice many analogues between the various baraminology terms and those used in cladistics.


  • mike the wiz and Tassadar like this

#46 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 August 2016 - 02:52 PM

 

 

 Jordan: Some day this forum will cease to exist and everything that's ever been written on it will be gone forever, and meanwhile the science of evolutionary biology will continue on as before.

 

No, someday all people will cease to exist, and their excuses and pitiful mud-to-man myth, the false reason they give so as to pretend there isn't a creation under their nose each day, also

 

Evolution isn't eternal friend, the God you allege you believe in and His kingdom, are. Perhaps you should start worshipping God instead of science, and putting what He said about His creation, first?

 

:P

 

 

Psalm 94; He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

 

Job 39: 13 Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?

 

Answer - who gave the peacock wings? where does it say "evolution" gave them wings? Who formed the eye? God says He done it, but you say evolution done it. Who planted the ear? If these things were left to chance, and the ear invented itself, why does God say this?

 

 Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?

 

Answer the question. Does the hawk fly by your wisdom? Does it fly by evolution's wisdom, a process that randomly created it, that has no capacity for wisdom? Oh, but that's right, you and Darwin know better than the God Who made you.

 

Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him

 

Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth? Where was Darwin?

 

Man's wisdom is foolishness. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men". You believe everything we see, from trees, butterflies, birds and people, invented themselves. Is that not foolishness? I can't think of anything more foolish.

 

(Tomorrow I shall write a topic called, "why evolution can be falsified easily". You can show it to every evolutionist on the planet for all I care, or none. Not one of them can change the fact that the reasons I give can't be thwarted. You have never heard those reasons before, nor have you learnt them, nor have they. Nor can they pretend that I am somehow wrong, no matter the rhetoric they use, and personal attacks they attempt, in order to squirm out of it. If you want to hear those irrefutable arguments, read, "why evolution can be falsified easily" in the EvC section. You see, your mistake is you think that truth is what humans say it is, and you think we would fret because evolutionists would not accept our arguments. Not at all, truth will be truth, it doesn't depend on majority opinion, we know what we stand for and where we are going, we care what God thinks, we are not man-pleasers.)



#47 River Jordan

River Jordan

    Banned

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

Posted 30 August 2016 - 03:29 PM

Mike (sticking to the topic at hand),

 

 

Tomorrow I shall write a topic called, "why evolution can be falsified easily". You can show it to every evolutionist on the planet for all I care, or none. Not one of them can change the fact that the reasons I give can't be thwarted. You have never heard those reasons before, nor have you learnt them, nor have they. Nor can they pretend that I am somehow wrong, no matter the rhetoric they use, and personal attacks they attempt, in order to squirm out of it. If you want to hear those irrefutable arguments, read, "why evolution can be falsified easily" in the EvC section. 

 

 

That's the kind of extremely confident rhetoric I've been talking about.  If you truly, honestly feel your arguments falsifying evolution "can't be thwarted" and are "irrefutable", why are you posting them anonymously on an obscure internet message board?  Why aren't you taking them to the scientific community, either via a presentation at a conference or a manuscript to a prominent journal?



#48 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 August 2016 - 03:52 PM

 

 

Jordan: That's the kind of extremely confident rhetoric I've been talking about.  If you truly, honestly feel your arguments falsifying evolution "can't be thwarted" and are "irrefutable", why are you posting them anonymously on an obscure internet message board?  Why aren't you taking them to the scientific community, either via a presentation at a conference or a manuscript to a prominent journal?

 

Because that would be an immensely obtuse course of action, given what I know about human-nature.

 

My answer is, because I am smart. That is my answer. Do you think I could ever persuade the scientific community to accept any of what I said? Ironically, doing what you request I do would only achieve one thing, do you know what that thing is; it would give the appearance that my arguments are false. That is what such an action would achieve, because it would be akin to shouting this in the street;

 

"can somebody come and stamp all over my arguments please, say false things about them, commit a bunch of fallacies and make me look like a crackpot that can't add two and two?"

 

Why would I do that? That would be like putting my nuts in a rat-trap.

 

We exist as apologists to tell people that evolution is not the truth, to let them know there is an alternative view you can have which is sound. Not to convince the proud, puffed up men-of-the-world, that have deliberately tried to get rid of God, to accept what we say, for there is less of a chance of that happening than there is of waking up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet.


  • Blitzking likes this

#49 River Jordan

River Jordan

    Banned

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

Posted 30 August 2016 - 04:31 PM

So you're scared.

 

Understood.  Thanks for your honesty.



#50 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 30 August 2016 - 05:11 PM

My answer is, because I am smart. That is my answer. Do you think I could ever persuade the scientific community to accept any of what I said? Ironically, doing what you request I do would only achieve one thing, do you know what that thing is; it would give the appearance that my arguments are false.

 

Sorry for butting in, but it would actually give the opposite appearance. By taking your argument to peer review it demonstrates that you believe your argument is robust enough to withstand the crucible of scientific evaluation at the highest level.

 

While I disagree with Jordan's rhetoric of asking people on the forum itself to go to conferences (for reasons stated by Mark Forbes), Jordan makes an extremely potent observation that the professional creationists (some even have legitimate scientific degrees at the graduate and post-graduate level) simply do not take their science, logic, and reason to the professional sphere of conferences and peer review.

 

If you truly believe that you have a great foolproof argument against evolution you should be working on a paper or something to submit to peer review, and perhaps contacting these professional creationists like Kurt Wise and Todd Wood to help you formulate an appropriate paper for peer review if you need help in that department.

 

You will probably say it is a waste of time because they would never listen to you or actually read your arguments, but even if they rejected your paper you can create a maelstrom in the press. In terms of scientific news it wouldn't get much bigger than the scientific community rejecting such a paper simply because it goes against the status quo (although it may have to wait for the Russian paper on the radio signal from space to die down in the media lol). With the right press it would, in a short amount of time, be seen by many people including scientists if for no other reason than curiosity. Simply put it is the best way for creationists to say they believe they have the scientific evidence on their side.


  • Tassadar likes this

#51 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 August 2016 - 09:36 PM

Congratulations on your achievement of your medical degree. It was a hard long Intellectual battle. Statistics say that 50% of those going into the medical field burnout halfway through.

You've been given the daunting task of working on the most complicated mechanism, for want of a better term, in the known universe--the human mind body configuration.

I'm sorry to say your profession has one of the highest suicide rates. My prayers are with you. Doctors don't always succeed in helping their patient get better.

There are plenty of things that exist that no one would give pretense that evolution could evolve. And yet these things exist. Give a gander around the room you're in. Is there anything in the hospital where you work that evolved? The MRI machine? Did it evolve?. The x-ray machine you depend on. Did it evolve? The lights that you use in the OR. Did they evolve? What about the dialysis machine? All these things and numerous others are ID'd.

My take is slightly different than some of my fellows here. I'm coming from a psychology background. One question I would like answered Is why you and some of the others that come here are so down on intelligence? Why you do you think it's so limited in what you think it can be used to do? We have a space station circling the globe. We went to the moon? It took intelligence to do all this thing. It took intelligence to get a medical degree.

Put it this way. If you want something that does not exist how are you going to bring it into existence? Is it possible that you could not use your intelligence to figure out a way to bring it into existence? Could you cause anything to evolve?

There is nothing any of us can do without using our intelligence. How silly would it be to try? Darwin was intelligent. So was Roddenberry. Both for fiction writers.

The nature of belief is that we can hold our beliefs with a rigid ironclad grip.

Without intelligence, you would not be here discussing Evo with us. All the things that you depend on in the medical field are ID'd.




 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#52 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 August 2016 - 10:23 PM

I think it might be a good idea to remember that though scientists can describe how evolution happened they are not able to make one transitional in a laboratory. I'd be very wary of believing someone that can describe what they can't do.

The writers of Star Trek describe how the Enterprise can travel through space at warp speeeds but, achiemennt of such speeds are totally hypothetical. Evo's? Where is the beef?


















 



#53 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 31 August 2016 - 02:27 AM

So you're scared.

 

Understood.  Thanks for your honesty.

please don't


  • mike the wiz likes this

#54 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 August 2016 - 03:03 AM

Goku, I think you have to trace back the posts in this thread to understand that I never made any claim that I have a scientific theory of creation. I am being baited to submit something to scientific review.

 

I think you've conflated an attempt to rebut evolution-theory, with a creation theory. As a creationist I have always argued (and I mean always, if you look back at my posts) that creation is apologetics/Christian belief. Of course I do believe eclectically, we can  use scientific facts, certainly the closest thing to "science" would be the flood-model but to my mind the problem is there is too much supernatural involvement.

 

From my perspective, the goal isn't to get evolution out and creation in. My argument is that you can't explain a creation scientifically. There should be no theory of life's origins because life cannot originate naturally, or rather you can believe it as a philosophy. 

 

 

 

Goku: Jordan makes an extremely potent observation that the professional creationists (some even have legitimate scientific degrees at the graduate and post-graduate level) simply do not take their science, logic, and reason to the professional sphere of conferences and peer review.

 

That is for the reasons I have stated. Creation scientists such as those at CMI do create peer-review level papers called, "Journal of creation", and they do that because of all of the problems with secularist peer review. Evolutionists submit their papers to evolutionist peer review and creation scientists have chosen to do the same as it is impossible to get an objective evaluation. You should know that by now, here is a link explaining the problems;

 

 

 

CMI: We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, ‘If creation is scientific, then why don’t you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals?’ Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail.

http://creation.com/...and-peer-review

 

Really we have been over this before, peer-review is not the objective process you think it is. This is an old canard. 



#55 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 31 August 2016 - 06:25 AM

Tassadar,

 

Remember when you were in school and the teacher taught you to reduce it to its lowest common denominator? Let's go bottom line. What do you I and everybody on this planet have in common? Answer: We are all intelligent. Furthermore, most of us admit that we don't know everything--our mind is a finite source of information.

I don't know any lower that we can go (other than being dead) than accepting our innate intelligence and creativity. Everything we do starts with intelligence. It's the whole herd of elephants in the room. Can you "think" of one thing we can do without it? Let me know.

As far as a scientific theory of creativity as Mike the Wiz pointed out there is none. Creativity is the beginning of anything. Creativity is defined as the ability to bring something into existence that never existed before. Creativity is the proclivity of intelligent creative beings. That's its origin.
By definition creative acts are miracles--anomalies. Now you don't see it and then you do. For example, there was no personal computer in the 1800s. They arrived rather abruptly. They Were created. Now they're all over the place. Like me, you are a creator. You do not have say in the matter. All you have to do is to accept that or pretend you're not one. Please believe that I'm not going to accept that you're not a creator like me.

The bottom line "is" intelligence and creativity"! That's it!

The last I remember according to Goiku I am on his ignore list because I am so stupid. But, how would I accept that I was stupid and not know everything unless I was intelligent enough to know that I don't know everything? Silly me I must be intelligent enough to come out of the rain and feed myself for the last 60 something years? I don't agree that I'm totally stupid. Goku has not gotten the Nobel prize for inventing a replacement for the kidney. So I suppose he would probably agree that he was stupid in that area. We share stupidity. Now I'm not stupid enough to believe that I or anybody knows everything. And I'm not gonna claim that anyone on this site is totally stupid.

Darwin wanted a "theory" that could account for the plants and animals without intelligence. His fatal flaw was that he was intelligent. LOL
Intelligence and creativity is the first cause for everything we know. :)



#56 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 31 August 2016 - 06:39 AM

Goku, I think you have to trace back the posts in this thread to understand that I never made any claim that I have a scientific theory of creation. I am being baited to submit something to scientific review.

 

I think you've conflated an attempt to rebut evolution-theory, with a creation theory. As a creationist I have always argued (and I mean always, if you look back at my posts) that creation is apologetics/Christian belief. Of course I do believe eclectically, we can  use scientific facts, certainly the closest thing to "science" would be the flood-model but to my mind the problem is there is too much supernatural involvement.

 

From my perspective, the goal isn't to get evolution out and creation in. My argument is that you can't explain a creation scientifically. There should be no theory of life's origins because life cannot originate naturally, or rather you can believe it as a philosophy. 

 

 

That is for the reasons I have stated. Creation scientists such as those at CMI do create peer-review level papers called, "Journal of creation", and they do that because of all of the problems with secularist peer review. Evolutionists submit their papers to evolutionist peer review and creation scientists have chosen to do the same as it is impossible to get an objective evaluation. You should know that by now, here is a link explaining the problems;

 

http://creation.com/...and-peer-review

 

Really we have been over this before, peer-review is not the objective process you think it is. This is an old canard. 

 

I do think it is very telling that creationism as a whole, not you specifically, avoids taking their arguments to secular academia. Recall that for generations creationism has called itself "scientific" in various ways from "creation science" to "Intelligent Design" being their 'scientific' theory of biology.

 

The reality is you don't have to demonstrate creationism per se, just that ToE is hopelessly flawed.

 

I understand that peer review is not perfect, and often new ideas have a hard time getting accepted, but the truth is every major theory in science started out on the periphery and had to go through the crucible of peer review before being accepted, including evolution. If history is any guide then if creationism has any real substance to it the scientific community will yield.
 

I'm short on time so I'll just end by saying that creating your own journals instead of trying to incorporate your research into the larger peer review system is a hallmark of pseudoscience. Flat Earth, homeopathy, and astrology all have their own journals too. While peer review is not perfect, it is by far the single most powerful tool/process we as a society have to evaluate academic claims, and refusal to participate in that system sends up red flags all over the place.



#57 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 162 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 31 August 2016 - 01:34 PM

Welcome Tassadar.

 

I am relatively new to this forum too. I understand that your background is in biology and medicine. Mine is in geology and paleontology. I don't always get time to respond to comments as I would like, but as we both have strong science backgrounds, perhaps I can illuminate some reasons why "evolution" is a hot topic to discuss.

 
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.

 

This was in response to Blitzking's comment asking if you were referring to natural selection or "The Mud to Man" Theory of evolution? Or the micro vs. macroevolution evolution question? 

 

I do agree with you that many, many people do see these concepts of evolution as only a matter of scale. However, as one who has continued to study into this topic, and changed my position, I would now have to say that this view point would be incorrect.

 

The difference is not one of scale, but one of how to accumulate genetic information. 

 

I look forward to discussing this topic with you in greater detail.



#58 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 September 2016 - 12:42 AM

Mark,

 

I didn't respond to that part because it has nothing to do with the point I was making in this thread, and I've found that discussing science with fundamentalist creationists is as much a waste of time as discussing beer brewing techniques with a fundamentalist Muslim.

 

Wow, Quite a loose comment from someone who believes that they are an accidental ape that evolved from a fish that evolved from a worm that evolved from nothing..

That IS what you believe isn't it?    Would you like to discuss some Science with me?  OK, lets start with YOU showing some Empirical Scientific Evidence to support your hypothetical hypothesis of mindless MYO mud to man myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all flora and fauna...

 

Remember... I want SCIENCE... Remember, No Circular Reasoning, Wishful Speculation, hopeful Assumptions or Baseless Assertions will be tolerated in this class Grasshopper...

 

Lets see what you got sport...  Remember..

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"..

Richard Dawkins



#59 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 September 2016 - 12:51 AM

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? 

 

"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."

 

You have made a good point there... "In the Beginning God created..." CONTRADICTS CURRECT SCIENCE which Has a LAW that has proven Abiogenesis to be IMPOSSIBLE..

 

Here is what "current Science" has shown us.... In the Beginning NOTHING created the Heavens and the Earth...

 

 

You can have Science" ( Although it is quite a misnomer to call what you believe "Science" (What is KNOWN) wouldn't you think?? :gigglesmile:



#60 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 September 2016 - 12:57 AM

Mike (sticking to the topic at hand),

 

 

That's the kind of extremely confident rhetoric I've been talking about.  If you truly, honestly feel your arguments falsifying evolution "can't be thwarted" and are "irrefutable", why are you posting them anonymously on an obscure internet message board?  Why aren't you taking them to the scientific community, either via a presentation at a conference or a manuscript to a prominent journal?

 

It has been my experience with "Theistic Evolutionists" that about 50% of them are Wolfs in sheep's clothing pretending to be Christians while they do the devils work of deceit and subterfuge, and the other 50% are merely Indoctrinated and Brainwashed Oval-Earthers that THINK they can combine the  Genesis account of the Bible with Satan's Fraudulent Lie of AbioDarwinism... Which one are you?







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

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users