Jump to content


Photo

A Challenge To Evolutionists.


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#21 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 20 December 2010 - 08:11 AM

As far as i know the answer is almost always truth

And we do weight our own evidence the same way as yours.
Its simply a question of "can you prove it". Now some times this is direct proof, some times its circumstantial.

Now i know you think you are providing this, but so far i haven't seen any. In my experience its either claims that can't be verified or misinterpreting certain observations. I know you'll disagree with me here, but since where not discussing any particular claim of evidence i'll stick to this general statement for now

View Post


Can you give us a scientific definition of truth that would be accepted by science around the world?

#22 tube

tube

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Breda, Netherlands

Posted 20 December 2010 - 08:40 AM

Can you give us a scientific definition of truth that would be accepted by science around the world?

View Post

well truth might not be the best word for it but any claim supported bye the scientific method will be accepted as such. The more conclusive the results the more you can say something is the "truth"
  • Prototypical likes this

#23 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 21 December 2010 - 12:49 PM

well truth might not be the best word for it but any claim supported bye the scientific method will be accepted as such. The more conclusive the results the more you can say something is the "truth"

View Post


Okay, using that logic. Let's say you claim that what you have as evidence makes what I have a lie today. Tomorrow your evidence gets changed for better evidence. How do you determine who was the liar if one sides evidence is constantly changing?

You see real truth never changes.

Also, how do you define "proving" something that can change? If it were truly proven, it could not change. Does "real proof" change? Or is it best guesses that change until real proof is arrived at?

The logic I see concerning evolution is that the "goalpost" of truth, and proof are never definite therefore can always be moved. So the person who believes in it and debates it never really has to commit to any part of it as being real in any sense of the word. In this way the person who believes can always "look" right regardless of how their belief changes. Which gives them the: "I'm always right" attitude which in turn gives them a god complex of being know it all's while everyone else whom disagrees is a ........

#24 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 December 2010 - 01:36 PM

The logic I see concerning evolution is that the "goalpost" of truth, and proof are never definite therefore can always be moved. So the person who believes in it and debates it never really has to commit to any part of it as being real in any sense of the word. In this way the person who believes can always "look" right regardless of how their belief changes.

View Post

Yes. I can think of so many times that evos say that evolution is fact, the truth, a theory (which is proven)...

then turn around and say that science and therefore evolution deals with theories not facts that aren't really proven because they are falsifiable...

and that evolution is not a religion for the very reason that science does not claim to prove anything or find the truth.

Round and round we go.

#25 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 22 December 2010 - 12:05 AM

Here is the perfect example of conformism:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4002

#26 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 22 December 2010 - 04:54 AM

Here is the perfect example of conformism:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4002

View Post


Politics is universal. The research by creationists is just beginning though, and it has a nice head of steam. Enough to cause attention anyway. While ID and creationism may never be mainstream, I believe they will make their point with more evidence and scientists in the future.

God always has a witness, though he may not be heard by everyone.

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 December 2010 - 05:32 AM

Here is the perfect example of conformism:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4002

View Post

Politics is universal. The research by creationists is just beginning though, and it has a nice head of steam. Enough to cause attention anyway. While ID and creationism may never be mainstream, I believe they will make their point with more evidence and scientists in the future.

God always has a witness, though he may not be heard by everyone.

View Post


Can anyone say "Expelled"! :huh:

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

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

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:38 AM

Agressive evangelical tactics, (evolutionist, Mormon, Islamic, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu etc) are also a form of conforming others.

I prefer the passive approach, whereby one waits for people to come. Luckily in Australia I have not seen much of the aggressive evangelical tactics, except by evolutionists my University.

#29 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 December 2010 - 06:56 AM

Agressive evangelical tactics, (evolutionist, Mormon, Islamic, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu etc) are also a form of conforming others.

I prefer the passive approach, whereby one waits for people to come. Luckily in Australia I have not seen much of the aggressive evangelical tactics, except by evolutionists my University.

View Post


Indeed. But, I hope you don't (and really don't think you do) consider refuting others attempts of agression AS agression (i.e. Christian Apologetics etc...).

#30 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 22 December 2010 - 07:10 AM

Jesus did not teach his disciples to wait for people to come.

#31 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 22 December 2010 - 01:39 PM

Jesus did not teach his disciples to wait for people to come.

View Post


Yep. We're supposed to share our faith and if people don't want it? Shake the dust from our shoes and move forward.

Faith is not meant to be kept in the dark, but rather lived and allowed to shine before others. One should not feel ashamed of having faith in God, or keeping it under wraps for fear of "annoying" others, but so often many of us do! I'm no exception.

I feel the best way of sharing ones faith is living the faith and being a witness to it. Gently sharing it, particularly if the person seems open to hearing.

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

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

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 23 December 2010 - 01:22 PM

Indeed. But, I hope you don't (and really don't think you do) consider refuting others attempts of agression AS agression (i.e. Christian Apologetics etc...).

View Post


Refuting something that is wrong is ok in my eyes, though, (like in all things), there are various ways of doing it :)

What I meant were the people who try and force the point about Religion. My preference is to share the word when someone is willing to listen, rather than force it down... (like what my evolutionist lectuers attempted to do).

I hold these tenets in support of my belief.

"a man changed against his will, is of the same opinion still"

Or

"you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

Back when I was a fully fledged Christian, I admit I was an agressive evangelical person. However I realised that it forces people away rather than invites them in.


@ Bex. Exactly, you have hit the nail on the head :)

#33 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 23 December 2010 - 04:52 PM

Refuting something that is wrong is ok in my eyes, though, (like in all things), there are various ways of doing it :)

What I meant were the people who try and force the point about Religion. My preference is to share the word when someone is willing to listen, rather than force it down... (like what my evolutionist lectuers attempted to do).

I hold these tenets in support of my belief.

"a man changed against his will, is of the same opinion still"

Or

"you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

Back when I was a fully fledged Christian, I admit I was an agressive evangelical person. However I realised that it forces people away rather than invites them in.
@ Bex. Exactly, you have hit the nail on the head :)

View Post


Thanks Gilbo. Yes, I know what you mean. :)

The bible does describe what effects preaching the word can have on people.

http://www.bibletool...ymbolism-of.htm

Sometimes a seed can indeed be planted, but the person may not respond at the time, but that seed may lie "dormant" so to speak and come to fruition later. Sometimes it can happen quickly, the person responds, but when trials come, their faith is tested, they may just as quickly fall away. And some of course, the seed falls on stony ground and it's basically like hitting a brick wall.

There are some who come to the faith, may fall away, and then later return.

I had a faith in Christ during my childhood, but had no real conversion. I had a friend at 14 who had a very religious Mother (Reborn Christian), who was very dogmatic and at times, I found it a bit off-putting. Certainly, it did not pull me towards becoming baptised, as she was attempting to do. I believed, but had no real intention of becoming baptised at that time and her pushiness was met with basic resistant and even some indifference from me at that time.

But who knows? A seed may well have planted by a well intentioned (though rather dogmatic Christian woman) without me being aware at that time. Later at the age of 24, I became baptised, but there was quite a few years of different life experiences and even spiritual things occuring that also may have been a part of that process. So it's possible God had been trying to reach me all those years, even through imperfect people who meant well, but my heart was evidentally not ready at that time to hear the truth. I had much to go through I guess and still do. I'm definitely far from a mature Christian, but one that tends to be swayed too much by feelings/emotions and experiences.

I believe that the experiences we go through in life, even if we fall away from the faith, is God always trying to reach us and bring us back to Himself. In even the bad things, He's there and can bring good out of them. Sometimes going so far as to almost break something in order to put it back together.

:) I'll get off my soap box now.

#34 Hytegia

Hytegia

    Troll

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 19
  • New Age
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Honolulu, Hawaii

Posted 03 February 2011 - 03:48 AM

Prove that evolution is not about conformism.

Conformism: Conformism is a term used to describe the suspension of an individual's self-determined actions or opinions in favour of obedience to the mandates or conventions of one's peer-group, or deference to the imposed norms of a supervening authority.


This is my first post on this forum - so I tend on treading lightly. But I would like to have a go at this.

Evolution is a Law based upon Biology, a branch of science that studies Life (Literally: Bio = Life ; -ology = study). We know this because the Genome carries mutations to the next generation (microevolution). Evolutionary theory is a conclusion based upon a vast majority of studies, and the evidence produced by them (Macroevolution).
Science is a tool - a method we use to take evidence, examine it, and (through testing, logic, and bringing all the evidence together) we draw facts.
From what we draw from the evidence can show either a definite fact in nature (A Law), or make a model showing what the evidence currently shows us to explain patterns within the evidence (a Theory).

Taken this into fact - that Science is a tool, and that Evolution is simply a conclusion we have drawn based upon our human minds and the current evidence we have (a Theory), Evolution is just another result of the Scientific Method.

I can assure you that conclusions are not about Conformity.
New evidence is being brought in every day from every source you can think of about any scientific fact or any idea you can imagine! Not only evidence involving the topic of Evolution, but also the theory of Relativity, atomic theory, and so on and so forth.
The wonder about science is that it takes ALL of the evidence into account, and if something extraordinary comes along the entire Scientific World can be turned upside-down and have scientists talking for CENTURIES. How can an idea be about conformity when the whole idea can be turned upside down in the blink of an eye?

Now, some people who accept the Evolutionary Theory may want you to think like they do without a second thought - and give you a hard time about it. But that is just how people are anyhow. If you went to High School you would know that people always pressured you into things, regardless.
But that's been around since teenagers existed.

The conclusion:
Evolutionary Theory is simply a statement. A result of what Earthly scientists have drawn based upon patterns in the evidence presented. It cannot hold a grudge. It cannot ask for you to conform. It is simply an idea.
Some people who accept the Evolutionary Theory may expect you to accept it also, so they will try to pressure you into it. Like a good deal many other things in life that have nothing to do with the Evolutionary Theory.

#35 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 February 2011 - 04:31 AM

Evolution is a Law based upon Biology,

View Post

You should have treaded much lighter... Evolution is NOT a law.

#36 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

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

Posted 03 February 2011 - 05:55 AM

Evolutionary theory is a conclusion based upon a vast majority of studies, and the evidence produced by them (Macroevolution).


What evidence proves macro-evolution?

#37 Hytegia

Hytegia

    Troll

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 19
  • New Age
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Honolulu, Hawaii

Posted 03 February 2011 - 08:45 AM

You should have treaded much lighter... Evolution is NOT a law.

View Post

I would like to ask if you read my post. Even in your forum rules, it is admitted that you would accept Microevolution. Note that in my initial post, quoted by you, said specifically:
"Evolution is a Law based upon Biology, -"
Biological Evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable. (reference)
The Theory of Evolution is that this has been going on for a very, very, very long time and is not bound to Biology, but also into Archaeology, and other branches of science.


What evidence proves macro-evolution?

View Post


That wasn't the question I was answering. The post was about whether Evolution = Conformity. My counter was that Evolution =/= Conformity since it is just an idea - that People = Conformity.
People are pressed into conformity all the time, about plenty of things other than Evolution.

#38 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 February 2011 - 09:02 AM

I would like to ask if you read my post. Even in your forum rules, it is admitted that you would accept Microevolution. Note that in my initial post, quoted by you, said specifically:
"Evolution is a Law based upon Biology, -"
Biological Evolution is defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. These changes may be small or large, noticeable or not so noticeable. (reference)

View Post


I did read your post, and corrected your first mistake…
You said:

Evolution is a Law based upon Biology,

View Post

Which is a falsehood.
I stated the actual fact:

You should have treaded much lighter... Evolution is NOT a law.

View Post

You need to do further research into what a scientific “Law” is, and what is not. And when you do, you can come back and we’ll further discuss your faux pas if you’d like.

#39 Hytegia

Hytegia

    Troll

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 19
  • New Age
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Honolulu, Hawaii

Posted 03 February 2011 - 10:01 AM

You need to do further research into what a scientific “Law” is, and what is not. And when you do, you can come back and we’ll further discuss your faux pas if you’d like.

View Post


With all due respect - there's a reason Microevolution has that "-evolution" at the end of it. Observed changes in the Genome lead into Speciation - and that is exactly the definition of Biological Evolution. It is an observable fact. A Law.
Which is the explenation I just gave you above?
Biological Evolution is a proven fact. It is a Law. We can observe Evolution on the small scale. It is the driving force behind speciation.
The Theory of Evolution is based upon a variety of sciences. Not just Biology. It stakes the claim that the diversity of life came about over long stretches of time through microevolution over billions of years. This is not to say that microevolution is evidence of macroevolution, but merely sports that the same mechanisms that drive macroevolution drive microevolution.

But this has nothing to do with my initial post, and this thread seems to have derailed slightly. -_-

#40 dmwessel

dmwessel

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Alberta, Canada

Posted 08 February 2011 - 10:06 AM

well truth might not be the best word for it but any claim supported bye the scientific method will be accepted as such. The more conclusive the results the more you can say something is the "truth"

View Post



Yes but Bibically-speaking, how is truth 'defined'!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users