Jump to content


Photo

Why Do Evolutists Persist?


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#121 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 29 June 2010 - 05:52 AM

There is empirical evidence despite the repeated creationist assertions that there is none.
I was actually using it as a stalking horse, to draw out the arguments against transitionals, and if we get past the obvious misrepresentations (such as 'it can't be a transitional because it is a bird') then we would be at a point where we can look in a more unbiased way at the evidence for other examples.

If I supplied my other example you would just say "but it is an insect" or "but it is a fish" or "but it is a reptile" or whatever group I was planning on examining.  Using Archaeoptryx as a stalking horse will give us the opportunity to deal with the question "if it is part of one taxonomic group, how can it also be a transitional?" which is the question creationists don't ask.

It was not intended to deceive, though, and I have presented Archaeoptryx. as evidence now.  If we get anywhere with that then I will proceed with others, but Archaeoptryx is instructive as it will, I hope, eventually lead to a discussion of the actual evidence.  That is the point I am aiming at.

Where were we?  Oh yes, you were telling me that it is a bird and I said that I knew.

View Post


Phil in my opinion you are correct that the fact that even though humans have classified Archeaoptryx as a bird, this doesn't necessarily mean that it is not a transitional fossil...

However as it stands I do not believe that just using Archeaoptryx is enough to actually prove it is a transitional...

Yes a transitional needs features of 2 different types of species and is the link between these species, however only having one organism doesn't fill the hole... In reality we "should" see lots of different intermediate fossils.

For example: one with a lizard with stumps signifying wings, then developed a bit more, then with a more bird like skeleton, then a bit more bird like then even more then archeaopteryx then birds :D

As you see there is a massive gap from lizards, (or dinosaurs) to birds in reference to the avian lung design, bone density and skeletal form, and the apperance of feathers..

Perhaps dinosaurs had feathers... (perhaps!??..lol).. However this doesn't solve anything as there would need transitional forms found that demonstrate how these dinosaurs evolved these feathers.. As far as I know, in terms of the fossil record, feathers just popped into existance <_<

As such until a line of decent can be found, with transitional fossils demonstrating all the small changes, (that evolution states occurs over millions of years), then there is no proof of transitional fossils, and is inference on what "could" have happened :huh:

Also thanks for the compliment before :D

#122 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 29 June 2010 - 06:19 AM

For example: one with a lizard with stumps signifying wings, then developed a bit more, then with a more bird like skeleton, then a bit more bird like then even more then archeaopteryx then birds :huh:

View Post


If you ponder about this then problems start to arise when evolution only occurs to bring about the species adaptivity for survival, via benefitial changes.. Hence we can ask the question what benefit does a "lizard" have for "evolving" wing stumps? <_<

#123 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 29 June 2010 - 06:48 AM

If you ponder about this then problems start to arise when evolution only occurs to bring about the species adaptivity for survival, via benefitial changes.. Hence we can ask the question what benefit does a "lizard" have for "evolving" wing stumps?  <_<

View Post


The most common answer to that question would be that it may have developed flaps that allowed it to glide around. But in speculating on that you only incur another problem, did this abilty evolve from the trees down or the trees up?

#124 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 29 June 2010 - 07:28 AM

The most common answer to that question would be that it may have developed flaps that allowed it to glide around. But in speculating on that you only incur another problem, did this abilty evolve from the trees down or the trees up?

View Post


Too.... many.... problems.... lol <_<

Well perhaps since the first flying organisms I have heard of were flying dinoaurs I would suggest they "evolved" from the ground... Since if they lived in trees the branches are more liable to tear their membraneous wings... (but this is just an opinion :huh: )

But this is all inference, and doesn't change the fact that we have no intermediate fossils that show all the steps in the development of wings.

EDIT: I also meant stumps, literally as stumps... Since evolution is a process of small changes over "millions" of years :D How can the first stumps be benefitial, (ie- before a membrane "evolved" to cover the stumps / when the stumps were to small to provide a gliding function)

#125 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 29 June 2010 - 08:01 AM

The most common answer to that question would be that it may have developed flaps that allowed it to glide around. But in speculating on that you only incur another problem, did this abilty evolve from the trees down or the trees up?

View Post


And you continually incur problem after problem with no empirical transitional evidences. There are no “nothing to flap” and “flap to wing” transitionals, just like there are no "fin to limb" transitionals. But, and I don’t mean this factiously, the only transitionals we find, is the speculation that is the foundation of said speculation.

#126 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 29 June 2010 - 10:17 AM

And you continually incur problem after problem with no empirical transitional evidences. There are no “nothing to flap” and “flap to wing” transitionals, just like there are no "fin to limb" transitionals. But, and I don’t mean this factiously, the only transitionals we find, is the speculation that is the foundation of said speculation.

View Post


Exactly my point Ron :D

There needs to be a line of decent, with many transitionals showing the process of evolution... Rather finding an organism that is similar and calling it transitional ;)

#127 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 30 June 2010 - 03:33 AM

And you continually incur problem after problem with no empirical transitional evidences. There are no “nothing to flap” and “flap to wing” transitionals, just like there are no "fin to limb" transitionals. But, and I don’t mean this factiously, the only transitionals we find, is the speculation that is the foundation of said speculation.

View Post


Agreed. I was only posting speculation.

#128 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 30 June 2010 - 03:46 AM

Exactly my point Ron :D

There needs to be a line of decent, with many transitionals showing the process of evolution... Rather finding an organism that is similar and calling it transitional ;)

View Post


I was just carrying it to the next logical step gilbo :D

#129 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 30 June 2010 - 03:47 AM

Agreed. I was only posting speculation.

View Post


I know photo, I was agreeing and expounding.

#130 taikoo

taikoo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • midwest

Posted 30 June 2010 - 12:27 PM

Hello I am new to this site. But I am not new to this debate.

From what I have seen in my few years of info gathering on this subject, (I am only 24 though..wink), is that for a "SCIENTIFIC" theory. Evolution has way too many holes and doubts and points of inference and not facts. I don't really see why they persist in calling it a theory, since it can be dis-proven via many conventional modern scientific ways...

Forgive me this is very simplified to keep this intro short.

1- Probablilty... (maths hates evolution)
2- Laws of Thermodynamics... (Physics hates evolution)
3- Chemical Creation of life... (it doesn't happen so Chemistry hates Evolution)
4- Mutations that do good???... (Biology hates evolution)
5- Defies Bible and other Religious Texts ( Religion hates evolution)
6- Has barely any evidence and cannot repeat experiments to prove itself....
(Science hates Evolution!!!)

There are many points I haven't included, and I will go into these points in depth later.

Thoughts anyone?

View Post



Id be interested in your thoughts. Why do YOU think scientists consider the ToE to be a valid theory?

#131 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 30 June 2010 - 01:59 PM

Id be interested in your thoughts.  Why do YOU think scientists consider the ToE to be a valid theory?

View Post


Now I can only guess about such things. As stating why someone or a group of people would do something lies within the realm of psycology which I am not familiar with. However I will indulge your question.

I think that people feel that the Evolution Hypothesis is valid due to....

1. Pride: We like to be the big-shots. Admitting to a God is admitting to something far greater than our own existance. Many people will deny this but if think about it, almost everybody wants to be remembered, everybody wants a legacy, everybody wants to be important.

2. Sin: I don't mean sin as in evil or anything like that, (I just used this word as it is shorter and more direct to the other title I was going to use). What I mean this is people turning away from God, (which is sin anyway). Alot of people don't like the "rules" of the religion... Some people just don't like religion and believing in evolution means that they have a guiltfree way to turn from their religion and from the creator.

As such if a person has faith in evolution then their worldview will determine the significance and flow of what the evidence "means"... I find it amusing that before Darwin the evidence was used to prove God... What has changed? Not the evidence, just peoples world-view ;)

One of these such occurances is in relation to fossil evidence. Both parties state that the fossils prove their side of the story. I personally am with the creationists on this, as each fossilised bone set found is an independant organism. We have (to date), NO transitional fossils at all, detailing the alleged "millions" of years that caused the slow process of evolution.

Yet evolutionists will state, ( I just had one telling me), that fossils are rare and we may not have found them yet... Well to that I can just say that with all the thousands (perhaps millions) of fossils found around the world, and not a single one is a transitional fossil it is a long stretch of anybodies imagination to believe that there can still be every single transitional form to be found..

May I ask, have you read the entirety of this thread, (as I noticed you quoted the first post)..

#132 taikoo

taikoo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • midwest

Posted 30 June 2010 - 02:22 PM

Now I can only guess about such things. As stating why someone or a group of people would do something lies within the realm of psycology which I am not familiar with. However I will indulge your question.

I think that people feel that the Evolution Hypothesis is valid due to....

1. Pride: We like to be the big-shots. Admitting to a God is admitting to something far greater than our own existance. Many people will deny this but if think about it, almost everybody wants to be remembered, everybody wants a legacy, everybody wants to be important.

2. Sin: I don't mean sin as in evil or anything like that, (I just used this word as it is shorter and more direct to the other title I was going to use). What I mean this is people turning away from God, (which is sin anyway). Alot of people don't like the "rules" of the religion... Some people just don't like religion and believing in evolution means that they have a guiltfree way to turn from their religion and from the creator.

As such if a person has faith in evolution then their worldview will determine the significance and flow of what the evidence "means"... I find it amusing that before Darwin the evidence was used to prove God... What has changed? Not the evidence, just peoples world-view ;)

One of these such occurances is in relation to fossil evidence. Both parties state that the fossils prove their side of the story. I personally am with the creationists on this, as each fossilised bone set found is an independant organism. We have (to date), NO transitional fossils at all, detailing the alleged "millions" of years that caused the slow process of evolution.

Yet evolutionists will state, ( I just had one telling me), that fossils are rare and we may not have found them yet... Well to that I can just say that with all the thousands (perhaps millions) of fossils found around the world, and not a single one is a transitional fossil it is a long stretch of anybodies imagination to believe that there can still be every single transitional form to be found..

May I ask, have you read the entirety of this thread, (as I noticed you quoted the first post)..

View Post




Thank you for your response!

Couple more questions...

To condense your response a bit, your opinion is that people accept the theory of evolution primarily for emotional reasons?

What do you mean by the "Evolution Hypothesis"? I am not aware of anything by that name. Do you mean the theory of evolution?

Why do you use the term "evolutionist"? Who are the people who make up that group?

Could you define for me what you mean by the word "faith"?

i am asking these because often enough i find that a misunderstanding or dispute simply turns out to be over different ideas of how to define a word.

One more. you said something about "both parties state that the fossils prove their side of the story"

Internet experts will say as they will of course, but I am unaware of any scientist ever speaking of something proving a theory.

Are you referring here to internet posters, or to actual statements by scientists?

Oh and in answer to your question, no i did not read the thread, i am just responding to your original post. If i ask something that has already been dealt with please tell me and i will go thru and find it.

Thanks for your time!

#133 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 30 June 2010 - 02:34 PM

1. Pride: We like to be the big-shots. Admitting to a God is admitting to something far greater than our own existance. Many people will deny this but if think about it, almost everybody wants to be remembered, everybody wants a legacy, everybody wants to be important.

View Post


Sure, people want to feel important. But at the same time, we also desire reassurance and companionship. Unless the higher power is actually competing with you for a high-paying job or prestigious award, I doubt it’s existence would be much of a threat. In fact, knowing that someone is looking out for you and willing to help you would probably be quite appealing for an ambitious individual. And besides, the belief that this solar system was created especially for us because we are superior to other life seems to imply that we are very important indeed. Much more important than if we evolved from single cells.

2. Sin: I don't mean sin as in evil or anything like that, (I just used this word as it is shorter and more direct to the other title I was going to use). What I mean this is people turning away from God, (which is sin anyway). Alot of people don't like the "rules" of the religion... Some people just don't like religion and believing in evolution means that they have a guiltfree way to turn from their religion and from the creator.

View Post


Yet atheists are generally ethical people. We follow the laws set out by the government, which in many cases overlap with religion (“thou shalt not kill”). Of course there are exceptions, but every group has a few bad apples. I would also like to point out that “atheist” is not synonymous with “evolutionist”. There are plenty of theists who believe in evolution, yet you’ve addressed taikoo’s question as though she asked why people would choose not to believe in a god.

#134 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 01 July 2010 - 02:18 AM

Thank you for your response!

Couple more questions...

To condense your response a bit, your opinion is that people accept the theory of evolution  primarily for emotional reasons?

What do you mean by the "Evolution Hypothesis"?  I am not aware of anything by that name.  Do you mean the theory of evolution?

Why do you use the term "evolutionist"?  Who are the people who make up that group?

Could you define for me what you mean by the word "faith"?

i am asking these because often enough i find that a misunderstanding or dispute simply turns out to be over different ideas of how to define a word.

One more.  you said something about "both parties state that the fossils prove their side of the story"

Internet experts will say as they will of course, but I am unaware of any scientist ever speaking of something proving a theory. 

Are you referring here to internet posters, or to actual statements by scientists? 

Oh and in answer to your question, no i did not read the thread, i am just responding to your original post.  If i ask something that has already been dealt with please tell me and i will go thru and find it.

Thanks for your time!

View Post


You're welcome.

I call the ToE, the evolution hypothesis as a joke. Though since technically since it doesn't have empirical evidence and the evidence it does have is based on inference and suposition. It would be a fair call to say that evolution is a hypothesis, based on the grounds that a theory has many hypothesis that are proven to support it. Since the evidence for evolution is circumstantial, it cannot be a theory :blink:

Evolutionists = people who believe in evolution,
easy :lol: same as
Creationists = people who believe in creation / a creator

Now you'll notice that I have bolded the word believe as this leads me to my next point. Faith is belief in a belief. So if someone believes in something, they have faith in it.

Christians believe in God
Atheists believe in no God
Evolutionsists believe that life was created via natural means
Creationists believe a creator created all life

Both are systems of belief and thus require faith.

From Dictonary.com :lol: (emphasis included)

faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.


??? All the time it gets said that fossils are evidence that prove evolution, though I don't have the quotes you are asking for. It would be a grave misunderstanding if the belief that fossils are evidence for evolution was just conjured up by the public and had no hand from the scientific community. So in that respect I am refering everyone. Whilst now scientists are coming to terms that their original hypothesises from 50 yrs ago are losing weight and so are turning to excuses elements to cover the evolution hypothesis.

My textbook is a great example of this as it covers the mistakes of evolution, but does so to cover them up. Check out the "my textbook" thread.

I hope this answers your questions :lol:

#135 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 01 July 2010 - 02:54 AM

Sure, people want to feel important. But at the same time, we also desire reassurance and companionship. Unless the higher power is actually competing with you for a high-paying job or prestigious award, I doubt it’s existence would be much of a threat. In fact, knowing that someone is looking out for you and willing to help you would probably be quite appealing for an ambitious individual. And besides, the belief that this solar system was created especially for us because we are superior to other life seems to imply that we are very important indeed. Much more important than if we evolved from single cells.
Yet atheists are generally ethical people. We follow the laws set out by the government, which in many cases overlap with religion (“thou shalt not kill”). Of course there are exceptions, but every group has a few bad apples. I would also like to point out that “atheist” is not synonymous with “evolutionist”. There are plenty of theists who believe in evolution, yet you’ve addressed taikoo’s question as though she asked why people would choose not to believe in a god.

View Post


About pride. Many people want to be the "masters of their own destiny", knowing that there is a God who has expectations of them and things that need fulfilling takes away from this concept. Some people feel that the rules are a form of control, a family member of mine feels this way. Personally I see it as a "guide to life", a code of practice if you will :lol:

About sin. I never meant to say that all athesists are "evil", (we all are :blink: ), the rule I believe most unreligious people would disagree with is....

NO s@x before marriage, can include kissing even holding hands to some of the more strict... Even looking at the opposite s@x with lust..

How many young men do you know can go through life without even looking at a woman with lust? :lol:

#136 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 01 July 2010 - 04:55 AM

About pride. Many people want to be the "masters of their own destiny", knowing that there is a God who has expectations of them and things that need fulfilling takes away from this concept. Some people feel that the rules are a form of control, a family member of mine feels this way. Personally I see it as a "guide to life", a code of practice if you will :lol:


That's just it. There are rules you have to follow no matter what. So 'jumping aboard the Atheist train' does not free a person from acting like a good individual. We all have rules we have to follow. Some of us have rules that we impose on ourselves.

About sin. I never meant to say that all athesists are "evil", (we all are  :lol:  ),


That's just it. We aren't all evil, religious and non-religious alike. There are many altruistic people out there who genuinely care and love others for no other reason than its the right thing to do. These people aren't evil by any sense of the word.


the rule I believe most unreligious people would disagree with is....

NO s@x before marriage, can include kissing even holding hands to some of the more strict... Even looking at the opposite s@x with lust..


Each Atheist has his/her own reasons for being an Atheist. I really doubt you will find any who will agree to this. Especially those who leave the Christian faith. Being forgiven of your sins is especially easy with Christianity(for those who mistakenly believe that, I know its not...you actually have to try to stop doing the sin)

You know I can't point to 2 Atheists I know who are Atheists for the same reason...

How many young men do you know can go through life without even looking at a woman with lust? :lol:

View Post


:blink: you need to add a '/women' after men in this question, and the answer is none. or almost 'none' there are some people who once they are in a relationship they can focus all of their 'energy' on that one partner, but until then...

#137 taikoo

taikoo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • midwest

Posted 01 July 2010 - 06:06 AM

You're welcome.


Tnx for your time, and yes you made a good start on the questions!  But so often one answer leads to more questions.  if you dont mind...

I call the ToE, the evolution hypothesis as a joke. Though since technically since it doesn't have empirical evidence and the evidence it does have is based on inference and suposition. It would be a fair call to say that evolution is a hypothesis, based on the grounds that a theory has many hypothesis that are proven to support it. Since the evidence for evolution is circumstantial, it cannot be a theory  :blink:

We can come back to this.  Just one comment, which is about word usage; like i said earlier, so much disagreement just comes down to different connotations for the same word!  I didnt know you mean 'hypothesis" as a joke


Evolutionists = people who believe in evolution,
easy :lol: same as
Creationists = people who believe in creation / a creator

How many people, (world wide) do you think you might be describing with the word "evolutionist"?


Now you'll notice that I have bolded the word believe as this leads me to my next point. Faith is belief in a belief. So if someone believes in something, they have faith in it.

Christians believe in God
Atheists believe in no God
Evolutionsists believe that life was created via natural means
Creationists believe a creator created all life

Both are systems of belief and thus require faith.

From Dictonary.com :lol: (emphasis included)

faith   /feɪθ/  Show Spelled[feyth]  Show IPA
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.




Yes the dictionary will define things thus.   The words faith and belief seem to have a very wide range to its meaning, dont you think so?   One might after all love that doggie in the window, or have faith that his car will start.
Would you say that this level of love, belief and faith is co equal to love for and faith in God?

Is the underlying concept involved in your speaking of faith and belief in connection with science that there is no significant difference between what is meant by belief and faith in aspects of science, or in God?

One more on that.  Would you say that belief in, faith in God (in its highest and purest form) is absolute and unshakable, ala Job? 



??? All the time it gets said that fossils are evidence that prove evolution, though I don't have the quotes you are asking for.


There may well be scientists who have spoken thus, certainly self'styled "evolutionists" are held to no standards.

Would you say, tho, that the underlying concept here (in its pure form, again) is that one does not properly speak of any theory, or 'law" in science as being proven, or possible to prove?

That anyone who does is speaking carelessly, or is simply uninformed / misinformed / mis stating the facts?






It would be a grave misunderstanding if the belief that fossils are evidence for evolution was just conjured up by the public and had no hand from the scientific community.

Do you think anyone doubts that?



So in that respect I am refering everyone. Whilst now scientists are coming to terms that their original hypothesises from 50 yrs ago are losing weight and so are turning to excuses elements to cover the evolution hypothesis.

My textbook is a great example of this as it covers the mistakes of evolution, but does so to cover them up. Check out the "my textbook" thread.

I hope this answers your questions :lol:

View Post

One last thought here for now. Do you think that this particular text is uniquely bad, or have you found that there is a widespread general sort of problem with the quality of American textbooks, especially on the public school level?


sorry for the sloppy job of inserting my comments. Hope you can sort out whose text is whose.
[I]

#138 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 01 July 2010 - 08:25 AM

If you wish to talk about the textbook please do so in the other thread.


You are right, a hypothesis or theory cannot be "proven" in its entirety. I shouldn't have said "proven", rather say evidence for... However you know what I am alluding to.

That our worldview shapes the evidence rather that the evidence determines our worldview. It is the only logical arguement I can find for some of the really biased things I have heard evolutionists say... (believe me I had a debate on a discussion board against my entire physiology class, since the lectuer said that "if you don't believe in evolution you will never be a good scientist")

#139 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 01 July 2010 - 08:35 AM

That's just it.  There are rules you have to follow no matter what.  So 'jumping aboard the Atheist train' does not free a person from acting like a good individual.  We all have rules we have to follow.  Some of us have rules that we impose on ourselves.
That's just it. We aren't all evil, religious and non-religious alike.  There are many altruistic people out there who genuinely care and love others for no other reason than its the right thing to do.  These people aren't evil by any sense of the word.
Each Atheist has his/her own reasons for being an Atheist.  I really doubt you will find any who will agree to this.  Especially those who leave the Christian faith.  Being forgiven of your sins is especially easy with Christianity(for those who mistakenly believe that, I know its not...you actually have to try to stop doing the sin) 

You know I can't point to 2 Atheists I know who are Atheists for the same reason...
:blink: you need to add a '/women' after men in this question, and the answer is none.  or almost 'none' there are some people who once they are in a relationship they can focus all of their 'energy' on that one partner, but until then...

View Post


I am not here to debate semantics on human psycology, nor on "whose opinion is correct" I was asked to give my opinion, and I have done so.

I do realise that there are many people who do not believe in a God / in Religion for many different reasons other than what I have posted on here. What I posted on here was never meant to be an all encompassing list, rather a general laymans look, (since as I said I am not a psycologist)...

I apologise if it was taken as such.

Back to the topic at hand-

Evolution (not Atheisim)

#140 taikoo

taikoo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • midwest

Posted 01 July 2010 - 09:15 AM

If you wish to talk about the textbook please do so in the other thread.
You are right, a hypothesis or theory cannot be "proven" in its entirety. I shouldn't have said "proven", rather say evidence for... However you know what I am alluding to.

That our worldview shapes the evidence rather that the evidence determines our worldview. It is the only logical arguement I can find for some of the really biased things I have heard evolutionists say... (believe me I had a debate on a discussion board against my entire physiology class, since the lectuer said that "if you don't believe in evolution you will never be a good scientist")

View Post



never mind the text, just saying that texts tend to be bad and do not necessarily well represent scientific or other thinking.

Regarding proof, well, no i really dont know what you are alluding to. if matters you could explain.

Again, on the proof thing, if one could prove the parts of a theory, then you could prove the theory, dont you think so?

A scientist will never speak about proving things, or even about "facts", at least beyond something like 'it is a fact that this is the data that i got".

Proof just is not a part of science! Agreed on that?

Regarding evidence, nobody is ever going to be 100% objective. It is however, an ideal toward which all scientists should strive, tho people are people and not all do, i suppose. it is a tough discipline to look at the evidence not at oneself!

You would not say that all evidence of all kinds is entirely subjective, would you?

If you have heard "evolutionists" say biased things, I dont find that surprising.

Anyone can self tag as an "evolutionist". Few are likely to have the discipline or training to be actual scientists. And of course, people will be people, with all their faults, I dont know of any -ism or -ology that eliminates faults in people!


Im sorry to hear that your physiology teacher said that. That is what that person said. He can only speak for himself and his opinion.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users