Are all creationist dishonest?

[McBell]

The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution.

That is another HUGE problem that creationists have:
They do not know the difference between creation and evolution.
What is really truly sad are the ones who think that poking holes in evolution somehow proves creation.

Some days one just has to smack ones head against the wall just to get through all the creationist bull ****.

 

[Blackheart]

thread, after thread, after thread when presented with evidence they almost always end up being dishonest and more then not, there dishonest with themselves.

evidence is evidence and facts are facts, there is no debate about evolution.

I have seen some bring the same point up 20 times after seeing proof with evidence on every account.

will the dishonesty stop ????

Are they dishonest because they dont believe in/accept your evidence? What you consider as a fact is only a fact because you believe it. Evolution is a good point...just because some one thought up a theory that generally COULD work it doesnt constitute undeniable proof. If you can show the world a monkey that turns into a human being in lab in real time and conditions then you can call that a fact but as you cant it will always be a theory NOT A FACT. As your faith tells you that it is so because the theory has been designed to fit so my faith tells me that it is not so because I have faith in the complexity being beyond random coincidence.

 

[RedOne77]

Are they dishonest because they dont believe in/accept your evidence? What you consider as a fact is only a fact because you believe it. Evolution is a good point...just because some one thought up a theory that generally COULD work it doesnt constitute undeniable proof. If you can show the world a monkey that turns into a human being in lab in real time and conditions then you can call that a fact but as you cant it will always be a theory NOT A FACT. As your faith tells you that it is so because the theory has been designed to fit so my faith tells me that it is not so because I have faith in the complexity being beyond random coincidence.

Hello Blackheart, there's a few things I'd like to point out. First, a theory in science has a different meaning than the standard every-day meaning. In science a theory is a well supported explanation for a specific set of facts. Theories and facts are fundamentally different things; despite the common misconception theories cannot ever become fact and vise versa.

Evolution, like much of science, is no walk in the park to understand. One of the biggest misconceptions is that evolution is a faith/religion and is somehow tied into atheism. This is very wrong. Evolution is part of science and science is not religion or atheistic (science is silent on the issue of God and the supernatural). In fact, most Christians accept evolution, and over 90% of Christian scientists (over 99% in relevant fields) accept evolution as well (which make up about 50% of all contemporary scientists). And it is not just scientists, clergy support evolution as well. Over 12,000 signatures of Christian clergy have signed the Clergy Letter Project that states evolution is a reality and doesn't conflict with Christianity.

Perhaps one of the hardest things to understand about evolution is how it works. If a monkey ever turned into a man, than the theory of evolution is in big trouble. Oddly enough, much of what creationists think of as 'proof of evolution' would actually disprove evolution if such was ever observed. Evolution works off of some basic principles, one of them being many small changes over large time scales. Another that many people are not aware of is that individuals don't evolve, rather populations evolve over time. One last misconception I'd like to point out is that species don't evolve into species that already exist. We didn't evolve from modern day monkeys or chimpanzees. Instead, we have a common ancestor with these species, like cousins or siblings on a family tree.

Red

 

[Twilight Hue]

The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution.

Yep. However I don't think people will ever completely get it no matter how many times it's pointed out.

 

[linwood]

I am willing to consider that the entire universe may have once been the size of a grain of sand and suddenly exploded into all the stars and planets. are you willing to consider that that "big bang" may have been triggered by some greater force ( maybe God) ?

First you`d have to get me to accept the popular Big Bang theory.

Many have been unsuccessful so far.

I see no objective difference between "God" and "The Particle".
I reject them both until evidence for either or both has been presented.

I thought this was about evolution and you had some evidence that undercuts the theory.

Do you?
Did you find that mythical mammal fossil where it shouldn`t be?

I`m on the edge of my seat here.

 

[Blackheart]

Hello Blackheart, there's a few things I'd like to point out. First, a theory in science has a different meaning than the standard every-day meaning. In science a theory is a well supported explanation for a specific set of facts. Theories and facts are fundamentally different things; despite the common misconception theories cannot ever become fact and vise versa.

Evolution, like much of science, is no walk in the park to understand. One of the biggest misconceptions is that evolution is a faith/religion and is somehow tied into atheism. This is very wrong. Evolution is part of science and science is not religion or atheistic (science is silent on the issue of God and the supernatural). In fact, most Christians accept evolution, and over 90% of Christian scientists (over 99% in relevant fields) accept evolution as well (which make up about 50% of all contemporary scientists). And it is not just scientists, clergy support evolution as well. Over 12,000 signatures of Christian clergy have signed the Clergy Letter Project that states evolution is a reality and doesn't conflict with Christianity.

Perhaps one of the hardest things to understand about evolution is how it works. If a monkey ever turned into a man, than the theory of evolution is in big trouble. Oddly enough, much of what creationists think of as 'proof of evolution' would actually disprove evolution if such was ever observed. Evolution works off of some basic principles, one of them being many small changes over large time scales. Another that many people are not aware of is that individuals don't evolve, rather populations evolve over time. One last misconception I'd like to point out is that species don't evolve into species that already exist. We didn't evolve from modern day monkeys or chimpanzees. Instead, we have a common ancestor with these species, like cousins or siblings on a family tree.

Red

My point is that you cannot prove evolution. My monkey analogy was an exagerated example simply to demonstarte that while you would like to think that the theory works you cannot prove that this is actually the process that is responsible for you being here. There are millions of people who claim to have seen UFO's or aliens compared to zero people claiming to have seen an entirely new species yet most scientists will claim that alien visitations have never taken place and cannot be proven. What is the difference between the two hypothesis? In my opinion evolution has to be faith based even if you found a transitional fossil for every single change from the begining of life you can never be certain of the process that created those changes.

As for the clergy that agree with evolution they appear to be confused because the bible leaves no room for evolution unless they are saying that the bible is not true; if that is the case then they are obviously clergy by name and not by nature. In addition to this when we refer to certain religous movements we are referring to groups who are discouraged from independant thought. I am aware that the Catholic church likes the idea of agreeing with everything that the scientific community would suggest which really means that they shouldnt be included in the stats should they?

 

[Alceste]

Are they dishonest because they dont believe in/accept your evidence? What you consider as a fact is only a fact because you believe it. Evolution is a good point...just because some one thought up a theory that generally COULD work it doesnt constitute undeniable proof. If you can show the world a monkey that turns into a human being in lab in real time and conditions then you can call that a fact but as you cant it will always be a theory NOT A FACT. As your faith tells you that it is so because the theory has been designed to fit so my faith tells me that it is not so because I have faith in the complexity being beyond random coincidence.

Evolution does not predict that a monkey should transform into or give birth to a man, or that any species will spontaneously transform into or give birth to a different species.

Hope that helps.

 

[linwood]

My point is that you cannot prove evolution.

Dude, the evidence supporting ToE is "Legion".
Fossil record, genetics, microbiology, zoology, entomology, botany.

Yet, the most simplest of "proofs" would bring it all tumbling down.
However, none has been able to present these "simple proofs" which imparts a great weakness to the creationist viewpoint.

Didn`t someone in this thread say they had one of these "proofs" that could topple evolution?
Who was it and where is it?

I myself would find the toppling of the strongest scientific theory ever evidenced very interesting.
Let`s have it.

 

[Riverwolf]

If you can show the world a monkey that turns into a human being in lab

Why would anyone want to do that? That wouldn't prove evolution, because evolution has nothing to do with monkeys turning into humans. After all, we're not monkeys at all; we're apes. (No, not apes turning into humans, we ARE apes.)

Biological evolution isn't like pokemon evolution.

 

[Alceste]

My point is that you cannot prove evolution.

If this is true, you'd better inform America's 30,000 research biologists that they are wasting their time.

My monkey analogy was an exagerated example simply to demonstarte that while you would like to think that the theory works you cannot prove that this is actually the process that is responsible for you being here. There are millions of people who claim to have seen UFO's or aliens compared to zero people claiming to have seen an entirely new species yet most scientists will claim that alien visitations have never taken place and cannot be proven. What is the difference between the two hypothesis? In my opinion evolution has to be faith based even if you found a transitional fossil for every single change from the begining of life you can never be certain of the process that created those changes.

The emergence of new species has been observed dozens of times by hundreds of researches inside and outside a laboratory setting.

"Scientists", generally speaking, do not claim that there are no aliens, or that no alien visits have ever taken place.

We are completely certain of the process that causes the manifestation of "transitional fossils" based on tens of thousands of studies in hundreds of fields of research by hundreds of thousands of researchers.

These are all facts. You can look them up if you like.

As for the clergy that agree with evolution they appear to be confused because the bible...

bla bla bla bla bla. The bible is not true. Nobody but a handful of extremely nutty individuals in any given country believe that it is.

The job of a minister or a priest is not to knowingly spread falsehoods, but to see to the spiritual health of her flock.

 

[outhouse]

My point is that you cannot prove evolution

please, this is the whole point of my thread. We have shown you proof that evolution is an observation of facts.

What is it that you dont buy

are you lieing to yourself because of your faith?

 

[outhouse]

As for the clergy that agree with evolution they appear to be confused because the bible leaves no room for evolution unless they are saying that the bible is not true; if that is the case then they are obviously clergy by name and not by nature. In addition to this when we refer to certain religous movements we are referring to groups who are discouraged from independant thought. I am aware that the Catholic church likes the idea of agreeing with everything that the scientific community would suggest which really means that they shouldnt be included in the stats should they?

you dont understand the facts at hand bud

The pope himself is telling you this for a important reason.

They inderstand the bible was writtin 2000-3000 years ago and the BOOK WAS FOR ANCIENT MAN

NOT modern man. Now we can see the mistakes and the church cant murder anyone anymore who thinks its words are false so the pope wants the religion to evolve [proof of evolution] because if it doesnt change its going to die out if proven its man written for man by man.

 

[Blackheart]

If this is true, you'd better inform America's 30,000 research biologists that they are wasting their time.



The emergence of new species has been observed dozens of times by hundreds of researches inside and outside a laboratory setting.

"Scientists", generally speaking, do not claim that there are no aliens, or that no alien visits have ever taken place.

We are completely certain of the process that causes the manifestation of "transitional fossils" based on tens of thousands of studies in hundreds of fields of research by hundreds of thousands of researchers.

These are all facts. You can look them up if you like.


bla bla bla bla bla. The bible is not true. Nobody but a handful of extremely nutty individuals in any given country believe that it is.

The job of a minister or a priest is not to knowingly spread falsehoods, but to see to the spiritual health of her flock.

Youve seen new species evolve in a lab? :no: If thats true then it is a fact but we both know that you havent.

Please send me the addresses of the 30,00 researchers I will inform them so long as you dont ask me for the addresses of the millions of theologian researchers.

The job of a minister is to educate his congregation in the aspects of the said religion. Where are you coming from with this spirituality now? Evolution has no room for that kind of talk. Make up your mind. You sure you dont mean psychology.

To be honest I am trying to avoiding getting into disucssion with evolutionists because they are void of logic and cannot see the flaws in their own faith system. Indeed they often fail to even recognise it as a faith at all. You cant talk to people who are so narrow minded.

 

[Blackheart]

you dont understand the facts at hand bud

The pope himself is telling you this for a important reason.

They inderstand the bible was writtin 2000-3000 years ago and the BOOK WAS FOR ANCIENT MAN

NOT modern man. Now we can see the mistakes and the church cant murder anyone anymore who thinks its words are false so the pope wants the religion to evolve [proof of evolution] because if it doesnt change its going to die out if proven its man written for man by man.

Lol. That sums it up. If your version of christianity is what the Pope says then I dont blame you for being an athiest. Your a wise man afterall.:clap

 

[Blackheart]

please, this is the whole point of my thread. We have shown you proof that evolution is an observation of facts.

What is it that you dont buy

are you lieing to yourself because of your faith?

An observations of facts? Are we talking marco or micro evolution? Are we talkin about the missing true transitional fossils of which there should be billions of in comparison to the fossil records we have? What are we talking about?

 

[McBell]

Are all creationist dishonest?

Well, surely not the dead ones....
But then, that is perhaps nothing more than wishful thinking on part....

 

[McBell]

An observations of facts? Are we talking marco or micro evolution? Are we talkin about the missing true transitional fossils of which there should be billions of in comparison to the fossil records we have? What are we talking about?

wow.
Some people just can't help themselves.

 

[RedOne77]

My point is that you cannot prove evolution. My monkey analogy was an exagerated example simply to demonstarte that while you would like to think that the theory works you cannot prove that this is actually the process that is responsible for you being here. There are millions of people who claim to have seen UFO's or aliens compared to zero people claiming to have seen an entirely new species yet most scientists will claim that alien visitations have never taken place and cannot be proven. What is the difference between the two hypothesis? In my opinion evolution has to be faith based even if you found a transitional fossil for every single change from the begining of life you can never be certain of the process that created those changes.

True, we cannot prove evolution, but nothing in science is provable, only disprovable. Science works on varying degrees of evidential support. Evolution happens to be one of the most supported scientific theories of all time. While evolution can never be proven, I do think we can be certain of it. Part of the confusion about evolution comes from the notion that evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that populations change over time (we can now directly observe this at the genetic level) and give rise to new species (Observed Instances of Speciation). There's also the fossil record and genetic testing that creates the twin nested hierarchy; two separate lines of massive evidence that are parallel with each other and consistent/supporting evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution explains these facts and many more.

As for the clergy that agree with evolution they appear to be confused because the bible leaves no room for evolution unless they are saying that the bible is not true; if that is the case then they are obviously clergy by name and not by nature. In addition to this when we refer to certain religous movements we are referring to groups who are discouraged from independant thought. I am aware that the Catholic church likes the idea of agreeing with everything that the scientific community would suggest which really means that they shouldnt be included in the stats should they?

What is most striking about the clergy is that after the Clergy Letter Project was founded, a second project was undertaken as a response; the Creation Letter Project. The Creation Letter, started a few years ago, are signatures of clergy who reject evolution and accept creationism. What is really striking is that not even 300 signatures from Christian clergy could be collected in support of creationism. There are more than 40 times the amount of signatures for evolution than for creationism among Christian clergy! Just for another perspective, Judaism is literally about 0.2% of the world population where Christianity is a good 33%, and there are more signatures of Jewish scholars who accept evolution than there are of Christian clergy that reject it!

As for the Bible, both Christian and Judaic scholars, when using standard exegesis and hermeneutics, have concluded that Genesis is not meant to make any scientific claims about the world, this includes evolution. This analysis is held by scholars who do and don't accept evolution. Also, many Christians and most Jews view Genesis as metaphorical rather than a historical account (again supported by exegesis and hermeneutics). Essentially I am trying to say that for Christians who accept evolution, the Bible's message is true, however the creation accounts are not literally true.

I do think Catholics should be considered Christian and thus applied when doing statistics on Christianity. However if you want to exclude them, the majority of protestants also accept evolution. It isn't until you get into conservative circles do you see large numbers of creationists, and they just happen to be a vocal minority.

Red

 

[outhouse]

True, we cannot prove evolution

actually we have proved evolution

 

[Blackheart]

True, we cannot prove evolution, but nothing in science is provable, only disprovable. Science works on varying degrees of evidential support. Evolution happens to be one of the most supported scientific theories of all time. While evolution can never be proven, I do think we can be certain of it. Part of the confusion about evolution comes from the notion that evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that populations change over time (we can now directly observe this at the genetic level) and give rise to new species (Observed Instances of Speciation). There's also the fossil record and genetic testing that creates the twin nested hierarchy; two separate lines of massive evidence that are parallel with each other and consistent/supporting evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution explains these facts and many more.



What is most striking about the clergy is that after the Clergy Letter Project was founded, a second project was undertaken as a response; the Creation Letter Project. The Creation Letter, started a few years ago, are signatures of clergy who reject evolution and accept creationism. What is really striking is that not even 300 signatures from Christian clergy could be collected in support of creationism. There are more than 40 times the amount of signatures for evolution than for creationism among Christian clergy! Just for another perspective, Judaism is literally about 0.2% of the world population where Christianity is a good 33%, and there are more signatures of Jewish scholars who accept evolution than there are of Christian clergy that reject it!

As for the Bible, both Christian and Judaic scholars, when using standard exegesis and hermeneutics, have concluded that Genesis is not meant to make any scientific claims about the world, this includes evolution. This analysis is held by scholars who do and don't accept evolution. Also, many Christians and most Jews view Genesis as metaphorical rather than a historical account (again supported by exegesis and hermeneutics). Essentially I am trying to say that for Christians who accept evolution, the Bible's message is true, however the creation accounts are not literally true.

I do think Catholics should be considered Christian and thus applied when doing statistics on Christianity. However if you want to exclude them, the majority of protestants also accept evolution. It isn't until you get into conservative circles do you see large numbers of creationists, and they just happen to be a vocal minority.

Red

Alas a response that makes sense. I would only seek to comment on the issue of those who would insist that Genisis should not be taken as literal. These people need to understand that at no point in Genesis does it encourage you to think metaphorically. Its dodgy ground and leaves room for a wide range of interpretations.

My reference to Catholics is about the fact that it is still an institution where you are told that thinking for yourself is above your station and that the thinking has been done for you. Therefore what the Priest believes is what the follower must believe. It just goes against everything the bible encourages (in my humble opinion) where it is explained repeatidly that the salvation is an individual accomplishment.