I have once. I kept hammering with facts. And arguments against the bible especially genisis being litteral. I also showed how it would not damge his faith or relationship with jesus.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biogeography strong evidence for evolution
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
Anything you would actually care to discuss in this thread?
Trying to marginalize people who believe in creation by calling them a fringe group, and implying there is no controversy, will not still the debate. There are millions, nay, tens of millions who do not accept the theory of evolution, for good reasons. This despite decades of ceaseless propaganda from academia, the scientific establishment, and the media.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
There are also numerous people who believe the sun orbits the earth. Your point?
That much is true, but I knew that already. Creationism only exists because it defines itself in defiance of observable fact.
True.
Very much not true, far as anyone knows. But if you disagree, feel free to present those good reasons.
You got that backwards. Creationism is entirely a propaganda child. Evolutionism is a proven and observable fact.
The very survival of Creationism (in its usual definition as anti-Evolutionism) is proof of how little people care about truth.
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
How many of these millions are scientists in relevant fields?
People believe in all sorts of things where the scientific evidence goes in the opposite direction, like homeopathy or geocentrism. That doesn't mean that there's a controversy regarding whether or not the Earth spins around the Sun. What matters when it comes to science is scientific evidence.
There are a tiny amount of scientists in the relevant fields who support creationism, but they're such a small group (not even 1%) that there's no actual controversy. In this tiny group, you probably wont find a single atheist, since the group is driven not by a scientific mind, but by religion. They can be brilliant scientists when it comes to their work not touching evolution itself, but they're still blinded by their pre-existing beliefs. The same thing happens to non-religious scientists too, which is one of the reasons why we have peer-review.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Tens of millions also believe in astrology... and that water has magic memory powers... but we don't let them claim to be scientific either.
wa:do
wa:do
The reasons for not accepting evolution have been discussed repeatedly in this forum. As to evolution being "a proven and observable fact", calling every change in the size of a bird's beak "evolution" is not what most people think of when discussing "evolution". Rather, most people equate evolution with the idea (entirely unobserved and unproven) that one family of animals, such as reptiles, change into another family of animals, such as birds, or vice versa. Or that animals develop due to natural selection and mutation from simple to more complex, a theory also entirely unproven. Paleontologist David M. Raup: "what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."
Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, 1/79 p. 23. (bold and underline added)
You really have no actual knowledge of biology, now do you?
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
rusra02 said:
If you tried those arguments out at a discussion forum at Evolution/Creation - FRDB, you would quickly embarrass yourself. Many posters at that forum are very familiar with evolution, and love to debate creationists.
You know so little about evolution that even if you were right about creationism, you do not understand the science that supports it. The same goes for the global flood theory, and the young earth theory. A simple question and answer session about biology, geology, and physics would quickly show that your understanding of even the basics of those sciences is very minimal.
Your frequent refusal to critique Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. In Ken Miller's article, he calls the flagellum the "poster child" of the intelligent design group. That makes the flagellum a very important topic. No one who does not have a good understanding of Miller's article is able to support intelligent design based upon their own personal understanding of biology, including. You are merely guessing that your relative handful of experts are right.
You have said on many occasions that many evolutionists have not studied the evidence. Some haven't, but what about the over 99% of experts who have, and accept naturalistic or theistic evolution? How much do most Christian natives in Africa who live in remote jungle regions know about evolutionary science? Obviously, next to nothing. Most of them have never heard of the flagellum, let alone have any knowledge about its evolution. In rebuttal, you claimed that those people are intelligent, but your argument was about studying evidence, not intelligence. Scientific evidence is not available to many people in Africa who live in remote jungle regions.
Do you believe that Ken Miller is intelligent? Do you believe that the over 99% of experts who accept naturalistic or theistic evolution are intelligent?
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
In all your time on these forums, you still have yet to understand even the most basic concept of what evolution actually is.
Rusra: if anybody needed any more proof that the creationist position is one of a stubborn inability to acknowledge or understand the facts, deny anything that contradicts their beliefs, and formulate arguments from positions of absolute ignorance - you are all the proof that is required.
Originally Posted by rusra02
Rather, most people equate evolution with the idea (entirely unobserved and unproven) that one family of animals, such as reptiles, change into another family of animals, such as birds, or vice versa.
I notice you only posted part of what I said about people's understanding of evolution. Isn't that dishonest? The full quote is:
"Rather, most people equate evolution with the idea (entirely unobserved and unproven) that one family of animals, such as reptiles, change into another family of animals, such as birds, or vice versa. Or that animals develop due to natural selection and mutation from simple to more complex, a theory also entirely unproven."
So is it your position that evolution does NOT teach that the various groups or families of animals evolved from other groups or families of animals?
Rather, most people equate evolution with the idea (entirely unobserved and unproven) that one family of animals, such as reptiles, change into another family of animals, such as birds, or vice versa.
In all your time on these forums, you still have yet to understand even the most basic concept of what evolution actually is.
Rusra: if anybody needed any more proof that the creationist position is one of a stubborn inability to acknowledge or understand the facts, deny anything that contradicts their beliefs, and formulate arguments from positions of absolute ignorance - you are all the proof that is required.
I notice you only posted part of what I said about people's understanding of evolution. Isn't that dishonest? The full quote is:
"Rather, most people equate evolution with the idea (entirely unobserved and unproven) that one family of animals, such as reptiles, change into another family of animals, such as birds, or vice versa. Or that animals develop due to natural selection and mutation from simple to more complex, a theory also entirely unproven."
So is it your position that evolution does NOT teach that the various groups or families of animals evolved from other groups or families of animals?
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
rusra02 said:
But you do not understand most of what you quote from a relative handful of creationists. That means that you are hoping and guessing that they are right, not that you know that they are right because you have a good understanding of biology.
What do you hope to gain from quoting things that you do not understand? Do you actually think that anyone will be impressed by your quotes when less than 1% of experts agree with your experts?
If you tried those arguments out at a discussion forum at Evolution/Creation - FRDB, you would quickly embarrass yourself. Many posters at that forum are very familiar with evolution, and love to debate creationists.
You know so little about evolution that even if you were right about creationism, you do not understand the science that supports it. The same goes for the global flood theory, and the young earth theory. A simple question and answer session about biology, geology, and physics would quickly show that your understanding of even the basics of those sciences is very minimal.
Your frequent refusal to critique Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. In Ken Miller's article, he calls the flagellum the "poster child" of the intelligent design group. That makes the flagellum a very important topic. No one who does not have a good understanding of Miller's article is able to support intelligent design based upon their own personal understanding of biology.
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to rusra02: You believe that creationism is true, that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young. Those claims involve a lot of often complex biology, geology, and physics. Are you willing to have detailed discussions about all three of those sciences regarding creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, including answering a lot of questions?
What percertage of people who become Christians do you think know a lot about biology, and geology, and physics? Surely less than 10%. Don't you believe that it is acceptable for people to believe that a global flood occurred simply because the Bible says so?
If you had to stick to science alone, with no mention of religion, you would have very little to discuss. I have never read a post by you that deals with detailed scientific agruments that are in your own words, based upon your own personal understanding of science. You like to quote the Bible, and to quote a relative handful of creationist experts, but your own personal knowledge of science is very minimal, certainly not enough for you to actually have detailed discussions about biology, geology, and physics.
I can quote just as many articles as you can, articles that you cannot explain.
You try to judge science by using religion. That is not the way that science works. Are you proposing that all scientists should presuppose that the book of Genesis is literally true before they start to conduct their research? If not, what are proposing? Do you think that the law of gravity should be changed? If not, then how do you explain the global flood theory? If fossils and sediments are mixed with water, there is no way that they will end up sorted like fossils and sediments are sorted. Some global flood advocates have claimed that during the flood, the law of gravity operated differently. Unfortunately for them, there is not any scientific evidence that supports that claim.
Even if creationism is true, that does not show who God is, only that an unknown God created man pretty much like he is today. Many non-Christians are creationists of some kind.
Even if a global flood occurred, that would not show who God is since many cultures have flood stories, some which predate the flood story in Genesis, such as the Sumerian flood story.
If you asked people why they became Christians, I think that you would find that very few would mention science. If anything, science generally leads people away from inerrancy. Even some evangelical Christians geologists, such as Davis Young, have said that the global flood story does more harm than good for Christianity since it is so obvious to most geologists that a global flood did not occur.
What percertage of people who become Christians do you think know a lot about biology, and geology, and physics? Surely less than 10%. Don't you believe that it is acceptable for people to believe that a global flood occurred simply because the Bible says so?
If you had to stick to science alone, with no mention of religion, you would have very little to discuss. I have never read a post by you that deals with detailed scientific agruments that are in your own words, based upon your own personal understanding of science. You like to quote the Bible, and to quote a relative handful of creationist experts, but your own personal knowledge of science is very minimal, certainly not enough for you to actually have detailed discussions about biology, geology, and physics.
I can quote just as many articles as you can, articles that you cannot explain.
You try to judge science by using religion. That is not the way that science works. Are you proposing that all scientists should presuppose that the book of Genesis is literally true before they start to conduct their research? If not, what are proposing? Do you think that the law of gravity should be changed? If not, then how do you explain the global flood theory? If fossils and sediments are mixed with water, there is no way that they will end up sorted like fossils and sediments are sorted. Some global flood advocates have claimed that during the flood, the law of gravity operated differently. Unfortunately for them, there is not any scientific evidence that supports that claim.
Even if creationism is true, that does not show who God is, only that an unknown God created man pretty much like he is today. Many non-Christians are creationists of some kind.
Even if a global flood occurred, that would not show who God is since many cultures have flood stories, some which predate the flood story in Genesis, such as the Sumerian flood story.
If you asked people why they became Christians, I think that you would find that very few would mention science. If anything, science generally leads people away from inerrancy. Even some evangelical Christians geologists, such as Davis Young, have said that the global flood story does more harm than good for Christianity since it is so obvious to most geologists that a global flood did not occur.
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
rusra02 said:
An article at On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup shows that Raup has been misrepresented by creationists.
In an article at Evolution Quotes, Raup says the following:
"Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of the that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links of transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." Scientists Confront Creationism (1983) p.156
Please note "to be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates." Quite obviously, Raup has no problems at all regarding whether or not evolution has occurred since he believes that it has occurred. All that he disputes is some of how Darwin explained evolution. It is common knowledge among biologists that Darwin made some mistakes regarding how evolution occurred, but was right that it has occurred. Einstein made lots of mistakes, and so did Newton, but consider how brilliant they were. Raup would surely admit that Darwin was brilliant, especially since that was about 150 years ago. For that time, Darwin was definitely brilliant.
Have you got it now? Raup accepts evolution, including macro evolution. Even if he was a creationist, why should people trust his opinions over the vast majority of other experts who accept naturalistic or theistic evolution?
By the way, according to Wikipedia, Raup believes that the earth is old, not young. He probably also disagrees with you about the global flood.
Last edited:
I am aware that Dr. Raup believes in evolution. That wasn't my point. The point is the EVIDENCE doesn't support evolution, as Dr. Raup pointed out. What Darwin expected and what evolutionists expect in the fossil record isn't there. By the way, I believe the earth is old, not young.
Please don't presume to tell me what I believe. "You believe that creationism is true, that a global flood occurred, and that the earth is young."
- I don't know what you mean by the term "creationism" so I can't comment on whether I believe in it.
- Yes, I believe a global flood occurred.
- No, I do not believe "the earth is young".
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
rusra02 said:
But as I posted previously, Raup said "to be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates." All that he was saying is that not as much evidence has been found as has been claimed. Raup did not say, as you falsely claimed, that "the evidence doesn't support evolution." Those were your words. Since Raup accepts evolution, he obviously believes that the evidence does support evolution.
Raup would be quick to tell you that even though there are not as many transitional forms as have been claimed, there is a lot of other scientific evidence that supports evolution. For example, he probably agrees with Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum. Raup is not even slightly supporting creationism, and he is not even slightly suggesting that evolution is not true.
How can you criticize Charles Darwin when all biologists admit that he made some mistakes, but most of them also admit that he was right about macro evolution? Newton made lots of mistakes. So did Einstein.
How can you judge complex writings about biology, such as Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum? Since you do not understand Miller's article, you must admit that your objections to it are religious, not scientific. You do not even understand basic biology, let alone Miller's article.
One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. Why should anyone trust your relative handful of experts over those experts?
Will you admit that you do not know enough about geology to adequately defend the global flood theory from an entirely scientific perspective?
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to rusra02: Millions of people who know very little about evolution have accepted creationism. You approve of their choice to accept creationism even though they know very little about evolution. Let's call that group of people Group A.
Millions of people who know very little about evolution have accepted naturalistic or theistic evolution. You do not approve of their choice to accept creationism even though they know very little about evolution. Let's call that group of people Group B.
Since you object to Group B's choice, but not Group A's choice, since both groups know very little about evolution, it is quite obvious that religion is your main concern, not science. As long as people make the choice that you want them to make about religion, you don't really care how much they know about evolution.
What do most African Christians who live in remote jungle regions know about evolution? Surely very little. Even if some of them are intelligent, intelligence is often not very useful without information. Most of those natives do not have enough information about evolution to reject it from an entirely scientific perspective.
Quoting the Bible is not an adequate response to Ken Miller's article on the flagellum. The article is about biology, not theology. When you quote the Bible, you offer further proof that your main objections to evolution are religious, not scientific.
Millions of people who know very little about evolution have accepted naturalistic or theistic evolution. You do not approve of their choice to accept creationism even though they know very little about evolution. Let's call that group of people Group B.
Since you object to Group B's choice, but not Group A's choice, since both groups know very little about evolution, it is quite obvious that religion is your main concern, not science. As long as people make the choice that you want them to make about religion, you don't really care how much they know about evolution.
What do most African Christians who live in remote jungle regions know about evolution? Surely very little. Even if some of them are intelligent, intelligence is often not very useful without information. Most of those natives do not have enough information about evolution to reject it from an entirely scientific perspective.
Quoting the Bible is not an adequate response to Ken Miller's article on the flagellum. The article is about biology, not theology. When you quote the Bible, you offer further proof that your main objections to evolution are religious, not scientific.
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
rusra02 said:
Hebrews 3:4 does not discuss Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum, or Glenn Morton's articles on the global flood. Hebrews 3:4 discusses theology, not biology, and not geology. No scientist who wanted to study the law of gravity would ever get anywhere by quoting Hebrews 3:4. Scientific laws are not developed by quoting the Bible.
The most brilliant scientists in history were the ancient Greeks. In the field of science, no one in the world could compare with them at that time. They did not use the Bible as a basis for their research. In addition, the ancient Greeks made significant contributions to art, and philosophy.
Last edited: