Coming out as creationists: fear.

[Deeje]

You sure dont know much if you think any theory was ever proven or became a fact.

Well then, how gullible are people who swallow what can't be proven?
Science deals in evidence, not belief.....doesn't it?

If you accept something that is not provable, then you have a "belief" that you cannot verify....just like I do.

Is that rocket science?

 

[Deeje]

There is a difference between questioning and denial.

Yes I noticed that.....but not something the scientists here will admit to....They just go round and round in the same circles with no "proof" for any of it.

What would be the point when you will just ignore it?

I have examined the links given to me over all the years I have been here.....not one of them was a threat to creation.

If you would like to give us something that hasn't already been exposed as pseudo science then go for it....

I love links...ask anyone.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The US is more religious than other countries which is why there is more tolerance for people rejecting science because of their religious beliefs.



Evolution and global warming are as tangible as any other science.

Of course it is, it was largely populated by people fleeing religious oppression.


I see shared traits, gaps, jumps, remember what that tells us? or rather does not?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wait...youre offering Bill Gates as an example of American pragmatism, with the topic being why Creationist arguments are better received in the States?
Really??

you are easily shocked!

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”: Bill Gates

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well...I think that in Europe Darwinism has always had a strong cultural imprint. I was raised in a strongly Catholic country and yet I was taught that Evolution is the solid scientific truth, and any other alternative is absurd.

When you are wired to think like that, something like Intelligent Design seems unthinkable to you.
I swear it...the first time I heard of ID was in this forum...and it really surprised me as a concept.

Likewise, I was brought up with Darwinian evolution being 'unquestionable fact' always presented with explicit disdain for any alternate hypothesis- that's not the scientific method we all know and love is it?

the older I get, the more 'unquestionable fact' becomes a red flag, it's usually used in lieu of evidence it seems

 

[lewisnotmiller]

you are easily shocked!

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”: Bill Gates

Perhaps.
Gates has made the point that there is much unexplained (fair enough, I agree) but that if God exists, he's not sure what difference it would make in terms of how he'd live.

More pertinent to this conversation, though, is that the Gates Foundation is very involved in trying to update school curriculums.
And creationism isn't part of their plans.

 

[gnostic]

I am not disputing chemistry or any other branch of science that explores different facets of creation...per se.

My major gripe has always been the way evolutionary science is presented to young people, especially those still at school. There is nothing mentioned to them about the hypothetical nature of science's pet theory.

I didn’t learn evolution when I was young.

From Year 7 to Year 9, in high school, our science subject covered many basic of different areas in science, like environment, but in biology we were learning only anatomy and physiology, and only started learning basic genetics in Year 9, but not evolution.

From Year 10 to Year 12, science split into 3 major branches, physics, chemistry and biology. I chose to physics and chemistry, not biology.

They have taught evolution to Year 11 and 12 students, I don’t know, because I didn’t take these biology.

I didn’t learn about evolution until 2003-04, when I was 37-38, not as a student, but I was curious what people were talking at the small Religion section of another forum, called Free2Code.

So I wasn’t “indoctrinated” by schools on evolution, like you have claim. You are generalising and stereotyping.

But even people learned evolution in classrooms, evolution is biology, just as mechanism, Relativity and quantum mechanics are physics, the periodic table and chemical actions are chemistry, and statistics, algebra and calculus are parts of mathematics.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps.
Gates has made the point that there is much unexplained (fair enough, I agree) but that if God exists, he's not sure what difference it would make in terms of how he'd live.

More pertinent to this conversation, though, is that the Gates Foundation is very involved in trying to update school curriculums.
And creationism isn't part of their plans.

If they could manage to get even that one observation into school curriculum and textbooks, from a guy who knows a little about the way information systems work in practical reality... I think it would be a massive leap forward for (public) science and education.

I'm old enough that I was taught that an inverted retina was still 'bad design' the Laryngeal nerve was still 'bad design' .. I've no problem with anyone making such assertions- freedom of speech/ opinion- all good. But it's never in the interest of science to actively /legally prohibit the other side of an argument- would you not agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If they could manage to get even that one observation into school curriculum and textbooks, from a guy who knows a little about the way information systems work in practical reality... I think it would be a massive leap forward for (public) science and education.

I'm old enough that I was taught that an inverted retina was still 'bad design' the Laryngeal nerve was still 'bad design' .. I've no problem with anyone making such assertions- freedom of speech/ opinion- all good. But it's never in the interest of science to actively /legally prohibit the other side of an argument- would you not agree?

Those still are examples of bad design. Creationists have never refuted those claims.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I had to laugh at this....here we have an unprovable "theory" that has had such far reaching implications for humanity, and their attitude towards everything....and it all comes down to "semantics". Don't mention "proof"...that is a uncomfortable term.
Science can't "prove" a thing they say, but if they change the terminology to "evidence" (which can be manipulated by interpretation) then you can get away with telling lies. I think I see the picture.

OK, lets talk about those "key observational facts".....What can be demonstrated in other branches of science has influenced scientists' attitude to the evolutionary theory. You begin with a premise which turns into a hypothesis and then into a theory. Once that theory has been shown to be true it becomes a scientific fact. I have no problem with that....what I do have is an objection to sciene's attitude to macro-evolution on the scale that they suggest with no real substantiated evidence to support it. To me the "evidence" points to the fact that scientists will stop at nothing to promote their theory. Who needs proof...right?



As has been my argument since day one, adaptation is not a problem. The problem is to call it "evolution". It is a process by which organisms adapt to a change in environment or food source. It is inherent in all living things...viruses, bacteria, insects, land animals and sea creatures. But what is it exactly and how far has science observed its boundaries? Any research I have done on "speciation" reveals something that science doesn't want to admit....it has only ever produced variety within a single taxonomic "family". Not once did the bacteria or the virus or the insect, or the fish, "evolve" to become a different "kind" of creature. What science wants to convey is.... "if a little did "this", then a lot could do "that". Is that science or guesswork?

Where is the evidence that what science is "suggesting", is even possible, let alone probable? They take a tooth here and a jawbone there and make grandiose claims by simply interpreting evidence to make it fit their theory. Then they suggest that its a fact.
Is that real science? That is my objection. Children are not taught scientific facts...they are taught speculation dressed up to look like facts. That is dishonest. It creates a mindset that prevents those children from thinking outside the "box" that science created for them. The big holes in the box are never mentioned and therefore the right questions are never asked. That is brainwashing.



Adaptation has limits. The "model" is a figment of science's imagination. Where is the evidence that single celled organisms transformed themselves into creatures the size of a multi-story building.....I have never seen it except in artfully contrived diagrams. Fossils tell us so very little unless scientists provide them with a voice....it seems they are good ventriloquists. I don't believe them.

Almost there......but not quite.
The idea of one creature changing from one "species" to another is not the problem at all....adaptation provides endless variety within any given "family" of creatures. "Species" (a word often misunderstood by those outside the science world) is a term for different members of the same taxonomic "family" of organisms. The problem comes when science starts to suggest "branching" and "morphing" which I do not believe has any basis in fact. Their "tree of life" is being called into question even by scientists themselves. If all science has is artwork and suggestions about what "might have" or "could have" or "must have" taken place all those millions of years ago, then why should anyone believe what science can only speculate about?

I don't buy any of it....its science fiction sold as science fact.

^There's your scientific approach.

Distinguish between what the evidence actually denotes, and what speculative theories strongly encourage, far easier said than done.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If they could manage to get even that one observation into school curriculum and textbooks, from a guy who knows a little about the way information systems work in practical reality... I think it would be a massive leap forward for (public) science and education.

I'm old enough that I was taught that an inverted retina was still 'bad design' the Laryngeal nerve was still 'bad design' .. I've no problem with anyone making such assertions- freedom of speech/ opinion- all good. But it's never in the interest of science to actively /legally prohibit the other side of an argument- would you not agree?

Kind of.
I think the risk with seeing this as a dichotomy, or two sides of an argument, is that equal billing is being provided between both the overwhelmingly supported scientific view, and a view that is less supported by the scientific community (to put it charitably).

So, I think we should take care to teach our children that science is a process, and is interested in developing ideas. In no way does it have all the answers, and in no sense should we think that everything we are taught in scientific classrooms will remain an unchanging body of knowledge. I was taught that Pluto was a 'normal' planet, for example.

I wouldn't expect to go to Church, and have a variety of competing religions pitch their case for my soul (so to speak). Having said that, I think there is value in considering various religious viewpoints and rituals. Equally, I wouldn't expect to go to a science class and have various theories put forth for every piece of knowledge being transmitted, unless there really is equally split scientific arguments for those. Even then, it would only be a vehicle for demonstrating that science clearly doesn't have all the answers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well then, how gullible are people who swallow what can't be proven?
Science deals in evidence, not belief.....doesn't it?

If you accept something that is not provable, then you have a "belief" that you cannot verify....just like I do.

Is that rocket science?

That's either deliberately or accidental conflation of different things. Since you like links...

Forget what you've read, science can't prove a thing

Science isn't about 'proof' or 'facts'. A key tenet of science is that EVERYTHING science 'knows' can be superseded once it is disproven. If we have some piece of knowledge 100% correct in every sense of the word, then it would be a fact, but we would never know that, scientifically. Since science MUST always allow the ability to disprove something we already 'know'.
That is the very nature and essence of the scientific method.

Gravity is a simple example. How gullible would someone have to be to NOT believe in gravity? And yet...it's not a fact, nor is it 'proven'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

^There's your scientific approach.

Distinguish between what the evidence actually denotes, and what speculative theories strongly encourage, far easier said than done.

There is accuracy in the last statement.
But I would suggest just because something is sometimes true does not make it universally so.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Those still are examples of bad design. Creationists have never refuted those claims.

Eeew.....Hyena procreation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thank you for reminding me.....

Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

The Watchtower, how surprising...

Where is the source that they got the info about the fossils and their relative size from? Which fossils are they?

There is more good info there....

This is a good example of "suggestion" at work......

Without the dotted line "suggested" by science, there is no real relationship of any of these creatures to one another.

You do realize that literal dotted lines don't actually appear in the fossil record, right? Just as there aren't dotted lines between you and your descendants. Where is the deception?

An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”36 Consider the implications of that illustration.

If “95 frames” of the fossil record show that animals do not evolve from one type into another, why do paleontologists arrange the remaining “5 frames” to imply that they do?

Because of morphological similarities which make absolutely no sense otherwise. To use your analogy, imagine you walked into a cutting room and found several frames scattered at various locations on the floor. You may initially have no reason to assume they are taken from the same film, but you decide to investigate the frames. Firstly, you notice that all of the frames contain the same actors. Not especially conclusive - these actors are famous and have been in lots of different films. Then you notice they are wearing the same costume, and that they're in a similar location, and you also realize that some of the frames (the ones you found closer together) are practically identical, with only the suggestion of slight movement between them, while it appears as if the other, more distant frames take place at a different time of day, but the actors now have bruises and scars on them.

Would it be completely unreasonable to assume that these frames, after inspecting their details, all come from the same reel of film for the same movie?

We are always going to be drawing from a comparatively small sample if what you're drawing from is literally every organism that ever lived, but it's not about quantity (despite the fact we have THOUSANDS of transitional fossils), it's about what the evidence actually tells us.

Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?

Food for thinkers.....

Already explained above. It's very telling that the best arguments you have against evolution involve extremely inaccurate analogies which involve completely ignoring what the evidence is.

 

[exchemist]

I had to laugh at this....here we have an unprovable "theory" that has had such far reaching implications for humanity, and their attitude towards everything....and it all comes down to "semantics". Don't mention "proof"...that is a uncomfortable term.
Science can't "prove" a thing they say, but if they change the terminology to "evidence" (which can be manipulated by interpretation) then you can get away with telling lies. I think I see the picture.

[snip]


I don't buy any of it....its science fiction sold as science fact.

Logically, we cannot move forward to the issues you really want to discuss until the first issue, about the nature of theories in science, is settled. Hence the "snip".

You are indulging in emotional rhetoric here, rather than engaging with what I have been trying to explain. What I have said to you is standard philosophy of science - which is why (as you complain!) you have heard much of it before, from other scientifically literate contributors here. Nobody is "changing terminology", "manipulating evidence" or "telling lies". Such accusations serve no purpose in a rational discussion.

I have been at pains to give you examples from physics (a branch of science that you seem to find uncontentious), to illustrate that a theory in science is not a "fact" and cannot be "proved", only supported by evidence - or contradicted by it. There is no special pleading here from me on behalf of evolution - I am a chemist, after all. I have also given you examples from my own field of theories that are obviously not provable "facts". So this is non-negotiable.

If you want to attack the theory of evolution (as you obviously do), you can mount your attack on the grounds that you find the evidence for it unpersuasive. That is an intellectually coherent thing to do, and we can then move forward, as you seem to want to do, to debating that evidence.

What will not do is to set a harder test for evolution than for any other theory of science. The test for all theories has to be the same: does the evidence support or contradict the theory, and how good is that evidence.

If you are willing to discuss evolution in terms of the evidence for and against, and to stop introducing "proof" into the discussion, I shall be happy to continue.

 

[exchemist]

Well then, how gullible are people who swallow what can't be proven?
Science deals in evidence, not belief.....doesn't it?

If you accept something that is not provable, then you have a "belief" that you cannot verify....just like I do.

Is that rocket science?

Deeje, you raise a rather good point. I think in science we do "believe" in most of the theories (i.e. those that we do not see as suspect, due to conflicting evidence). As they are not "fact", and yet we trust them, what are we doing? We are "believing" in them, it seems to me.

But, like Doubting Thomas, we believe because we have (reproducible) evidence. What we do not do in science is what Christ encouraged in His followers: "Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe".

 

[Audie]

Well then, how gullible are people who swallow what can't be proven?
Science deals in evidence, not belief.....doesn't it?

If you accept something that is not provable, then you have a "belief" that you cannot verify....just like I do.

Is that rocket science?

No, it is called equivacation.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, you raise a rather good point. I think in science we do "believe" in most of the theories (i.e. those that we do not see as suspect, due to conflicting evidence). As they are not "fact", and yet we trust them, what are we doing? We are "believing" in them, it seems to me.

Well thank you at least for that small concession.

You appear to trust unverifiable suggestions introduced by those who "accept" that science is somehow a more "believable" substitute for direct creation. As a "Catholic", how does that sit with your faith.....or do you discount it entirely? What part does "belief" play in the interpretation of "scientific" evidence, and what role does "faith" play in your acceptance of their word over the Creator's?

But, like Doubting Thomas, we believe because we have (reproducible) evidence.

That is just the point...you have "reproducible evidence" for only a very small portion of the evolution scenario. ....the "micro" part.....the "macro" part has nothing to support it but suggestion, as I tried to show you in the whale evolution 'evogram'.

What we do not do in science is what Christ encouraged in His followers: "Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe".

Can you use the words of Christ against him.

At Colossians 1:13-17 the Apostle Paul said of the Father...."He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (ESV)

Did the church ever teach you that Jesus was "the firstborn of all creation" and that the Father used him as the chief agent of creation? (Proverbs 8:30-31)

The Apostle John also made reference to Jesus as the one through whom all things were made. "He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made". (John 1:2-3) Now apply the scripture you quoted to me with those scriptures in mind. "Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe".

Apparently you can't do that....? Why?

If you have to have "faith" and "belief"...why not place it in God? Why trust fallible men as if they can ever know better?

 

[exchemist]

Well thank you at least for that small concession.

You appear to trust unverifiable suggestions introduced by those who "accept" that science is somehow a more "believable" substitute for direct creation. As a "Catholic", how does that sit with your faith.....or do you discount it entirely? What part does "belief" play in the interpretation of "scientific" evidence, and what role does "faith" play in your acceptance of their word over the Creator's?



That is just the point...you have "reproducible evidence" for only a very small portion of the evolution scenario. ....the "micro" part.....the "macro" part has nothing to support it but suggestion, as I tried to show you in the whale evolution 'evogram'.



Can you use the words of Christ against him.

At Colossians 1:13-17 the Apostle Paul said of the Father...."He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (ESV)

Did the church ever teach you that Jesus was "the firstborn of all creation" and that the Father used him as the chief agent of creation? (Proverbs 8:30-31)

The Apostle John also made reference to Jesus as the one through whom all things were made. "He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made". (John 1:2-3) Now apply the scripture you quoted to me with those scriptures in mind. "Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe".

Apparently you can't do that....? Why?

If you have to have "faith" and "belief"...why not place it in God? Why trust fallible men as if they can ever know better?

Whut?