Coming out as creationists: fear.

[Deeje]

It's only Wikipedia, but it should clear things up for you.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia

I was kinda wondering why you wanted to conflate theory and scientific theory, but I kinda know the answer, right?

It's nice that science can hide behind word definitions. It's an excuse to pass supposition off as "almost" fact.

Still, just in case the idea of words having different meanings in a techincal to lay person sense is problematic, some to look out for include;

Abstract
Bias
Chaotic
Depressant
Exotic
Fitness
Generic

Meh...I was gonna go through the alphabet, but I'll struggle at the end anyway.
X is always a problem.

I am glad I was raised to speak English as a first language because it is one of the most convoluted languages in existence. You can get away with a lot in English. If I tried learning to read and write it as an adult, I think I would give up out of sheer frustration.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's nice that science can hide behind word definitions. It's an excuse to pass supposition off as "almost" fact.

They are not hiding. It is creationists that are afraid to test their ideas. Creationists are the true cowards. And why tell falsehoods about others? Supposition is not allowed in the sciences. You try to use the honesty of others against them, while not being able to make an honest argument in support of your beliefs. That is just a touch hypocritical.

I am glad I was raised to speak English as a first language because it is one of the most convoluted languages in existence. You can get away with a lot in English. If I tried learning to read and write it as an adult, I think I would give up out of sheer frustration.

And yet you still do not seem to be able to understand simple English. Or more likely you won't let yourself learn. Fear is the reason that you are a creationist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's nice that science can hide behind word definitions. It's an excuse to pass supposition off as "almost" fact.

Except that it's not hiding. Just like every other discipline (including my areas of work), there is a range of technical language.
Anyone who cares to can easily understand the difference between scientific theory (oft shortened to 'theory') and theory as used in a murder mystery, based on context. If you don't care to understand the difference, then that's your choice, although I'd question the motivation.

I am glad I was raised to speak English as a first language because it is one of the most convoluted languages in existence. You can get away with a lot in English. If I tried learning to read and write it as an adult, I think I would give up out of sheer frustration.

I agree about it being convoluted, and would put a lot of that down to the mish-mash of word roots from various origin languages.
But I'm not sure what 'get away with a lot' means, nor how that would relate to this topic. No-one is trying to get away with any obfuscation. Quite the opposite.

 

[Deeje]

Maybe because science acknowledges its mistakes, and knows that some things are likely to be changed or added to. String theory, for example. More specifically, Superstring theory. It ties everything together, but the calculations need 10 dimensions to work.
Edit: Wow, that's a bad explanation for string theory :/

You know, I have no problem with theories per se. What I object to is this particular theory and it's implications. Other theories do not remove a very important component in the big scheme of things.....an all powerful "First Cause".

Germ theory, theory of gravity, string theory or any other explored scientific idea, does not impact on the human psyche in any way like the ToE. Destroying God is a big deal. It impacts on human thought and attitudes towards so many things. It alters perceptions of everything.

I can prove gravity by dropping Newton's apple. I can prove germ theory by the spread of epidemics and the simple use of a microscope to identify a pathogen. Provable or not, scientific theories are usually harmless and for the most part beneficial.....but not this one. You can't lose this one among the innocuous or beneficial ones. This one changes the whole ball game. It leads people completely off one path and down another. Most people have no idea where that path leads. I believe that they will regret being talked into it.

 

[Deeje]

Except that it's not hiding. Just like every other discipline (including my areas of work), there is a range of technical language.
Anyone who cares to can easily understand the difference between scientific theory (oft shortened to 'theory') and theory as used in a murder mystery, based on context. If you don't care to understand the difference, then that's your choice, although I'd question the motivation.

I agree about it being convoluted, and would put a lot of that down to the mish-mash of word roots from various origin languages.
But I'm not sure what 'get away with a lot' means, nor how that would relate to this topic. No-one is trying to get away with any obfuscation. Quite the opposite.

As a Bible believer, I see a much bigger picture than your worldview allows. I see an agenda that you cannot discern and I see a manipulator of human thought that you will never acknowledge. (1 John 5:19)

No way to bridge that gap I'm afraid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a Bible believer, I see a much bigger picture than your worldview allows. I see an agenda that you cannot discern and I see a manipulator of human thought that you will never acknowledge. (1 John 5:19)

No way to bridge that gap I'm afraid.

No, that is a smaller picture. You keep deluding yourself into thinking that looking at the world with horse blinders on improves your vision. Your restricted vision allows you to fool yourself far too easilyl

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As a Bible believer, I see a much bigger picture than your worldview allows. I see an agenda that you cannot discern and I see a manipulator of human thought that you will never acknowledge. (1 John 5:19)

No way to bridge that gap I'm afraid.

Wait a minute. If you want to play the Devil card, then have at it. But there is nothing mysterious about 'scientific theory'. It's as clear as the nose on my face.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You know, I have no problem with theories per se. What I object to is this particular theory and it's implications. Other theories do not remove a very important component in the big scheme of things.....an all powerful "First Cause".

Germ theory, theory of gravity, string theory or any other explored scientific idea, does not impact on the human psyche in any way like the ToE. Destroying God is a big deal. It impacts on human thought and attitudes towards so many things. It alters perceptions of everything.

I can prove gravity by dropping Newton's apple. I can prove germ theory by the spread of epidemics and the simple use of a microscope to identify a pathogen. Provable or not, scientific theories are usually harmless and for the most part beneficial.....but not this one. You can't lose this one among the innocuous or beneficial ones. This one changes the whole ball game. It leads people completely off one path and down another. Most people have no idea where that path leads. I believe that they will regret being talked into it.

The ToE doesn't destroy God. Certain conceptions of God are problematic, though.
Germ theory is an interesting comparison. Before understanding of germs, how do you think theories on microscopic creatures, too small to see, compared to beliefs about divinely inspired plagues went?

 

[QuestioningMind]

You know what I think is truly sad and pathetic? That people, even those who study science, blindly skip right over the parts in their education system that actually prove that evolution is mostly guesswork. Read any article that explains the evolutionary process and see what "might have" or "could have" taken place....or what "leads us to believe" that something "may have" happened....It's all there in the language. These phrases do not belong in true science which is able to provide conclusive evidence for their hypothesis to become, firstly 'science theory' and on into 'science fact'. I see mostly 'science fiction'.

I have been told many times by the scientists here that there are "no facts in evolutionary science". If there are no facts, then all they have is educated guesswork. The more educated the scientist, the more the guesswork is received as if it were fact. Ask Mr Dawkins if he believes that evolution is fact? He has no hesitation in affirming that. But since he cannot back up a single claim with substantive evidence, he is fudging the truth to push his precious agenda. Arrogance is no substitute for substantiated evidence.

Every article I have ever been given to explain the evolutionary process uses the language of supposition and suggestion to indicate that what they "believe" happened, really did. Back up the suggestion with good diagrams and realistic computer imagery and bingo!...there's your 'overwhelming evidence'.....all I see are overwhelming amounts of unprovable conjecture.

What is the strong indication to scientists that whales evolved from four legged furry land dwellers? An ear bone that was "similar" to what whales have. Really? That's what they base such a ridiculous belief on?....and yet everyone swallows it down Iike it must have happened just because the scientists said so. Throw in a couple of similar looking creatures that existed before that and then suggest relationship in some imagined chain of evolution, and the suggested scenario is complete.

I don't think any of the supporters of macroevolution have any idea how the power of suggestion is used to by-pass common logic. (Which, like common sense, is not so "common" any more.)

Fossils are used to support evolution but they have no voice apart from the one scientists give them. Can you trust a ventriloquist who puts words in the mouth of a lifeless dummy? Scientists can make fossils say whatever they want.

I believe that this is one of the greatest con jobs in history. But like all con jobs, no one will realise it until they have been stripped of all that is truly valuable. Once you erase God from your consciousness, all that is moral goes out the window. The world at present is proof of that IMO. It's not a place you want to raise kids anymore.

Gosh, better tell the 99% of actual scientists in the world who consider Evolution to be as real a science as any other that they're WRONG. I bet you'll get a Nobel Prize for your REMARKABLE discovery.

So PLEASE, explain how this 'con job' works. How the heck do they get all of the genuine respectable scientists in the world to go along with this huge con? Do they pay them off to lie or what? All of us who are sadly ignorant of this vast conspiracy are just DYING to know!

 

[Deeje]

Wait a minute. If you want to play the Devil card, then have at it. But there is nothing mysterious about 'scientific theory'. It's as clear as the nose on my face.

To me, there is nothing 'mysterious' about God. He is as plain as the nose on my face.

Science rejects the notion of a Creator, mainly because of what fundamentalist religion has done to the scenario of creation. Everything poofed into existence in 24 hour literal days? A universe 6,000 years old.....no way!

There is a whole other explanation in Genesis......that is also where the devil pops up.

(he is nothing like that caricature BTW) We might not see much obvious evidence of this entity in the West, but go to countries like Haiti and some African countries where demonism is openly practiced, and its a different story. There are definitely powers beyond human explanation in the world...and they make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.
Have you ever entered an old building and felt a chilling cold that was not explainable and a sense of foreboding that made you want to leave....I have.

Just because science has no test for their existence, doesn't mean these entities aren't there.

 

[Deeje]

The ToE doesn't destroy God. Certain conceptions of God are problematic, though.

The evolutionists' conception of God is the problem. There is no room for an Intelligent Designer of infinite power to exist in their scenario.

Germ theory is an interesting comparison. Before understanding of germs, how do you think theories on microscopic creatures, too small to see, compared to beliefs about divinely inspired plagues went?

Its amazing to me that decades before the thorough hand washing that we see routinely practiced by today's surgeons, one man dared to suggest that the reason why so many infants were dying in hospitals was that doctors were going from a sick patient, or an autopsy, straight to the delivery room without washing their hands. He put two and two together, but until the invention of the microscope, they just laughed at him and continued to do what they had always done. Many newborns died as a result of their refusal to believe that something as simple as washing their hands between patients or procedures could have such an impact. I see the same reluctance on the part of scientists (be they medical or otherwise) because they are are a proud bunch driven largely by the old notion that those with science degrees must be deferred to as the learned ones compared to the ignoramuses outside of the Halls of Higher Education.

As to the subject of health and communicable diseases, the Israelites practiced quarantine and hygiene procedures long before germs were even thought about.

Divinely inspired plagues were from the Creator as retribution for ungodly behavior. If it had not been warranted, it would never have happened. Humans, as free willed beings, apparently have a problem being told what to do.

 

[Woberts]

Have you ever entered an old building and felt a chilling cold that was not explainable and a sense of foreboding that made you want to leave....I have.

Maybe invest in some insulation?

 

[Woberts]

You know, I have no problem with theories per se. What I object to is this particular theory and it's implications. Other theories do not remove a very important component in the big scheme of things.....an all powerful "First Cause".

Germ theory, theory of gravity, string theory or any other explored scientific idea, does not impact on the human psyche in any way like the ToE. Destroying God is a big deal. It impacts on human thought and attitudes towards so many things. It alters perceptions of everything.

I can prove gravity by dropping Newton's apple. I can prove germ theory by the spread of epidemics and the simple use of a microscope to identify a pathogen. Provable or not, scientific theories are usually harmless and for the most part beneficial.....but not this one. You can't lose this one among the innocuous or beneficial ones. This one changes the whole ball game. It leads people completely off one path and down another. Most people have no idea where that path leads. I believe that they will regret being talked into it.

lolwut? My life will remain exactly the same whether I evolved from a common ancestor or if my ancestors were two people who got poofed into exis- Wait a second. If we all come from Adam and Eve, then does that mean....... No. No, no no.
Let's never speak of this again.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I was looking at something earlier, where some young people stated they are very skeptical of evolution. Therefore, I have to say yes.

There may even be a number among younger Americans that accept creationism as more likely.

We should remember that the nones are spiritual- not necessarily atheist. That could mean just about anything.

 

[Deeje]

Maybe invest in some insulation?

Never had the experience eh? So how is joking about something you know nothing about, adding to the conversation here?

My life will remain exactly the same whether I evolved from a common ancestor or if my ancestors were two people who got poofed into exis- Wait a second.

Will your life remain exactly the same? That is an assumption, is it not? You really have no idea how your beliefs shape your past, present and future.

There is a mitochondrial Adam and Eve you know....not the Biblical one, but demonstrating that genetically we are a totally separate species who descended from a common human ancestor.

If we all come from Adam and Eve, then does that mean....... No. No, no no.
Let's never speak of this again

Does that mean that we all have great, great, great, great, great, great x 50,000.......grandparents...why yes!

Why would you not want to speak of them?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's nice that science can hide behind word definitions. It's an excuse to pass supposition off as "almost" fact.

If it's "almost fact," then I suggest you go to a doctor's office and tell everyone with an infectious disease that all those germs are "almost fact." Or wear something magnetic during an MRI. After all, it's only "almost a fact" it will rip it out of your body.

 

[Deeje]

Gosh, better tell the 99% of actual scientists in the world who consider Evolution to be as real a science as any other that they're WRONG. I bet you'll get a Nobel Prize for your REMARKABLE discovery.

No, I'd get shown the door and told to "stay out!" You honestly believe that anyone can tell scientists anything?

It took decades to convince medical science that washing your hands was actually sound scientifically provable practice. I wonder why?

So PLEASE, explain how this 'con job' works. How the heck do they get all of the genuine respectable scientists in the world to go along with this huge con? Do they pay them off to lie or what?

How do scientists of any caliber get paid off? Grants and a very nice tenure. Not to mention getting published in all the prestigious journals. Egos drive some sections of science and money drives the rest.
No one can face their fellow scientists with doubt about the validity of evolution if they want to keep their jobs.

You also have to understand how the power of suggestion works. The advertising industry counts on the fact that if you suggest something often enough, and make it "sound" convincing enough, people will accept it all the more so if you have someone that they admire, to promote it. This is the backbone of the whole "Marketing" juggernaut. They know how to sell a product. Science uses exactly the same tactics to "sell" their unprovable theory.

When you have field of education like Evolutionary Science, that has such poor quality evidence to support it, you have to bring out the big guns like Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne and even David Attenborough to promote it to an adoring audience. Even if you hate Dawkins, its easy to be entertained by Coyne or to love Attenborough's innocuous presentations. His documentaries are absolutely amazing, especially with the use of modern technology to recreate a time when humans weren't around. It looks so real and believable....and yet there is not a shred of real evidence that any of it is true. TBH, I would call that a world class con job.

All of us who are sadly ignorant of this vast conspiracy are just DYING to know!

Actually, I believe you all are......but isn't dying what we all do anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I'd get shown the door and told to "stay out!" You honestly believe that anyone can tell scientists anything?

It took decades to convince medical science that washing your hands was actually sound scientifically provable practice. I wonder why?

Scientists will listen to anyone, that is if they can support their claims with evidence. Sadly I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the concept. It is not that difficult to understand, I think that it there is almost a universal cognitive dissonance when it comes to evidence and creationists. If they understood the concept of evidence only the most dishonest of creationists could maintain their beliefs.

How do scientists of any caliber get paid off? Grants and a very nice tenure. Not to mention getting published in all the prestigious journals. Egos drive some sections of science and money drives the rest.
No one can face their fellow scientists with doubt about the validity of evolution if they want to keep their jobs.

Sorry, but this is an attack on others. If you can't support this claim, and you and I both know that you can't, it is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment by you. Why do you think that it is permissible for creationists to bear false witness against others?

You also have to understand how the power of suggestion works. The advertising industry counts on the fact that if you suggest something often enough, and make it "sound" convincing enough, people will accept it all the more so if you have someone that they admire, to promote it. This is the backbone of the whole "Marketing" juggernaut. They know how to sell a product. Science uses exactly the same tactics to "sell" their unprovable theory.

Sorry, that only explains your beliefs at best. You keep forgetting that the theory of evolution is a testable concept. That does not work with suggestion. You can't suggest that people get confirming results.

When you have field of education like Evolutionary Science, that has such poor quality evidence to support it, you have to bring out the big guns like Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne and even David Attenborough to promote it to an adoring audience. Even if you hate Dawkins, its easy to be entertained by Coyne or to love Attenborough's innocuous presentations. His documentaries are absolutely amazing, especially with the use of modern technology to recreate a time when humans weren't around. It looks so real and believable....and yet there is not a shred of real evidence that any of it is true. TBH, I would call that a world class con job.

Once again this is a bearing of false witness. Since you do not even understand the concept of evidence you are in no position to make such a judgement. The evidence for evolution is amazing, abundant, and of extremely high quality.

Once again Deeje I offer to discuss the nature of evidence with you so that you do not repeat this error.

Actually, I believe you all are......but isn't dying what we all do anyway.

Now now Deeje, even you have to know that you are the ignorant one here. You use ignorance to defend your beliefs. That only convinces you and other ignorant people. Why not try to learn just a little bit? People here will gladly help you.

 

[Deeje]

If it's "almost fact," then I suggest you go to a doctor's office and tell everyone with an infectious disease that all those germs are "almost fact." Or wear something magnetic during an MRI. After all, it's only "almost a fact" it will rip it out of your body.

Was that a response or a reaction? I have stated that it is evolutionary science that has what it believes are "almost facts".....which has nothing to do with infectious diseases or magnetic imaging. If you are going to comment on my post, at least understand what was said.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think people are ridiculed for simply believing in Creationism. I think the ridicule comes in when Creationists make attempts to ridicule Evolution on a scientific basis.

Since the mainstream usage of the term "Creationism" is what it is, people are definitely ridiculed for adhering to it. And they should expect to be ridiculed for it, unless they are far more insulated than they should be.

I strongly suspect that for many that is in fact a major draw; there is appeal and a hint of stoic acceptance of "martyrdon" in the expectance of ridicule "in the name of God".