Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[beerisit]

The abundance of contradicting evidence, requiring an almost unbelievable number of ad hoc hypotheses.

At some point it should become painfully obvious that the theory is deeply, fundamentally flawed, and that tacking on yet another falsification-avoiding ad hoc hypotheses won't save it, but only further stress how flawed it is.

I've reached that point.

So you don't understand it either?

 

[McBell]

The abundance of contradicting evidence, requiring an almost unbelievable number of ad hoc hypotheses.

At some point it should become painfully obvious that the theory is deeply, fundamentally flawed, and that tacking on yet another falsification-avoiding ad hoc hypotheses won't save it, but only further stress how flawed it is.

I've reached that point.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The abundance of contradicting evidence, requiring an almost unbelievable number of ad hoc hypotheses.

At some point it should become painfully obvious that the theory is deeply, fundamentally flawed, and that tacking on yet another falsification-avoiding ad hoc hypotheses won't save it, but only further stress how flawed it is.

I've reached that point.

We have no idea what you're going on about because of your vagueness. Can you clarify your position here (creationism - evolution) without the obvious failure in linguistic gymnastics?

 

[sonofskeptish]

If someone is not willing to accept evolution as fact, supported by mountians of evidence like fossils, transitional forms, intermediate stages in descendents, homologies, common structures, developmental biology, cellular evidence, molecular evidence, strata layer and radioactive decay dating, geographical species isolation, ecological adaption, natural selection, and evidence by example and experiment, then there is really no point in trying to have a rational discussion with them on the topic. They are choosing to deny history and fact to serve a higher need they have to believe in the creation myth.

 

[MichaelAvery]

Is there a particular verse/passage/anything similar in your holy text(s) that prevents you from accepting ToE? And is it specifically because of human evolution, or the whole concept of animals evolving altogether?

This is my opinion and my second post.
But I think Christians and Thiest overall are afraid of, is that saying evolution took place makes God non-existant.This would seem true for alot of people because thier belief relies on God having formed man from the dust of the ground.

Evolution can not be disproved and all theories supported have documented fact to back them.

So does evolution discredit Christianity and the Bible?

 

[Looncall]

If someone is not willing to accept evolution as fact, supported by mountians of evidence like fossils, transitional forms, intermediate stages in descendents, homologies, common structures, developmental biology, cellular evidence, molecular evidence, strata layer and radioactive decay dating, geographical species isolation, ecological adaption, natural selection, and evidence by example and experiment, then there is really no point in trying to have a rational discussion with them on the topic. They are choosing to deny history and fact to serve a higher need they have to believe in the creation myth.

Well put.

The problem is what to do to limit the damage their ignorance can cause.

All I can think of that might help is mockery.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is my opinion and my second post.
But I think Christians and Thiest overall are afraid of, is that saying evolution took place makes God non-existant.This would seem true for alot of people because thier belief relies on God having formed man from the dust of the ground.

Evolution can not be disproved and all theories supported have documented fact to back them.

So does evolution discredit Christianity and the Bible?

It's not the goal of scientist to discredit religious claims. Scientist deal with the evidence. If the evidence invalidates Christian or religious claims then it is not the fault of scientist or the evidence.

To quotes a famous R&B song....

Harold Melvin/The Blue Notes
"Wake up Everybody"

"Wake up everybody no more sleepin in bed
No more backward thinkin time for thinkin ahead"

"Wake up all the teachers time to teach a new way
Maybe then they'll listen to whatcha have to say
Cause they're the ones who's coming up and the world is in their hands
when you teach the children teach em the very best you can."

It's time to teach a new way because all the backward thinking doesn't work anymore.

 

[rusra02]

It's not the goal of scientist to discredit religious claims. Scientist deal with the evidence. If the evidence invalidates Christian or religious claims then it is not the fault of scientist or the evidence.

To quotes a famous R&B song....

Harold Melvin/The Blue Notes
"Wake up Everybody"

"Wake up everybody no more sleepin in bed
No more backward thinkin time for thinkin ahead"

"Wake up all the teachers time to teach a new way
Maybe then they'll listen to whatcha have to say
Cause they're the ones who's coming up and the world is in their hands
when you teach the children teach em the very best you can."

It's time to teach a new way because all the backward thinking doesn't work anymore.

"not the goal of scientist to discredit religious claims. "
How ironic that the post above this one states regarding those who reject evolution:
"All I can think of that might help is mockery"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"not the goal of scientist to discredit religious claims. "
How ironic that the post above this one states regarding those who reject evolution:
"All I can think of that might help is mockery"

Nonsense.

Why are you even comparing his words to mine?

The context of both are completely different...

 

[sanad1998]

Yes I do have

Qur'an
Surah 95 , Verse 4 (We have certainly created man in the best of stature which is the stature that we have right now

and to disprove the evolution of man from monkeys to what they are now

Qur'an
Surah 7 verse 166 (So when they were insolent about that which they had been forbidden, We said to them, "Be apes(monkeys), despised)

to understand the verse well it's better to read Surah 7 verses 163-166
and that verse show that human are in good creation, but those who disobeyed Allah's orders had been turned into apes(monkeys).

and Prophet Mohammad Said:The mighty Allah didn't allow the monsters (People who had been turned into animals) to breed and didn't allow them to success , and apes an pig where on land before the monsters(people who had been turned into apes).

finally
Allah Knows and Peace and prays be upon Mohammad S.A.W.
May Allah guide you to the straight path.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes I do have

Qur'an
Surah 95 , Verse 4 (We have certainly created man in the best of stature which is the stature that we have right now

and to disprove the evolution of man from monkeys to what they are now

First of all we didn't evolve from monkeys. Non-Human Primates and "Humans" (Human Primate) share a common ancestor.

Qur'an
Surah 7 verse 166 (So when they were insolent about that which they had been forbidden, We said to them, "Be apes(monkeys), despised)

to understand the verse well it's better to read Surah 7 verses 163-166
and that verse show that human are in good creation, but those who disobeyed Allah's orders had been turned into apes(monkeys).

All this means is that the Quran is wrong. The fact of the matter is we are apes. The verse was trying to use apes in a derogatory way but scientifically we are classified along with the Great Apes.

and Prophet Mohammad Said:The mighty Allah didn't allow the monsters (People who had been turned into animals) to breed and didn't allow them to success , and apes an pig where on land before the monsters(people who had been turned into apes).

Mohammad was clueless. As I've said...we are human primates. Fortunately genetics have conclusively shown this to be true which trumps Mohammad's opinion on the matter.

 

[camanintx]

and to disprove the evolution of man from monkeys to what they are now

Myths don't disprove anything.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The abundance of contradicting evidence, requiring an almost unbelievable number of ad hoc hypotheses.

At some point it should become painfully obvious that the theory is deeply, fundamentally flawed, and that tacking on yet another falsification-avoiding ad hoc hypotheses won't save it, but only further stress how flawed it is.

I've reached that point.

I think evolution shares the same fatal attractions as Newton's laws did.. but with more emotional investment- people will never change already formed beliefs, perhaps new contradicting evidence can only be accepted by new generations? But evolution is still much younger than Newton's 'immutable' laws were when Planck and Einstein challenged them.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck

 

[McBell]

I think evolution shares the same fatal attractions as Newton's laws did.. but with more emotional investment- people will never change already formed beliefs, perhaps new contradicting evidence can only be accepted by new generations? But evolution is still much younger than Newton's 'immutable' laws were when Planck and Einstein challenged them.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck

What is this new theory that will replace evolution?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who is coaching you? They really need to do a better job.

Your only defense is that quote mining is disingenuous. That's all you got? Heaven forbid you might have the guts to discuss the content of the quote itself.

Why bother when the contents of the quote were dishonestly presented and completely lacking in context? In other words, why discuss something that was never actually said in the first place?

There must be some reason a lot of creationists resort to such a dishonest tactic.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You know... I am just not sure I have enough pity left to go around.

I really wish I could impress upon the counntless well-off people in the West that their idea of what life is all about is probably the greatest flaw in their being. Being successful, staying healthy, providing all you can for your children (at the expense of imbuing true wisdom) is a hopeless and tragic way to live.

Well in my opinion, trying to fast forward through the one life we know for sure we get to live in favour of some eternity somewhere which may or not exist is a hopeless and tragic way to live. From that perspective, I think you are truly missing out on life.

 

[dgirl1986]

I wonder if creationsts still consider the pope to be a creationist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So I'm not allowed to respond with evidence that the fossil record supports creation, not evolution? Let's just sweep the Cambrian explosion under the evolutionary rug, to avoid embarrassing the evolutionary faithful? Let's also not discuss what Carl Sagan said: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."
Let's also deep-six what avowed evolutionist David M. Raup wrote: "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, 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."
Hmm. species appear suddenly, show little or no change....
Let's just call everything written that disproves evolution "quote-mining" and ridicule whoever believes in creation and call them names, and accuse them of lying.
That ought to silence those pesky people who insist that God created all life according to their kinds, as the Bible says.

Oops, more dishonest quote mining. Sorry, gotta call a spade a spade. The full Carl Sagan quote shows that he meant quite the opposite of what you posted:

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament).
-Sagan, Carl (1980). Cosmos. Random House, Inc. New York. p. 29


That is why quote mining is dishonest. I hope you figure it out soon, lest you continue engaging in such a dishonest practice.

 

[rusra02]

Oops, more dishonest quote mining. Sorry, gotta call a spade a spade. The full Carl Sagan quote shows that he meant quite the opposite of what you posted:

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament).
-Sagan, Carl (1980). Cosmos. Random House, Inc. New York. p. 29


That is why quote mining is dishonest. I hope you figure it out soon, lest you continue engaging in such a dishonest practice.

Reporting the context of Sagan's words does not change their meaning nor import. Although Sagan did not apparently believe in ID, his statement about the fossil evidence was not misstated by me. A common ploy of ToE propagandists is to claim that those who expose their false teaching are "dishonest".

 

[McBell]

Reporting the context of Sagan's words does not change their meaning nor import. Although Sagan did not apparently believe in ID, his statement about the fossil evidence was not misstated by me. A common ploy of ToE propagandists is to claim that those who expose their false teaching are "dishonest".

The only thing you have revealed as being dishonest is yourself and creationists tactics.
Now if your deity approves of such dishonesty, you have also shown your deities dishonesty.

Congratulations!!