Do creationists have anything new?

[Jose Fly]

Actually, what is quite sobering is the video I posted JoseFly.

Can you comment on the fact that none of the professors or majors in various science fields, (who all held strong beliefs in evolution) could produce ANY observable evidence at all in support of their "belief"? Who really has "blind faith"?

Ray Comfort (the man asking the questions in the video) has a documented history of dishonestly editing videos.

Further, the first person in that video is professor PZ Myers and he describes how Comfort dishonestly edited out the part where Myers answered the question.....

Ray Comfort confesses

So the question Deeje is, why are you promoting the work of a proven liar?

 

[Jose Fly]

What's truly sad is how they willing accept the scientific method when it comes to how their computers work or establishing that the Earth orbits around the sun, but then reject the exact same method when it comes to evolution. Not only do they claim evolution scientists are all a bunch of frauds using pseudo-science, but apparently they believe that scientist in OTHER fields of study are all too stupid to see the fraud, since 99% percent of them also accept evolution as valid.

In order to buy into the creationist's claims you have to first accept that creationists somehow understand how the scientific method works better that the actual scientists who employ it.

Very true. Another interesting part of how creationists simply repeat the same old arguments and talking points is that you have to wonder.....do the creationists truly think they're raising issues that no scientist has ever thought of before? I mean, are they expecting scientists to respond like "Gosh....we never thought of that before"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, since you asked: http://physiology.by/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Morales_WHO-IS-TELLING-THE-TRUTH.pdf

Er.....um......yeah........

 

[Jose Fly]

The so-called "controversy" is, at its core, a confrontation between people who value their symbolic narrative more than actual knowledge and people who do not. There is no avoiding that.

And therefore, if that narrative never changes, neither will their arguments.

 

[RESOLUTION]

So the consensus view seems to be that no, creationists do not have any new arguments or anything else. And that means all discussions or debates with creationists will be nothing more than rehashes of topics that have been done to death for decades or even centuries, and have accomplished absolutely nothing.

Rather sobering, isn't it?

Where have you searched? I ask because scientist are more for 'creation' than 'evolution' now. Go check out, search creationists who are scientists.

 

[Jose Fly]

One could reverse the question, and get the same result. What is new in evolutionary theory that nails it down as a fact, or it's cousin, the elephant in the room, abiogenesis ?

Well first, you're repeating the common creationist error of thinking that scientific theories strive to be proven until they become fact. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of not just evolutionary biology, but of science in general. In science, theories don't become facts, they explain facts. Read through item #1 in Scientific American's list....

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Second, there are plenty of new developments in the fields of evolutionary biology and origins research. Before I start posting some, are you actually interested in looking at them?

Here are indisputable facts, it is totally unproven by overwhelming, or even significant evidence that macro evolution ever took place, and it certainly is the same for that enigma, wrapped in a mystery, encased in a conumdrum, abiogenesis. So, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had zero impact on those who see no reason to accept as fact, ideas that are linked together by ropes of sand , speculation, it must be, ignore that, we are superior ? When one precludes alternatives, one accepts whatever is left, no matter how shoddy the evidence for it. If the physical evidence for two possible alternatives is lacking, then one must look to other systems of evaluation for further knowledge. Thus, believers in the self creation of life from chemicals ,or the resultant primitive and simple organisms ultimately morphing into all of the complicated and diverse life that has existed, based upon accidental mutations, have a fantasy to explain that is no less bizarre than the fantasy that life was the result of a creative act by an unknown intelligent force or being

Am I understanding you correctly, in that you're saying that the reason the scientific community has overwhelmingly supported and utilized evolutionary theory for the last century and a half is simply because that's all that's left after you rule out creationism?

 

[LuisDantas]

And therefore, if that narrative never changes, neither will their arguments.

Indeed.

Yet if the narrative does change, it will be difficult to even attempt to do so without realizing the foolishness of the denial of science, so there is indeed very little room for new arguments to appear.

 

[Jose Fly]

You make a mistake in assuming that all who reject evolution are creationists.

I don't recall saying that. Could you point out where I did?

Creation science is an evangelical thing.

There are many forms of creationism.

I am not evangelical, nor do I subscribe o ll of their ideas, like a young earth. But anyway, you act really smug, as if you and those who think like you, are so bored with proponents of creation. Like you are all so intellectually superior. Well some of us are bored with the things evolutionists keep saying. There are good rebuttals for your arguments.

It's not so much that it's boring as it is an interesting fact that creationists seem to recognize that their arguments have had no impact on science and that they have nothing new, yet they continue to repeat the same failed arguments over and over and over. From a behavioral standpoint, it's rather fascinating.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do we religious folks have anything new??? huh? No, nothing new and happily so!

Thanks for being honest.

But to close this reply, I will reveal the moral of my story and reply, it is this; Don't bet your life, this three score and seven life on securing material gain because the real treasure is with Jesus. Please don't bet your eternal soul on another (the father of all lies) game. Dont base your soul and material life or what is true or not on a system that must rely on falsification to function.

God bless this forum ~

What does that have to do with the topic of this thread? Are you assuming that evolution = atheism?

 

[Jose Fly]

Where have you searched?

Creationist organizations' websites, creationist books, creationist blogs, and forums like this one.

I ask because scientist are more for 'creation' than 'evolution' now. Go check out, search creationists who are scientists.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Creationist organizations' websites, creationist books, creationist blogs, and forums like this one.



Please provide evidence for this claim.

I will ask what you know of
Dr Grady McMurtry and the scientific papers he has often quoted from in his lectures?

 

[Jose Fly]

I will ask what you know of
Dr Grady McMurtry and the scientific papers he has often quoted from in his lectures?

Um......exactly how does that validate your claim that there are more scientists "for creation than evolution now"?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Actually, it's both theory and fact ...

I said that already .... eh?

That life on this planet changes over generations is a undeniable fact. We see it in the fossil record and we see it in the laboratories. We see it in the extinction levels of life that has come before man. Life changes and we refer to this generational change as evolution. Period.

Didn't you read my reply Thumper? I said I agree with most of evolution and most of it is compatible with the bible. In the above you are describing change within the framework of the species,which I said happens. So again, evolution as a whole is a theory and evolutionary change within the species is fact.

Given that we know these changes occur, biologist then ask what natural mechanisms drive these changes. This set of mechanisms we've been able to derive are collectively referred to as the Theory of Evolution.

Yes the theory of evolution, but you paint with a broad brush, but for our discussion I agree.

In science, a theory never, ever rises to another level of distinction. A theory is always a theory. And typically, a theory is always subject to revision as we learn more about the field of endeavor being studied.

Yes, just as I said, I also said truth does not change and needs no revisions. Also I see no problem with science changing its claims etc because it is the best method for discovery etc that we have. However science is not a truth generator.

To address your last question about "cross-species" stuff. You should understand that the concept of "species" is a human created term to separate life into categories for study, nothing more. And there are numerous plants and animals that don't fit neatly into our taxonomy breakdowns - the platypus comes immediately to mind.

Again I agree. The exact details of how organisms are classified in the Linnaean system are changing with time, that's the part of scientific method. It works good for science not so good for discovery of truth. So whats the problem? lol. We seem to agree more than disagree.

 

[Quintessence]

Hello @Jose Fly - when you say "creationist" could you specify what type or types you mean? Are you talking exclusively of those who follow the tales of the Bible? Perhaps specifically the tales of Biblical literalists or those who are mythological literalists? If so, talking to people outside of the Abrahamic religions and the mythological literalists might give you something different to think about.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do we religious folks have anything new??? huh? No, nothing new and happily so! The truth never changes and so our answers do not change. Science changes almost daily much like a con mans story. And that's ok sometimes science gets it right even if it takes a hundred years to do so! Don't get me wrong, science is now a necessary evil, it being the Pandora box things both beautiful and horrific, beautiful things like the images of Hubble and awful things such as creating the nuclear genie who just biding its time to unleash the devils final solution. Science that could feed the world if not for mans ungodly hate for his fellow man, but I digress. I do love science I consider myself a modestly talented amateur astronomer for example. But to close this reply, I will reveal the moral of my story and reply, it is this;

This is nothing like the way a rational skeptic thinks. For starters, you have an odd idea about knowledge being frozen in time. Truth is not a thing that changes or not. It is the quality that facts possess, where facts are linguistic strings that accurately map an aspect of reality. They are determined by consulting reality, and verified as useful by their ability to produce expected and desired outcomes. The collection of facts is knowledge, and in my world, knowledge is continually increasing. Truth has to be discerned, and the discerning is a dynamic process, not fossilized.

That's the tradition I was have lived in. Whereas you may have no new creationist knowledge, and I don't dispute that, I have more knowledge of evolution and abiogenesis than I did last year.

You also have an extremely pessimistic view of mankind and the world, but I'm accustomed to that from the faithful. Mankind and the world have both been very good tome. I was born into great opportunity. I had great parents that never asked me to believe anything on faith, and encouraged critical thinking. I was offered a good education with assistance from what used to be a government that cared about human development. I had access to free public schools, college loans, the GI Bill, and small business loans. I was born into political stability and economic opportunity

To have your attitude given how much I've received would be ungrateful. Sorry that your world was less, or that somebody convinced you that it was.

Another poster on this thread told me that his life would be meaningless without his god belief. I told him that if that was so, it was meaningless with it, too.

Don't bet your life, this three score and seven life on securing material gain because the real treasure is with Jesus. Please don't bet your eternal soul on another (the father of all lies) game. Don't bet your life, this three score and seven life on securing material gain because the real treasure is with Jesus. Please don't bet your eternal soul on another (the father of all lies) game. Dont base your soul and material life or what is true or not on a system that must rely on falsification to function.

Thanks for the life advice, but I can't use it.

My advice would be to not base your life on faith - faith in souls, gods, and devils. Reason applied to evidence is how truth is ascertained. It works for me. And the secret to happiness is

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Did you consider me an abrasive atheist? I have tried to be respectful and remain dispassionate. Perhaps you didn't like my treatment of "faith."

No not at all. My statement was an unfortunate choice of words. In attempting to differentiate you and other modest atheists from the more aggressive types I sounded as if I were labeling you, please accept my apology?

It is a commonplace to read that evolution is both a fact and a theory. The facts are those things that have been observed, including speciation events. We know that evolution occurs.

I think much of the problem is language and definitions. A species is on a list developed researchers that include; Species, Subspecies Phylum, Kingdom, Class, Order, Family Genus (sorry about the lists order) . The list is primarily artificial because a true species never changes into another species. That is why "kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, and most of the genus" are 'faux' groupings. Do true species exist? Yes of course, however, researchers who catalog these things at times give the name species to what should be tagged a genus. Why? Men create the artificial categories and because of that truth is sometimes not compatible with reality.

The theory unifies the observations, offers a mechanism for them, and offers some predictions.Here's a nice example. Evolutionary theory predicted that we should find transitional fossils connecting a last common ancestor with the chimp-bonobo line to man (and another connecting that ancestor to the chimps). Then they were found. The theory unifies the series of radiodated hominin fossil series including older forms more like the smaller brained, robust, nut eating, brachiating apes through more intermediate forms such as Lucy (bipedal but small brained and robust) to more modern and more nearly human forms such as Java man (large brained, omnivorous, could sail).

Where does Piltdown man fit in? Lol just kidding. I will get back to you after a bit of research....

Incidentally, theory is the highest level of scientific understanding, higher than observation (fact), and higher than scientific law. Theory is the ultimate in science.
Is cross-species change the same as speciation? The evidence for speciation is easy to find on the Internet.

As is contradictions.

So you accept evolutionary theory? Would you call your beliefs Darwinian evolutionary theory?

I doubt Darwin himself may not recognize his own theory. No, I don't think that would be a descriptive name for my beliefs. Darwin deserves his dues, and all kidding aside I respect the man. My beliefs could be accurately be called enhanced evolution by design.

You used the word "most." What parts of the scientific theory do you reject and why?

I reject the molecule to man part of the theory. Thanks for your reply and questions. Are you 100% opposed to any type of evolution occurring not following the current scientific claims?
: {>

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Lol and you guys are whining about we religious types having no new arguments!

You just agreed that you don't have any new religious arguments.

And why would we whine at you? We want nothing from you except to keep your religion out of the lawbooks and schoolbooks, and we know that you have no intention of permitting that if you can make Christian values the law, so we'll have to get that through attrition of the church as religious grandparents pass away and are replaced by secular grandchildren. It is that younger generation that will protect America from creeping theocracy.

But as for what you believe, I don't care if you're a creationist. Why would I? It's fine with me if you want to dip a chicken talon in goat's blood, hammer it to a post, and dance around it all night in the nude while howling at the moon and shaking a stick if that is what centers you and gives your life meaning, a moral grounding, and a framework for understanding the universe - as long as you don’t try to force me to join you.

That's fair, isn't it?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

This is nothing like the way a rational skeptic thinks. For starters, you have an odd idea about knowledge being frozen in time. Truth is not a thing that changes or not. It is the quality that facts possess, where facts are linguistic strings that accurately map an aspect of reality. They are determined by consulting reality, and verified as useful by their ability to produce expected and desired outcomes. The collection of facts is knowledge, and in my world, knowledge is continually increasing. Truth has to be discerned, and the discerning is a dynamic process, not fossilized.

That's the tradition I was have lived in. Whereas you may have no new creationist knowledge, and I don't dispute that, I have more knowledge of evolution and abiogenesis than I did last year.

You also have an extremely pessimistic view of mankind and the world, but I'm accustomed to that from the faithful. Mankind and the world have both been very good tome. I was born into great opportunity. I had great parents that never asked me to believe anything on faith, and encouraged critical thinking. I was offered a good education with assistance from what used to be a government that cared about human development. I had access to free public schools, college loans, the GI Bill, and small business loans. I was born into political stability and economic opportunity

To have your attitude given how much I've received would be ungrateful. Sorry that your world was less, or that somebody convinced you that it was.

Another poster on this thread told me that his life would be meaningless without his god belief. I told him that if that was so, it was meaningless with it, too.

Thanks for the life advice, but I can't use it.

My advice would be to not base your life on faith - faith in souls, gods, and devils. Reason applied to evidence is how truth is ascertained. It works for me. And the secret to happiness is

God bless you (I couldn't help myself) well I really mean it too... I will answer your well thought out reply as soon as possible, my health demons and conspiring against my body just about now.... I would like to comment about one thing you said.....ok you said ;

"Another poster on this thread told me that his life would be meaningless without his god belief. I told him that if that was so, it was meaningless with it, too."

I think he loves God like someone who loves science or whatever. No its more like loving our father or mother. Without that which brings us joy the absence of such makes life a bit less appealing ~ and I might add your remark was a bit cruel, are you working on that abrasive title?

; {>

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Simply put in recorded history there have been no changes in apes. They have not developed language, nor build houses, they are still simply apes. What distinguishes man from every other live being? Gen 1:26 Have a nice day.

capumetu @yours.com

no space after u

If by recorded history you mean written history, that is only a few thousand years.

We have other records record this transition, but they are not written in a human language. They're pretty clear about what happened in the main. Humans evolved from non-humans. What remains to be learned is which of the fossils represent ancestors that eventually evolved into modern man, and which were branches from that line that produced cousins (cousins are relatives, but not ancestors) that have gone extinct rather than transform, as well as the timeline for that. What came first? An omnivorous diet or relative hairlessness.

It took man millions of years to evolve from brachiating apes to what we see today. And it required selection pressures not present in jungles. Mans ancestors were forced from African jungle trees when many were replaced by savannas following the impact of North and South America and the effect it had on a current traveling eastward through what has become the Panama canal region. Once man was forced from the trees, he was forced to adapt to a new habitat, one which caused him to stand upright, lose most of his body hair so that he could run long distances (persistence hunting), lose his body hair, develop great manual dexterity, become taller and more gracile, and grow huge brains.

 

[Vancouversailor]

Ok, playing on that I too have a question. Why do most of us fear death? These days it can be made painless, so whats the problem with going away? Of non existence? At first it seems a simple question but as one thinks about it e its not so simple at all? Like the self depreciating joke 'pardon me but you have obviously mistaken me for somebody that has something to live for, people with awful pain and other problems want to live every second possible. Why?
Thanks for your reply ~

I believe that fear of death is closely linked to how we have lived our life. If we have lived it to the fullest, accomplished most of the goals we set for ourselves, made a positive difference to other people's lives and done as little harm as possible, we can face our end days without fear. If not, well that's when many people panic and resort to religion in the false belief that it gives them an afterlife, or a second chance if you like.
I had a near death experience about seven years ago, A cardiac arrest while I was waiting at a bus stop left me with no vital signs for seven minutes, from what I was told two months later when I woke from a coma. My only memory was like someone turned out the lights. Not much to fear really. Since then I have been living like someone given a second chance, completing my bucket list if you like. And whatever fear I used to have about death is gone.