Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Subduction Zone]

I explain it by saying that there are extinct creatures. There are fossils of creatures that no longer exist and can be classified with creatures that do exist.

That is really not an explanation. You don't explain where they came from or why. You are thinking emotionally rather than rationally. Once again, do you see any problems with this definition of evidence:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Genesis story was never shown to be a myth.

Of course it was. Now you are just being silly. Long before Darwin wrote his theory the Flood story was shown to be a myth. Many of those that refuted it were Christians looking for evidence of the Flood. Darwin's theory has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". Not understanding the theory or even the concept of evidence does not mean that the myths of Genesis have not been refuted.

 

[Jose Fly]

I explain it by saying that there are extinct creatures. There are fossils of creatures that no longer exist and can be classified with creatures that do exist.

You're not understanding my question.

I'm asking how you explain the fact that the world's life scientists have concluded, for over 100 years now, that humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates. Have all those scientists been collectively bad at their jobs? Have they all been engaging in a massive conspiracy?

I realize you have a fair number of posts to respond to, but please read my question closely.

 

[LightofTruth]

Of course it was. Now you are just being silly. Long before Darwin wrote his theory the Flood story was shown to be a myth. Many of those that refuted it were Christians looking for evidence of the Flood. Darwin's theory has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". Not understanding the theory or even the concept of evidence does not mean that the myths of Genesis have not been refuted.

Does not having found evidence for something mean it never happened? That's silly.

 

[LightofTruth]

You're not understanding my question.

I'm asking how you explain the fact that the world's life scientists have concluded, for over 100 years now, that humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates. Have all those scientists been collectively bad at their jobs? Have they all been engaging in a massive conspiracy?

I realize you have a fair number of posts to respond to, but please read my question closely.

Like I said, your term "evolutionary ancestry" is an assumption. and to think it's fact is to be delusional.

 

[Jose Fly]

Like I said, your term "evolutionary ancestry" is an assumption. and to think it's fact is to be delusional.

So it seems like you're deliberately avoiding the question. Why?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But these folks don't exist in a vacuum either.

They set up something that resembles one. Not to the extent the Amish do, but you'd be surprised.

They live in the same world we do and they're generally aware that in western culture, science and scientists are highly regarded and those scientists have concluded that evolution/common descent is real.

They believe there is a controversy surrounding evolution and scientists, that many scientists deny evolution, and they believe that it's still debated if there is a common ancestor. They may physically live in the same world as us, but ideologically they live in their own.

They also know that much of society laughs at them and their beliefs

They expect and anticipate that. Not because of their views on science, but because they are Christian.

They're a means for them to deal with all that uncomfortable reality

That assumes there is a sense of discomfort for them. For so very many there just simply is none to be found.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does not having found evidence for something mean it never happened? That's silly.

Sorry, you are implying the use of an incorrect phrase. A lack of evidence can be evidence against something. For example we know that there was no Flood because such and event would leave massive evidence. There is no evidence of a flood, only embarrassing misinterpretations of evidence by the ignorant.


Tell me, a friend of yours tells you that a large explosion killing many people just went off on a street corner in your town. You rush to the corner where he claimed that it happened and see only people going about their business. No broken windows. No damage. No emergency vehicles. All you can observe is a lack of what you would expect to see if he was honest. Did he tell the truth or was he lying?

 

[LightofTruth]

So it seems like you're deliberately avoiding the question. Why?

Why do you use the term "evolutionary ancestry" as if it is a fact?

 

[Polymath257]

Does not having found evidence for something mean it never happened? That's silly.

Not if such evidence were rare or not expected. On the other hand, if such evidence was expected to be common, the absence *would* be evidence it doesn't happen.

 

[Polymath257]

Why do you use the term "evolutionary ancestry" as if it is a fact?

Because that is what the evidence supports.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, your term "evolutionary ancestry" is an assumption. and to think it's fact is to be delusional.

No, once again assumptions are your sin. That is as false claim on your part. You need to learn some of the basics so that you do not repeat these errors.

 

[Jose Fly]

They set up something that resembles one. Not to the extent the Amish do, but you'd be surprised.

Some for sure, but I don't think most creationists come from highly insulated cultures. Keep in mind, in the US ~40% of the population are creationists, which is about 130 million people. 130 million Americans do not live a cloistered lifestyle.

They believe there is a controversy surrounding evolution and scientists, that many scientists deny evolution, and they believe that it's still debated if there is a common ancestor. They may physically live in the same world as us, but ideologically they live in their own.

Agreed.

They expect and anticipate that. Not because of their views on science, but because they are Christian.

Agreed.

That assumes there is a sense of discomfort for them. For so very many there just simply is none to be found.

Keep in mind, much of human psychology is at the subconscious level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you use the term "evolutionary ancestry" as if it is a fact?

For the same reason that Maury Povich can shout "You ARE the father!" We have the evidence that supports this beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why do you use the term "evolutionary ancestry" as if it is a fact?

Sorry, I don't play the game where you dodge and avoid my questions and then expect me to answer yours. I've asked you the same question at least 3 separate times now and you've dodged it each time. Why?

 

[Polymath257]

Like I said, your term "evolutionary ancestry" is an assumption. and to think it's fact is to be delusional.

OK, so how is it possible for professional scientists to be collectively delusional for well over 150 years in this way? That includes finding and measuring fossils, collecting and analyzing genetic data, and generally being in an environment that encourages questioning via observation.

 

[LightofTruth]

Sorry, you are implying the use of an incorrect phrase. A lack of evidence can be evidence against something. For example we know that there was no Flood because such and event would leave massive evidence. There is no evidence of a flood, only embarrassing misinterpretations of evidence by the ignorant.


Tell me, a friend of yours tells you that a large explosion killing many people just went off on a street corner in your town. You rush to the corner where he claimed that it happened and see only people going about their business. No broken windows. No damage. No emergency vehicles. All you can observe is a lack of what you would expect to see if he was honest. Did he tell the truth or was he lying?

Well, some think the flood was world-wide and others localized. If the flood was localized, it would have taken place in the middle east. Are you saying that it was impossible for flood waters to cover the entire middle east as reported in Genesis? Why?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, some think the flood was world-wide and others localized. If the flood was localized, it would have taken place in the middle east. Are you saying that it was impossible for flood waters to cover the entire middle east as reported in Genesis? Why?

Hydrodynamics.

Local floods certainly did occur. And a couple are candidates for the origin of the Biblical flood myth.

But the entire middle east? nope.

 

[LightofTruth]

Sorry, I don't play the game where you dodge and avoid my questions and then expect me to answer yours. I've asked you the same question at least 3 separate times now and you've dodged it each time. Why?

I'm not dodging it. I'm questioning your assumption. Your question assumes science had shown "evolutionary ancestry" as being conclusive. Has it?

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not dodging it. I'm questioning your assumption. Your question assumes science had shown "evolutionary ancestry" as being conclusive. Has it?

Yes. But that is also irrelevant to his question.