Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[TagliatelliMonster]

It requires axioms.

Everything does.

For example, to get out of bed in the morning, I need to assume that reality is actually real.

So, is there an axiom in evolution theory that you feel is unwarranted or invalid?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But yes as all evolutionist do he incorrectly uses the tired argument of science vs religion when it's good vs bad science.

Here's one of your problems: You call science "bad science", whenever it conflicts with your a priori religious beliefs.

This is why you are bothered by evolution theory, but not by theory of gravity - while we know immensly more about evolution then we do about gravity. Evolution has a ridiculous amount of evidence in support of it, FAR FAR more and solid then the evidence for the gravity model.

But you aren't bothere by the gravity model. Not because you think the science is better, but simply because it doesn't conflict with your dogmatic beliefs.

I bet you also have a problem with dating methods. Not because you actually understand how it is done and have valid concerns about it... but rather simply because the dates they yield are in conflict with your dogmatic beliefs.

This is painfully obvious throughout the thread.
This is why nobody here can take you and your "objections" seriously.

You say I don't understand evolution because I don't niece it like you do.

No. We say you don't understand evolution because everything you say about evolution is simply incorrect.

Understanding a theory and accepting it as accurate, are 2 different things.
It's perfeclty possible to understand what a theory says and not agree with it.

So wheter or not you accept it, is not the point nore the problem.
The problem is that you clearly don't understand the theory. You clearly have no knowledge about what it actually says. Yet, you are determined to argue against it anyway.

But since you don't understand it, your objectional arguments are based on false premises and ill-understanding. It's all worthless.

You still refuse to deal with the foundational issues it has

We have dealed with it. We pointed out to you that what you call "foundational issues", is just fallacious nonsense based on strawmen and ill-understanding.

There's only one person here who refuses to look beyond bias - and it's obviously you.

It's obvious that your objection to the biological science are purely religious.
Just come clean.

What's really funny to me to is this. Billions of yrs is so critical for evolution. Yet with recent discoveries by secular scientists finding proof of young age they never expected with dinosaur fossil tissue etc

See, again with the nonsense you pulled from creationist propaganda.
Have you also read the part where this is explained and how that tissue really isn't what creationists claim it is? I bet you didn't.

It couldn't last 65 million yrs yet there it was. But it didn't fit the narrative. So you have to destroy it. Despite finding more & more examples of it.

False. Also a blatant lie that these samples were destroyed.

Plus Diamonds themselves are a great proof of young age.

No, they aren't.

But evolutionist have to make up & distort anything & make it fit the narrative or just throw it out.

Says the guy who just, next to the biological sciences, also just rejected atomic theory (yes, because dating methods only work because of atomic theory... so if dating is wrong then that means that we don't understand how atoms work, which means that atomic theory is wrong, which means that nukes shouldn't be exploding)

So many examples of that. But you won't read them even when secular scientist discover things. Then the cover up starts.

And out comes the conspiracy theory........


Good grief.

Plus you won't even take my challenge despite claiming you have all the proven truth on your side.

What are afraid of by having to read the other side? Truth? Creating doubts? Finding out you've been lied to & your ego can't handle it. You're proving all the signs of being brainwashed. I'm sorry for you on that. It's been a long hard evening.

You make so many assumptions & yet can't validate them & much evidence is against your uniformity that things have been the same all the time. No proof of that yet it's essential to give the time frame you need.

I'm still willing.

My second irony meter also just exploded.............

 

[HonestJoe]

So I'm hearing about all these evolutionary "theories" & "probabilities" yet they aren't proven but taught as FACT!

When taught properly, evolution will be presented as a theory, based on a whole range of facts, evidence and logic. It often isn’t taught properly but that’s true of everything else too. Bad teaching (or bad learning) doesn’t invalidate the subject.

Then they won't allow any problems with the theory, even from Darwin's own book to be discussed. That's CENSORSHIP due to Agenda not science.

Who is “they” and how are they censoring you or anyone else? There had been loads of discussion and research in the field and evolutionary theory has developed and changed as a consequence.

Which BTW please explain how evolution explains w/o FAITH & Supernatural a caterpillar becoming a butterfly. As a caterpillar it was living fine. It didn't need to change to live. Worms etc live just fine. Somehow someway w/o Intelligent Design nature decides it needs to form a butterfly. Yet it was living fine.

I could only explain it in general terms because I’m not a biologist. Can you explain how and why caterpillars become butterflies by whatever alternative means you’re proposing?

 

[Polymath257]

My quotes from his article are exactly correct. Plus you actually mislead in your appraisal of it. He compares two students. Ironically at the end he prefers the student that is the independent thinker.

But yes as all evolutionist do he incorrectly uses the tired argument of science vs religion when it's good vs bad science.

Again he does exactly as I quoted admits how he teaches & why. Sure he mentions once he has to cram a lot in. But he admits how he chooses what to "cram" in & how he filters it & how in the end he as a position as a teacher uses that position of authority to brainwash using propaganda. He rationalized it of course. But the key is what he admits to.

And, again, the basic problem is how much time there is in *introductory* courses. Given the range of material that needs to be covered for even an overview, it is simply impossible to go through all the alternatives.

I am a math professor. I can assure you that at the basic level (say, calculus and below), we simply don't have the time to cover the logical basis of all the ideas mentioned. That is left to the later, specialist courses, by necessity. Even in a subject like math, where proofs are the life-blood, it is impossible to give the proofs in the introductory courses.

So what has to be done? Well, I teach what I know to be true from the later material and say 'you have to trust me on this one'. According to you, that would be propaganda and indoctrination. But it is actually dealing with the simple fact that introductory courses are *introductory*: they cannot go into the depths of the subject. That is what later courses are for.

So, yes, introductory courses all too often are taught with a 'just trust me' viewpoint on the part of the instructor. But this is neither lying (presenting false material) nor brainwashing (refusing to ever show the evidence--which is covered in later courses), nor propaganda (presenting ideas for a political end). It is simply dealing with the realities of introductory classes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So I'm hearing about all these evolutionary "theories" & "probabilities" yet they aren't proven but taught as FACT! So that is a flat out lie!!

Biological evolution occurs. It has been observed, making its existence a fact, therefore, it should be taught as a fact.

Once the mechanisms of biological evolution are understood, one realizes that the process cannot be stopped. Gene pools are inherently dynamic, spontaneously changing over time. We see the same phenomenon in linguistics, where over time, nested hierarchies of dialects, languages, and families of languages result from the passage of time applied to a handful of proto-languages combined with the inexorable and unstoppable tendency for language to change over time (ask the French how difficult it is to prevent the evolution of language).

The same is true with the nested hierarchy of denominations and families of religions. Over time, and given the inherent tendency for religious beliefs and religious congregations to splinter, we expect the tree of religions past and present to evolve in the same was as populations of biological organisms and languages do.

Regarding proof, you've probably already been told that proof of a scientific theory is neither possible nor necessary. Empirical adequacy, or the ability of an idea to be useful for predicting the outcomes of various events and processes, is sufficient.

The theory of evolution is a system of ideas that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

Those are the credentials of correct ideas. Creationism can do none of that, and has been sterile to date, offering no ideas that can be used in any legitimate way - the credentials of an incorrect idea.

We cannot prove that the theory is correct if it is, but as I indicated, we don't need to. We're going to keep the theory and continue using it because it works. Why on earth would we throw out an idea that works so well for one that doesn't work at all? Because certain people with religious beliefs object to it for contradicting their faith-based teaching?

Then they won't allow any problems with the theory, even from Darwin's own book to be discussed. That's CENSORSHIP due to Agenda not science.

What you call the problems with evolutionary theory are not a threat to it. They are not problems challenging the fundamental tenets of the theory and threatening to overturn it. They are the problems that science tackles routinely in the daily pursuit of better understanding of how the world works. The theory of evolution may be tweaked a bit in the future, but it will not be upended any more than the heliocentric theory of the solar system will be. The evidence is simply too robust

A little thought will explain why. Those mountains of evidence would not go away if a theory-falsifying find was uncovered. They would still need to be explained in the light of the falsifying find. The implication would be that a great deception had occurred, wherein some super-powerful entity went to great trouble to make it appear that life had evolved here on earth when it hadn't. What else is even possible if evolution is wrong, and that seems orders of magnitude less likely than that the theory is correct, meaning that the chances of the theory being falsified are vanishingly small.

please explain how evolution explains w/o FAITH & Supernatural a caterpillar becoming a butterfly.

Evolution doesn't explain how a caterpillar turns into a butterfly. It simply says that at each stage along its multi-billion year history tracing back from the last common ancestor of all life on earth up to the present, like all other currently living populations, butterfly ancestors experienced the effects of natural selection operating on diverse populations experiencing genetic variation over generations, each of which made that ancestral form more competitive securing scarce resources than its littermates.

If we want to know what those changes were, what order they appeared, what their timeline was, and why those changes conferred a competitive advantage, we have to go outside the theory of evolution to the field of entomology.

Human evolutionists have an analogous problem that evolutionary theory also can't help with. We acquired a host of new features following the branching of the chimp's line and man's and our descent from the trees. We stood upright, lost most of our body hair, changed from herbivores to omnivores (changes in dentition and jaw musculature) and became hunters, developed big brains and the female pelvis capable of delivering one, learned to make and use tools, harnessed fire, developed language, became navigators, made permanent settlements, etc.. What was the order of these changes, and what drove them? Darwin's theory cannot give us the answer.

Incidentally, we now know that upright posture preceded increased cranial capacity from the fossils of ancestral forms like Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis, who was bipedal (her spinal cord came out of the bottom of the skull rather than through a more posterior aspect as is the case with animals whose spines are more parallel to the ground than ours when ambulating), but had a chimp-like skull size.

But that is the province of paleontology, physical anthropology, and related endeavors - not Darwin's theory.

I've read so much in textbooks. They use so many words like could, might, over time so on & so forth w/o any specifics with actual evolutionary steps.

Science uses accurate language. If something can only be said to possibly true because it cannot be ruled in or out at this time, the only accurate comment is that it may or might not be the case. If that disappoints you - if you feel compelled to move from the agnostic's middle ground to one answer or the other - then you don't have the temperament for science, which requires the ability to resist premature judgments and make guesses that might be incorrect. It's not a weakness of science to be uncommitted before a decision can be made. It's a virtue.

I know you won't read anything to upset your bias. But in Dr Jonathan Wells book "Icons of Evolution"

I'm with the others who have voiced an opinion that he is simply no longer interested in what creationists have to say except in the narrow sense of being interested in how they think, not what they believe.

Intelligent design has been utterly discredited. It has been declared pseudoscience by American courts, banned from the classroom in American (and other) public schools, has been revealed to be a deception intended to repackage creationism as something not religious or unscientific, had several of its most prominent representatives publicly disgraced (Behe, Dembski, Sternberg), and has made multiple claims of irreducible complexity that have been debunked, all the while generating nothing that suggests that our universe had or needed an intelligent designer.

Remember what I wrote about the features of an incorrect idea - it can't be used for anything, it explains nothing, it accurately predicts nothing, it has little or no supporting evidence - like astrology? Creationism has the same track record, and like astrology, can and should be ignored.

Regarding bias, holding rational biases is not only desirable, it's essential for learning and for living safely and happily. Life is a series of discoveries of which choices produce which results, and which results we prefer. That's bias, too. For example, if I have tried two different restaurants and found that I liked one much better than the other, I will develop a rational bias for one restaurant and against the other.

It's only irrational bias such as bigotry that are undesirable, since it leads to wrong ideas about reality or the unkind and unfair treatment of others. Superstitions fit in that category as well - irrational and incorrect biases about how reality works.

The bias against creationists, their beliefs, and their methods is a rational conclusion based on prior experience, one which allows me to choose to disregard creationists knowing that I won't be making a mistake if I do. As I said, that's bias, but it's also rational, it's also learning, and unlike irrational bias, useful for navigating life calmly and peacefully.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

He rated the accuracy of 10 textbooks in how they taught & text used & described each one. I've put the rating overall for each one for the 10 books beside each. If this doesn't disturb you & make you realize why the quotes I gave are accurate. You are burying your head in the sand deliberately. That's sad.

I wouldn't be interested in Wells' or any other creationist's opinions on anything that contradicts his faith-based beliefs. They've never been useful in the past, so I have no reason to think that they will be in the present. It's like biblical scripture. I've simply lost interest in going to it as a source of information or direction.

You see skeptics as unfair people and poor thinkers inappropriately trying to exclude gods from their thinking by ignoring relevant evidence. I see a creationist with a poor command of the science he rails against, who has not made a compelling argument capable of changing open-minds skilled in critical thinking, who is emotional about his desire to be believed, and who is frustrated because he is not.

This follows Dr. Mano Singhams article in Physics Today June of 2000. He explained how & why he teaches using propaganda & brainwashing & additionally sets it up to brainwash his students from ever giving the other point of view any value. That's what brainwashing is. Silence opposing view. What fake news does & what evolutionist have admitted to but you refuse to acknowledge. That's proof of how successful they've been.

Actually, indoctrination is the way of the church, not the sciences or academia. Sunday school is indoctrination (call "Jesus loves me, this I know, 'cause the Bible tells me so" propaganda or brainwashing if you prefer). Singing hymns is indoctrination ("What A Friend We Have In Jesus"). Memorizing catechism is indoctrination ("Hail Mary, full of grace").

What distinguishes it from academic methods of teaching is that ideas are simply repeated over and over until they take hold despite insufficient supporting evidence, or even in the face of contradictory evidence. Ideas are to be accepted by faith on the authority of the indoctrinator, who unlike the academic teacher, cares very much what you believe, and will chastise you for any deviation from orthodoxy.

A good teacher will tell you what is believed by experts and why they believe it, present the supporting evidence and argument, and test you not on what you believe, but which facts and other concepts that were presented you learned and can accurately reproduce in a test. Pass the test and you graduate, even if you are a creationist who believes none of it. Your teacher will still give you an A for a perfect paper, and never ask if you believe it.

You just quote the same old talking points you've been taught to say by teachers such as Dr Singham explained. It's sad but the norm.

I don't recall anybody quoting others apart from you, and naturally, it's the usual case of the creationist with little understanding of the science he criticizes telling us that the scientific community is wrong, and that we should turn to people with a religious agenda for our science information instead.

Speaking of same old talking points, or as critics of religious apologists like to call them, PRATTs, or points refuted a thousand times, has there been an addition to the creationists' toolkit in the last decade?

When will you be able to give me a logical common sense explanation showing, sans evolutions just so stories w/o actual demonstration, that functional design & computer program(s) can occur by them doing it themselves by themselves w/o any ID.

Probably never. You are a faith-based thinker. You decide what is true about the world not by evidence, but according to what you wish to be true. The rational skeptic has nothing to offer the faith-based thinker but reason applied to evidence. If you didn't come to your present position using them, you can't be budged from it with them, either.

Teaching is a cooperative effort. It requires the cooperation of the student, who needs to be able to follow a compelling argument and be willing to accept its conclusions, or at least to willingly hear and consider what is being said. That's not happening here. You're not listening to others.

Perhaps you can demonstrate that life is incapable of self-assembling under any conditions, and that an intelligent designer is needed. That seems to be your implied claim. Science's implied claim is that abiogenesis might have occurred, which is all that needs to be the case to justify researching the possibility.

Here's a chance for you to start listening to what is being told to you and responding to the specifics as is expected in academic interchanges. What did that last paragraph say? Do you think it contains errors? If so, where, and what makes them errors in your estimation? If you can't rebut it, does that mean that you agree with it? If so, please state as much explicitly.

Question. If I post any links that were written by former evolutionist will you read?

If you mean written by former non-creationists turned creationist, if I read such a thing, it is not with the idea that the author will teach me anything or even that he can be trusted not to deliberately misrepresent his case, but just to see how this one goes about it.

Also, I tend not to look at orphan links, that is, links not provided as reinforcement of a point made, but given in lieu of that poster taking a position himself. What usually turns out to be the case is that the link poster didn't read or understand the link and can't defend its claims from rebuttal.

Any willing takers to academically honest discussion where both MUST read what other posts regardless & read rebuttals etc. Then discuss. that point fully & then finish & go to next point. Yet both MUST agree it's finished & not just because of biased closed mind.

You've already failed to respond to a substantial two-part answer that I gave you four days ago at https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/evolution-creationism-are-both-faith-supernatural-based.220021/page-4#post-6075357

Why would I enter into an agreement like this with you? Your Internet etiquette is lacking. It's my opinion that if you start a thread, you have a duty to answer those that took the time to participate in your thread and discuss your ideas with you. You have a duty to either state that you agree with any claims or arguments made, or to give your reasons for dissenting. You are expected to answer the questions asked of you.

Most of all, you are expected not to ignore posts refuting one of your claims, and then repeat the claim unchanged. All of that is bad faith disputation. When I see it, my relationship with that poster changes. Protracted discussion with such a person is off the table. I don't actually post to that person any longer even if it appears that I am as it does now, because I don't expect a good faith effort in return. I am posting to the rest of the forum using the reply button.

I was so hoping I would get a few valid responses to this, but nothing yet. Perhaps tomorrow.

I liked your piece, and disagreed with none of it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just a few remarks. How many colleges or Universities teach science or ORIGINS w/o Evolution including the very start beginning with the Big Bang. So by graduating from them it's pretty safe bet that believe our ORIGINS start from the Big Bang & use later Non life becoming Life which is scientifically impossible as part of evolutionary model to getting to mankind.

Now if using an impossible scientific proven law to get to evolutionary result of mankind then how do you explain the use of such Faith & Supernatural which is the only way that's possible.

You do know that Atheist scientist Fred Hoyle that almost won Nobel Prize in science. Has been quoted as saying or using these examples about Evolution. He recognizes Evolution as absolutely a must needing an ID Intelligent Designer.

He states it has to comes from aliens. Man is that "scientific with use of Faith & Supernatural".

He gave the odds of evolution occurring by Random trial & error using these examples.

1. It's the same odds as having a tornado going through a wreck yard & making a working 747 from scratch ready for take off from the pieces within that junkyard.

2. It's the same odds as having a universe full of blind men solving a rubric cube all simultaneously at exact same moment.

3. It's the same odds as putting one man at the furtherest point of the universe away from the earth. He has one throw of a dart & he must hit that pinpoint target on one & only one attempt.

Now if he recognizes that as evolutionist but recognizes it requires an ID. Yet has to resort to space aliens. That says so much & illustrates the adherence to atheistic agenda of never allowing a Divine foot in the door.

Honestly one thing I've learned. It isn't a debate of Religion & science as portrayed. It's good vs bad, hidden, filtered, propaganda, just so stories, using science w/o actual demonstratable lab experiments validating etc.

I've noticed in all the replies you never deal with evolutionist own revealing exposing quotes. You avoid em directly.

Plus you've never dealt with impossibility of DNA/RNA ABOGENESIS being created & esp w/o using Faith &/or Supernatural. Like computer program writing itself from nothing w/o use of ID of programmer.

Also how many have ever actually read Darwin's original book "Origins?" Well I have. I now know why it's never assigned as class assignment. It is so filled with self doubt & esp hoping the future would validate him. Esp talking about the simple cell, the eye etc. See the problem Darwin recognized was evolution by steps won't work with complex organs etc because they must be completed to be functional. Evolution has no brain to know what to keep or discard along the process because it doesn't know the end game. Therefore all during that developmental time it's unfit & can't work so Nature is killing it as unfit. Blind leading the blind. It was key things be simple not complex. The more we learn the more complex it becomes & more impossible.

Chapter 6 in his book is about problems with his theory. Matter of fact he makes a couple of statements that say if this were ever proven my whole theory would be disprove. Guess what. That's been done many times over. BTW why the book title later of a book " Darwin's Doubt" by Stephen C Meyer & another book called "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells who is Dr microbiologist & recently did a follow up book. He is a Moonie BTW religiously.. Of course as always you can about both sides. Yet for academic honesty must read both. .P.lus other sides on this issue which I've proven you aren't given in school.

Esp when you consider Irreductible Intelligent Complexity of Design found in Nature. Matter of Fact there is a whole branch of science devoted to studying the Design found in Nature to copy & help mankind. It's called Biomimicry.

Evolution the Design seen is it only "appears " designed. The problem with that is this. Appearance of Design is like a cloud. Appearance of Design isn't FUNCTIONAL DESIGN.

So what Biomimicry is studying isn't "appearance" of Design but FUNCTIONAL DESIGN!

So I ask any Engineer, Computer programmer etc to give one example of anything functional they've ever studied, worked on themselves or with others that could have occurred w/o ID or by Random trial & error.

Go ahead look around your home, office, city, car world & give me examples where ID wasn't used & essential parts of what exists & could have been done by Random trial & error.

When I see you actually deal specific points by specific answers I won't respond.

BTW in closing. Majority of belief has never & never will determine truth.

For example: The majority once believed the world was flat. Yet was wrong.

Once believed the earth was what everything else orbited around. Again wrong.

Once believed the simple cell was just a glob of protoplasm. Again very false.

Once believed tonsils are vestial organs. Again false. True with the list of festivals made yrs ago. They hadn't learned their functions yet.

I could go on but not necessary as the point is made so that argument is invalid & no use in using.

I hope I followed the rules for use of others info. I'm sorry if I messed up. Second day so trying best I can.

Hope you're having a Blessed Easter.

And we're off on yet another Gish Gallop. This one is filled with long ago debunked creationist canards. Yay.

 

[sooda]

And we're off on yet another Gish Gallop. This one is filled with long ago debunked creationist canards. Yay.

"Creationism has the same track record, and like astrology, can and should be ignored."

 

[sooda]

The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott and named after the creationist Duane Gish, who used the technique frequently against proponents of evolution. 1 Technique and counter measures 3.2 Bibliography

Gish gallop - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

 

[SkepticThinker]

My quotes from his article are exactly correct. Plus you actually mislead in your appraisal of it. He compares two students. Ironically at the end he prefers the student that is the independent thinker.

But yes as all evolutionist do he incorrectly uses the tired argument of science vs religion when it's good vs bad science.

Again he does exactly as I quoted admits how he teaches & why. Sure he mentions once he has to cram a lot in. But he admits how he chooses what to "cram" in & how he filters it & how in the end he as a position as a teacher uses that position of authority to brainwash using propaganda. He rationalized it of course. But the key is what he admits to.

But you refuse to accept that truth due to your bias. You say I don't understand evolution because I don't niece it like you do. No I've analyzed it by critical analysis & the rest just took it & w/o question bought it & all their just so stories w/o true science demonstrations.

You still refuse to deal with the foundational issues it has & evolution has to prove is possible to be valid which it can't do. You haven't once tried to give an illustration to prove my point wrong on foundational premise issue. Same as Dawkins obviously avoiding the absolute requirement of INTELLIGENCE to design a watch even if blind.

What's really funny to me to is this. Billions of yrs is so critical for evolution. Yet with recent discoveries by secular scientists finding proof of young age they never expected with dinosaur fossil tissue etc. It couldn't last 65 million yrs yet there it was. But it didn't fit the narrative. So you have to destroy it. Despite finding more & more examples of it.

Plus Diamonds themselves are a great proof of young age. But evolutionist have to make up & distort anything & make it fit the narrative or just throw it out.

So many examples of that. But you won't read them even when secular scientist discover things. Then the cover up starts.

Plus you won't even take my challenge despite claiming you have all the proven truth on your side.

What are afraid of by having to read the other side? Truth? Creating doubts? Finding out you've been lied to & your ego can't handle it. You're proving all the signs of being brainwashed. I'm sorry for you on that. It's been a long hard evening.

You make so many assumptions & yet can't validate them & much evidence is against your uniformity that things have been the same all the time. No proof of that yet it's essential to give the time frame you need.

I'm still willing.

No, no, no. Everybody is telling you that you don't understand evolution because everything you post about evolution is inaccurate/incorrect/straw man argumentation/PRATT/quote mined.

 

[Patriottechsan]

Tag for short I read your article. Here is our disconnect. The first paragraph talks about it being a theory and then later other proposed theories. Of course it describes what is happening. Yes that is science describing what is happening. Just like in Photosynthesis and so many other processes. They are described in steps and each step in order. Yes that is science.

Here is the problem you keep ignoring and evidently won't ever stop. Due to the evolutionary Faith or belief in Naturalism must explain how everything that exists came into being w/o any use of faith or supernatural but only by naturalistic means, except for theistic. That is why I am currently dealing with Naturalistic only right now. You are FORCED by your own set of beliefs to explain how everything came to exist from nothing by evolutionary means. Meaning you have to show me how not only the first thing that appeared got here for the rest to then start happening. You then have to be able to show how each and everything thereafter appeared with explanation by NATURALISM only methods. Meaning you can't use any faith or supernatural and only naturalistic methods. That rules out just explaining what is here and the functional design you see. That is science. It means you have to explain it appearing in the first place by naturalistic means from nothing at all to all the functional design that is seen and esp without and intelligence that all around us shows that functional design requires and intelligent designer.

The reason you refuse to go back that far is it exposes evolution at its root as pure faith and supernatural based on illogical non sense. Because you can't do not one real science lab experiment to show how life can come from non life or functional design can occur w/o intelligence. You keep avoiding it like the plague because it is the death knoll to naturalistic evolution which is taught as fact. At least theistic evolutionist admit due to all the evidence around them from history and present day. An ID is an absolute requirement. So they at least acknowledge that and then just say he did it by evolutionary means,

From there you get into the religious debate between creationist and theistic evolutionist which is NOT what I started this thread to discuss. Yes before you ask. I have an opinion on that too but it is totally not relevant to this thread for this topic. That would be for a different thread, different topic and probably different forum I would assume since I am new on here and haven't checked out all the forums yet.

BTW I have no idea if my workout partner Dr. in Engineering wrote any papers, books etc or not. It never came up. Obviously he did two Masters thesis and two Dr. dissertations but if he did he never brought it up. Now I do have another Engineering friend that has 19 patents for chemical engineering and is awaiting for approval on his 20th. It may be 18 and awaiting on 19th. I can't remember for sure. We haven't discussed it in a long time. I have no idea on the names of the patents etc. He worked for Dow Chemical for his career until he retired. He lives in Michigan. I will tell you this. He now travels the country and world speaking against evolution and how it is not possible the way it is taught in schools. He is similar to Dr. Jonathan Wells in their beliefs on that. He has written numerous books. More than Dr. Wells to expose the scientific fraud and prove ID has to be the case. He has produced video series too.

I also know that in the Dallas area the ICR group is building a museum that will open this fall to explain and expose people to the other side of science that people never get to see. Ironically I do know many of the people there too. One of the main people there just finished his Dr. degree in Paleobiochemistry. Now he works for ICR yet he could only get his degree from evolutionary teaching university for all of his science degrees. That is always the case. There is no other option available.

I've given you the link to the Scientist Dissent List and why it exists. You think its little stupid me. You'd have to argue with all these with all these credentials worldwide also.

More Than 1,000 Scientists Dissent From Darwinism

 

[Patriottechsan]

BTW When you read the start of that article you notice how much of a stranglehold the put on toeing the narrative must be held or you risk losing your career. So you want me to believe all that good science of evolution is so good that it has to force great scientist to fear for their career if they dissent! Man is that impressive way to hold onto scientific so called "truth". See evolution is so very very afraid of the fraud and bad science being exposed they have to use gestapo tactics now to keep scientists in line! That's how you teach "truth" by using gestapo tactics! Sounds like Dems of today!

There is no way to explain this in a good light! It too validates what my quotes validate is going on. You just refuse to listen. That's on you not on me. If you really believe you can out debate all those scientist etc. Feel free but we know you can't and the motives and tactics have been exposed.

If you want to stay in your safe space go ahead. This world of truth out here might be scary when you find it the establishment has to use gestapo tactics on you for learning it and trying to teach and tell others!

 

[Polymath257]

Tag for short I read your article. Here is our disconnect. The first paragraph talks about it being a theory and then later other proposed theories. Of course it describes what is happening. Yes that is science describing what is happening. Just like in Photosynthesis and so many other processes. They are described in steps and each step in order. Yes that is science.

Here is the problem you keep ignoring and evidently won't ever stop. Due to the evolutionary Faith or belief in Naturalism must explain how everything that exists came into being w/o any use of faith or supernatural but only by naturalistic means, except for theistic. That is why I am currently dealing with Naturalistic only right now. You are FORCED by your own set of beliefs to explain how everything came to exist from nothing by evolutionary means. Meaning you have to show me how not only the first thing that appeared got here for the rest to then start happening. You then have to be able to show how each and everything thereafter appeared with explanation by NATURALISM only methods. Meaning you can't use any faith or supernatural and only naturalistic methods. That rules out just explaining what is here and the functional design you see. That is science. It means you have to explain it appearing in the first place by naturalistic means from nothing at all to all the functional design that is seen and esp without and intelligence that all around us shows that functional design requires and intelligent designer.

Actually, no we don't have to do this. That is certainly a *goal*, but there are a LOT of things we don't know or understand.

I'm going to ignore your continued misapplication of the term 'evolutionist' which only applies to a certain field of biology.

But, no, we don't now have to explain where everything came from *unless* and *until* there is evidence one way or another. Until then, it is an open question.

But I can ask you: where did God come from? What supernatural explanation do you have for God's existence? I suspect you have nothing.

But what the scientists does have is the universe around us. That may well be enough to revolve the question of origins eventually. If not, then the question isn't resolvable. It will simply continue to be unanswered. And in the absence of evidence, that may well be what happens.

Now, what we *do* have is a number of lines of active investigation, both in physics (for origin of the universe) and in chemistry (for the origin of life). In neither is anything approaching a supernatural being considered because a supernatural, almost by definition, is saying there isn't an explanation.

Now, why you think there was a time when there was 'nothing at all' is a mystery to me. Can you justify that assumption?

 

[Patriottechsan]

.So as a complete Naturalist you have to either believe there was something that was 1) Eternally Existent then you have to explain how that came to be and or what it was and what role did it play in our origins. But if atheist then you don't have that option. So you are left to explain how from nothing came all that exits from nothing by using only naturalism which doesn't allow for Faith or supernatural.as atheist. Faith involves eternal existences and supernatural and then start explaining origins from whichever choice you make. So that is like my original question. Do you believe in eternal existence. That is key in which way we have to start for talking about origins.
If believe in eternal existence then that uses faith and supernatural but as theist it explains the obvious need for ID which is needed to explain all the complexity needed to explain Functional Design and DNA and RNA etc.

If Atheist then you have to explain where or how things that exist came into existence which will absolutely require and inordinate amount of faith and supernatural when you don't believe in eternal existence or a possible ID. So you have to explain existence of everything that exist being able to create itself by itself from itself without using faith or supernatural when we know nothing can be created from nothing and if it did that takes faith and supernatural because it can't be done in any type science experiment to prove it can happen.

Regardless you have to choose which faith or supernatural you will start with.

But make it easy on yourself for now. Just deal with my scientist dissent list and what they say. It isn't me it is a great group of scientist with great credentials and doing as I explained risking careers due to gestapo tactics of evolutionary community which doesn't look good for honest academic research and teaching.

You guys amaze me at how you dodge everything to avoid what you can't handle.

 

[sooda]

Tag for short I read your article. Here is our disconnect. The first paragraph talks about it being a theory and then later other proposed theories. Of course it describes what is happening. Yes that is science describing what is happening. Just like in Photosynthesis and so many other processes. They are described in steps and each step in order. Yes that is science.

Here is the problem you keep ignoring and evidently won't ever stop. Due to the evolutionary Faith or belief in Naturalism must explain how everything that exists came into being w/o any use of faith or supernatural but only by naturalistic means, except for theistic. That is why I am currently dealing with Naturalistic only right now. You are FORCED by your own set of beliefs to explain how everything came to exist from nothing by evolutionary means. Meaning you have to show me how not only the first thing that appeared got here for the rest to then start happening. You then have to be able to show how each and everything thereafter appeared with explanation by NATURALISM only methods. Meaning you can't use any faith or supernatural and only naturalistic methods. That rules out just explaining what is here and the functional design you see. That is science. It means you have to explain it appearing in the first place by naturalistic means from nothing at all to all the functional design that is seen and esp without and intelligence that all around us shows that functional design requires and intelligent designer.

The reason you refuse to go back that far is it exposes evolution at its root as pure faith and supernatural based on illogical non sense. Because you can't do not one real science lab experiment to show how life can come from non life or functional design can occur w/o intelligence. You keep avoiding it like the plague because it is the death knoll to naturalistic evolution which is taught as fact. At least theistic evolutionist admit due to all the evidence around them from history and present day. An ID is an absolute requirement. So they at least acknowledge that and then just say he did it by evolutionary means,

From there you get into the religious debate between creationist and theistic evolutionist which is NOT what I started this thread to discuss. Yes before you ask. I have an opinion on that too but it is totally not relevant to this thread for this topic. That would be for a different thread, different topic and probably different forum I would assume since I am new on here and haven't checked out all the forums yet.

BTW I have no idea if my workout partner Dr. in Engineering wrote any papers, books etc or not. It never came up. Obviously he did two Masters thesis and two Dr. dissertations but if he did he never brought it up. Now I do have another Engineering friend that has 19 patents for chemical engineering and is awaiting for approval on his 20th. It may be 18 and awaiting on 19th. I can't remember for sure. We haven't discussed it in a long time. I have no idea on the names of the patents etc. He worked for Dow Chemical for his career until he retired. He lives in Michigan. I will tell you this. He now travels the country and world speaking against evolution and how it is not possible the way it is taught in schools. He is similar to Dr. Jonathan Wells in their beliefs on that. He has written numerous books. More than Dr. Wells to expose the scientific fraud and prove ID has to be the case. He has produced video series too.

I also know that in the Dallas area the ICR group is building a museum that will open this fall to explain and expose people to the other side of science that people never get to see. Ironically I do know many of the people there too. One of the main people there just finished his Dr. degree in Paleobiochemistry. Now he works for ICR yet he could only get his degree from evolutionary teaching university for all of his science degrees. That is always the case. There is no other option available.

I've given you the link to the Scientist Dissent List and why it exists. You think its little stupid me. You'd have to argue with all these with all these credentials worldwide also.

More Than 1,000 Scientists Dissent From Darwinism

Not knowing shouldn't give rise to superstition...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1, Biological evolution is not a theory of the origin of life or the universe. It is a theory explaining the change in living things over time, relationships of living things and the diversity of living things.

2. Explanations for the origin of life and the origin of the universe are not required to support the theory of evolution.

3. Science does not need to answer every question completely the first time. It is still science even if we do not know every teeny tiny detail.

 

[sooda]

No, no, no. Everybody is telling you that you don't understand evolution because everything you post about evolution is inaccurate/incorrect/straw man argumentation/PRATT/quote mined.

OMG...


Creationists expanding institute to include the 'Dallas ...
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-city-hall/2015/12/15/...
A glimpse inside the Dallas Museum of Science and Earth History (ICR/Beck Group)

The institute, which spent months in court fighting the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for the right to dispense master's degrees in creationism, has been trying to raise funds to build the 30,900-square foot museum for years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not knowing shouldn't give rise to superstition...

Superstition, nonsense and ignorance is his default position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OMG...


Creationists expanding institute to include the 'Dallas ...
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-city-hall/2015/12/15/...
A glimpse inside the Dallas Museum of Science and Earth History (ICR/Beck Group)

The institute, which spent months in court fighting the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for the right to dispense master's degrees in creationism, has been trying to raise funds to build the 30,900-square foot museum for years.

And people wonder why I am concerned about the future of science and education in this country.

 

[Polymath257]

.So as a complete Naturalist you have to either believe there was something that was 1) Eternally Existent then you have to explain how that came to be and or what it was and what role did it play in our origins. But if atheist then you don't have that option.

Why not? If the universe is eternally existent, would that be a problem for atheists?

So you are left to explain how from nothing came all that exits from nothing by using only naturalism which doesn't allow for Faith or supernatural.as atheist. Faith involves eternal existences and supernatural and then start explaining origins from whichever choice you make. So that is like my original question. Do you believe in eternal existence. That is key in which way we have to start for talking about origins.

What do you mean by the phrase 'eternal existence'?

I believe that whenever there was time, there was also matter and energy. But I also think it is possible that time is finite (at least into the past).

If believe in eternal existence then that uses faith and supernatural but as theist it explains the obvious need for ID which is needed to explain all the complexity needed to explain Functional Design and DNA and RNA etc.

it isn't clear to me why you think that 'eternal existence' requires a supernatural. Could you explain that connection more?

If Atheist then you have to explain where or how things that exist came into existence which will absolutely require and inordinate amount of faith and supernatural when you don't believe in eternal existence or a possible ID.

Why would it necessarily require either faith or a supernatural? if there is evidence for how things came into existence, we can investigate that evidence and not need either faith nor a supernatural.

So you have to explain existence of everything that exist being able to create itself by itself from itself without using faith or supernatural when we know nothing can be created from nothing and if it did that takes faith and supernatural because it can't be done in any type science experiment to prove it can happen.

I don't believe that there was a time when there was nothing. For no other reason than time isn't nothing.

Regardless you have to choose which faith or supernatural you will start with.

You keep saying that, but I fail to see why that is the case.

But make it easy on yourself for now. Just deal with my scientist dissent list and what they say. It isn't me it is a great group of scientist with great credentials and doing as I explained risking careers due to gestapo tactics of evolutionary community which doesn't look good for honest academic research and teaching.

You guys amaze me at how you dodge everything to avoid what you can't handle.

Do you want a much longer list of evolutionary biologists that *do* accept evolution and are named Steve? Credentials alone do not determine truth, as I'm sure you will admit.