Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't finish high school, I was needed as cheap labour on the family dairy farm so I'm not sure if I didn't make it far enough to hear about Haeckel or perhaps he isn't in the Australian curriculum. Even so I'm unsurprised that someone who died in 1919 got something wrong. What does surprise me is that someone complains about evolutionists not being honest or owning their mistakes then uses an example of an evolutionist reporting an error to prove his point. If Gould was jumping up and down defending Haeckel then he might have a point....

I agree with you on this. I figured that others had noted the irony of quoting Gould in a critic claiming that science is denying the very thing that Gould is admitting. This is the sort of convoluted, desperate and twisted attempt to deny science that I have come to expect from creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

At least I've learnt what Bapticostal is, I'd never heard of it.

I'll see if some spontaneous shouting, clapping and hand raising might help me understand this thread.

I had never heard of it either.

 

[Patriottechsan]

Bapticostal is just an attempt at humor. I was raised in a strict Baptist background. One that didn't believe in full Gospel gifts of the spirit. They believe they ceased when the Apostles all died.

Once I did my own research after my childhood of abuse & hypocrisy from within my family & pastor while I was in college. It caused me to quit church & start looking for TRUTH, if there was one in different religions. Yet soon I realized.

Why spend all this time checking out all these others. When in reality. It boiled down to just one if He was who He claimed to be. If Jesus was Son of God & resurrected in 3 days then that settled it. He had it correct. What I'd experienced in my life was their own personal individual failures not Jesus failures since He gives us all free will choice. They'd chosen wrong & caused me great pain. My brother 2 yrs younger started drugs in 6th grade. I devoted myself to sports.

All the research I found from both sides. Each sides claim & then rebuttals & ensuing answers to rebuttals. Much to my surprise came back proving Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be. I stayed conservative Baptist when going back to church again. Pentecostal church made me very uncomfortable.

Then I was challenged to study that like I do all things. First I look for those that started one way & somehow for some reason changed sides.

After all that time. I found the gifts hadn't ceased but could only be used within certain ways & guidelines the Apostle Paul taught & wrote about. So my beliefs became Pentecostal but only if done correctly. Which I find few churches do it correctly. It turns me off & I understand why it does others.

Thus its just a term I came up with to describe myself. Baptist ( Biblical inerrancy) but Pentecostal in the spiritual gifts if done like Apostle Paul teaches.
Why I use BAPTICOSTAL.

You guys need to study this issue the same way. It's obvious you've never seriously listened or heard ID scientific explanations & all the problems, including frauds etc. When you only read one side you aren't truly informed. Why in trials you have 2 sides you must listen to.

I've been a juror on a trial & it matters when you hear the other side. Much more ignoring evidence given by other side by supporters of one side that validates the other side. More the info validates quotes & article written that explain how they teach using propaganda & brainwashing techniques ( their words) & how they filter any negative info about themselves & how they build walls so you won't listen to other side & worse insult students saying students aren't smart enough to make correct decisions (agree with them) if they were exposed all that info. How insulting that truly is.

But as it stands. You refuse to give any credit to legit problems evol has. It makes no difference as you aren't willing to even remotely look at other side & despite Scientist Dissent List & so many former evolutionist due to the science itself left evolution for ID or even Creationism. Either way they choose academic honesty despite Gestapo tactics they better stay in line. That in itself indicates deep problems in being true & honest science.

Since you won't be honest much less even admit Goulds own words admit fraud.. You're beyond the point of honest integrity in science.

They've been successful sadly to the detriment of society.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someone still does not know how to have a debate or a discussion and he wonders why he is treated with derision. Worse yet he has shown incredible dishonesty and then he falsely accuses others of his sin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Someone still does not know how to have a debate or a discussion and he wonders why he is treated with derision. Worse yet he has shown incredible dishonesty and then he falsely accuses others of his sin.

No. He seems bent on alienating everyone and treating us all like garbage that he does not lower himself to talk honestly and directly to.

I was laughing out loud when I read how it was obvious we had never heard any of this before. Like only millions of times. The same failed assertions that are never backed up with more than further assertions and conclusions on belief.

Combined, we probably have several decades if not a few hundred years of experience in dealing with the fallacies, fantasies and fictions of the fundamentalist creationist.

I am pretty confident that I know more about intelligent design than he has ever heard.

 

[John53]

You guys need to study this issue the same way. It's obvious you've never seriously listened or heard ID scientific explanations & all the problems, including frauds etc. When you only read one side you aren't truly informed. Why in trials you have 2 sides you must listen to.

Have you ever considered that people have already done this and find the evidence points to evolution. I can't speak for anyone else but that is exactly what I have done and continue to do. It seems to me that you are the one not looking at both sides. Your generalisations about an entire group are ridiculous and wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Someone still does not know how to have a debate or a discussion and he wonders why he is treated with derision. Worse yet he has shown incredible dishonesty and then he falsely accuses others of his sin.

I will give him credit for one thing. His mendacity knows no bounds.

 

[John53]

I was laughing out loud when I read how it was obvious we had never heard any of this before. Like only millions of times. The same failed assertions that are never backed up with more than further assertions and conclusions on belief.

A quick look through the forum would show his claims have been discussed many times. Yet he seems to think he has discovered some significant "gotcha" that will destroy ToE. On the plus side it is entertaining in a weird way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you ever considered that people have already done this and find the evidence points to evolution. I can't speak for anyone else but that is exactly what I have done and continue to do. It seems to me that you are the one not looking at both sides. Your generalisations about an entire group are ridiculous and wrong.

If we were to try and design a caricature of a science-denying creationist, we could not come close to the success he has revealed in taking on that task and exposing it here.

So far, I have seen just about every flawed move made by creationists.

 

[Polymath257]

You guys need to study this issue the same way. It's obvious you've never seriously listened or heard ID scientific explanations & all the problems, including frauds etc. When you only read one side you aren't truly informed. Why in trials you have 2 sides you must listen to.

What you seem to be missing is that almost everyone here has done exactly that. I have copies of 'Defeating Darwinism' and 'Refuting Evolution' as well as others on my bookshelf and have read them. I have been in a large variety of forums where these things have been discussed. And I started learning about this material over 30 years ago. I watched with interest when the different court cases were in process.

I have read books on developmental biology, on genetics, on comparative anatomy, on paleontology, etc. And I'm not talking about high school textbooks. I am talking about the university or graduate level texts that go into exquisite detail.

So, yes, I have looked at what the creationists and IDers say. I have also followed up the references that make to the original articles. And what I have found is that they are *uniformly* fraudulent: they quote out of context, they say claims were made that were specifically denied, they say articles say one thing when they actually say something completely different.

So, I would ask you. When one side consistently lies. When one side consistently misrepresents the other side and consistently lies. And the other side gives its evidence, makes its arguments and counters every claim of the first.

Which side would you support?

 

[Polymath257]

I am pretty confident that I know more about intelligent design than he has ever heard.

Yes, that's another strange thing about creationists, IDers and many fundamentalists. They actually know their own material less well than we do.

But then, we have seen all of these claims made endless numbers of time for decades. They seem to think that because they just read some creationist track that this is new material that nobody has considered before which reveals the grand evolutionist conspiracy.

But then, truthfully, very few people actually devote themselves to real study. That is the characteristic what ultimately makes us academics.

 

[Audie]

I agree with you on this. I figured that others had noted the irony of quoting Gould in a critic claiming that science is denying the very thing that Gould is admitting. This is the sort of convoluted, desperate and twisted attempt to deny science that I have come to expect from creationists.

Wait, what did Gould reluctantly confess?

 

[ecco]

I was raised in a strict Baptist background.

Thank you for confirming what most of us had already gathered - probably back to your first post; You were heavily indoctrinated into "GodBelief" long before you could walk.

You guys need to study this issue the same way. It's obvious you've never seriously listened or heard ID scientific explanations & all the problems, including frauds etc. When you only read one side you aren't truly informed.

• IDer: Look at the Grand Canyon, you can see it was caused by the Flood waters receding.
• Scientist: Uh, no. Rapidly receding waters cust relatively straight lines. Comparatively slow-moving waters, over long time periods, create meandering canyons like the Grand Canyon.
• Rationalist: There, I've listened to both sides of the argument.

What Creos like you refuse to understand is that we have looked at both sides of the argument. We have found the side for science to be far more compelling than 6000 year old myths.

Arguing that we haven't looked at both sides is nonsensical.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wait, what did Gould reluctantly confess?

I am not sure how reluctant he may have been. Gould was not a fan of Haeckel to begin with and was already engaged in efforts distancing Haeckel's work from Darwin when the claims of Haeckel's drawings were made. Gould made an impassioned statement about the drawings and their continued use in textbooks.

So you have an anti-science movement and anti-science acolytes all turning to scientists that they claim are liars to show that other scientists they claim are liars are, indeed, liars. It is all very Jerry Springer.

 

[Audie]

Thank you for confirming what most of us had already gathered - probably back to your first post; You were heavily indoctrinated into "GodBelief" long before you could walk. ........Aguing that we haven't looked at both sides is nonsensical.

You sure dont want to study "the way he does"!
And really, comtinuing this is to make fun of an
unfortunate person.

 

[Audie]

I am not sure how reluctant he may have been. Gould was not a fan of Haeckel to begin with and was already engaged in efforts distancing Haeckel's work from Darwin when the claims of Haeckel's drawings were made. Gould made an impassioned statement about the drawings and their continued use in textbooks.

So you have an anti-science movement and anti-science acolytes all turning to scientists that they claim are liars to show that other scientists they claim are liars are, indeed, liars. It is all very Jerry Springer.

Examples of how little they have to try to
work with.

It is impossible to be an informed and intellectually honest
creationist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Someone still does not know how to have a debate or a discussion and he wonders why he is treated with derision. Worse yet he has shown incredible dishonesty and then he falsely accuses others of his sin.

I just noticed this long thread.
I looked at the OP, but found nothing to address.
So I skipped to the end, & spotted your post.
I suspect that you saved me 20 pages of tedious reading.
Thank you for that.

 

[Patriottechsan]

Ok then if you say you have studied both sides then I will give you this. Here is a list of questions for evolutionist to answer. Despite how you ignore it and avoid it like the plague due to it opens up so many holes in evolution. It does deal with origins. Evolution has to as it has to explain how we "mankind' got here from nothing to some thing that existed eternally or nothing existed eternally.. Then you either have to explain what existed eternally and what existed eternally and go forward to mankind as evolutionists. Or you have to explain from nothing existing eternally how something came about from nothing to everything that exists to eventually get to "mankind". You have no other options no matter how much you try to avoid it. You have to choose a side and defend it. We are and will always be talking about Origins. You simply can't avoid it. Esp evolutionist that don't allow for a God or supernatural. you have to explain eternal existence of something to get to all that exists to mankind or explain how from absolutely nothing comes into existence all things. It is totally unavoidable.

So from that here is a list of 15 Questions to answer that evolutionist need to explain from pure naturalism meaning from nothing comes everything. Or from your allowance of an eternal existence to all that exists. Then you must explain what your eternal existence is and how it came to be.

From whichever starting point you choose you need to explain your answer to these 15 questions based on your own starting point with your science and esp w/o using any faith or supernatural as true evolutionist claim is not needed. These are legit questions to answer to prove to me your are correct. A personal attack without answers will not prove your point(s)!

15 questions for evolutionists - creation.com

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just noticed this long thread.
I looked at the OP, but found nothing to address.
So I skipped to the end, & spotted your post.
I suspect that you saved me 20 pages of tedious reading.
Thank you for that.

You guessed correctly. The OP is just repeated periodically throughout these pages. That poster does not address other posters, ignores what they have to say and just keeps barreling onward, lobbing ad hominems and unsupported assertions as he goes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, that's another strange thing about creationists, IDers and many fundamentalists. They actually know their own material less well than we do.

But then, we have seen all of these claims made endless numbers of time for decades. They seem to think that because they just read some creationist track that this is new material that nobody has considered before which reveals the grand evolutionist conspiracy.

But then, truthfully, very few people actually devote themselves to real study. That is the characteristic what ultimately makes us academics.

The only distinction I see here is that the OP is using every creationist trick all in one place.