Evolution is a fact, and a theory

[Man of Faith]

But no room for an alternate view is exactly what creationists enjoyed prior to the 1800's. There was not any major funding for evolution, and evolutionists were widely ridiculed. Why did things change anyway?

Because Darwin was right to some degree. Before Darwin, the popular creation model was the lawn model where creatures were suspected to have been created exactly like they were. Then we found out differently and the lawn model was changed to the orchard model that allows for change. But the pendulum swung too far and is not allowed to swing back to where two models can compete head to head.

 

[Man of Faith]

But many Christian theistic evolutionists previously accepted creationism, and later gave it up based upon their scientific research. They more than weighed both models equally since they started out accepting creationism.

How can you weigh models since you are not an expert?

Many Christians, especially in third world countries, cannot read and write. How are they supposed to adequately weigh complicated scientific evidence?

How can any scientist weigh creationism against evolution? Consider the following from Ken Miller:

I do what others due including evolutionists, I listen to the experts and I review the data. There are biologist with doctorate degrees that do not accept evolution. The evidence is presented in a way that a layman can understand it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There are biologists with doctorates who believe in Bigfoot.
And like biologists who reject evolutionary biology, they are insignificant in number, lack credibility and are frequently cited by "True Believers".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because Darwin was right to some degree. Before Darwin, the popular creation model was the lawn model where creatures were suspected to have been created exactly like they were. Then we found out differently and the lawn model was changed to the orchard model that allows for change. But the pendulum swung too far and is not allowed to swing back to where two models can compete head to head.

How? How did we get from "everybody believes creation and evolution is ridiculed" to "there is a vast scientific conspiracy against creation and in favour of evolution"? Did the world suddenly become filled with atheists?

I do what others due including evolutionists, I listen to the experts and I review the data.

But you only agree with the experts and the data when it fits your preconceptions. You always either dodge or ignore evidence to the contrary, and when people demonstrate that you are wrong you never admit fault - simply jump ship to another faulty argument.

Case in point: what evidence is there of the orchard model's veracity? How can we test it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yep. A reverse straw man, so to speak.

 

[Man of Faith]

There are biologists with doctorates who believe in Bigfoot.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they accepted evolution also.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And I wouldn't be surprised if they accepted evolution also.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the biologists who don't believe in evolution also believe in homeopathy, astrology, fairies, elves, hobbits, father Christmas and giant pink elephants that fly around Pluto.

See? I can dodge arguments by being snarky too.

 

[Man of Faith]

How? How did we get from "everybody believes creation and evolution is ridiculed" to "there is a vast scientific conspiracy against creation and in favour of evolution"? Did the world suddenly become filled with atheists?

Because modern science operates under the philosophic framework of atheistic naturalism. God is not allowed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because modern science operates under the philosophic framework of atheistic naturalism. God is not allowed.

You've not answered the question. How did we get from point A (creationism is the only viable theory, in your point of view) to point B (evolution and scientific naturalism far outweigh the others in terms of support)?

 

[tumbleweed41]

And I wouldn't be surprised if they accepted evolution also.

By your reply, I can see you give these biologist who believe in Bigfoot about as much credibility as I give to biologists who reject evolutionary biology.

Kind of negates your point, doesn't it?

 

[Man of Faith]

And I wouldn't be surprised if the biologists who don't believe in evolution also believe in homeopathy, astrology, fairies, elves, hobbits, father Christmas and giant pink elephants that fly around Pluto.

See? I can dodge arguments by being snarky too.

Hang on, I think I see a double standard, a snarky comment about creation scientists, who have been to the same schools, gotten the same degrees, needed to be just as intelligent, who work just as hard, was ignored but an equally snarky rebuttal was attacked with fervor and glee. Don’t worry, creationists’ are used to it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because modern science operates under the philosophic framework of atheistic naturalism.

You are aware that it is not only "allowed" to believe in God while also accepting of biological evolution, but also effortless? And, in fact, a very common situation?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hang on, I think I see a double standard, a snarky comment about creation scientists, who have been to the same schools, gotten the same degrees, needed to be just as intelligent, who work just as hard, was ignored but an equally snarky rebuttal was attacked with fervor and glee. Don’t worry, creationists’ are used to it.

You just admitted that there are probably biologists who believe in bigfoot and were snarky about them by saying they "probably believe in evolution", so you've just completely defeated your own argument.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Man of Faith]

You've not answered the question. How did we get from point A (creationism is the only viable theory, in your point of view) to point B (evolution and scientific naturalism far outweigh the others in terms of support)?

I have answered this in my many posts, but I can see that you haven’t put all the pieces together yet. A lot has to do with the political and philosophical climates of the specific times. Here is how it went and goes today. Creation was winning because there wasn’t a viable evolution argument until Darwin came along. Darwin was right to some degree, change does happen. Then over time a lawsuit was filed to kick God out of the argument and that is when a firm immovable stance of atheistic naturalism was adopted by mainstream science. Now today atheistic naturalism and evolution is propped up by fear, intimidation, bullying, propaganda, lawsuits, public ridicule and shame.

 

[Agnostic75]

I do what others do including evolutionists, I listen to the experts and I review the data. The evidence is presented in a way that a layman can understand it.

What specific evidence for creationism, and against evolution, can be evaluated by a layman, that reasonably proves that creationism is the best choice? Please quote your sources.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have answered this in my many posts, but I can see that you haven’t put all the pieces together yet. A lot has to do with the political and philosophical climates of the specific times. Here is how it went and goes today. Creation was winning because there wasn’t a viable evolution argument until Darwin came along. Darwin was right to some degree, change does happen. Then over time a lawsuit was filed to kick God out of the argument and that is when a firm immovable stance of atheistic naturalism was adopted by mainstream science. Now today atheistic naturalism and evolution is propped up by fear, intimidation, bullying, propaganda, lawsuits, public ridicule and shame.

You've still not answered the question. All you've said is "change does happen" and "over time". You've not actually said HOW that change occurred, just that it DID occur. How can a vast atheist conspiracy just appear out of nowhere? How can the overwhelming scientific consensus be completely overturned by "propaganda" overnight? Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever?

 

[Man of Faith]

What specific evidence for creationism, and against evolution, can be evaluated by a layman, that reasonably proves that creationism is the best choice? Please quote your sources.

Creationism is the best choice because of the lack of evidence of the tree model. No observable, repeatable tree model, no science, and no evolution that is remarkably different than mere change within an associated biologic family classification. Asking why it couldn’t happen is a philosophic question that means nothing really. The evidence is just not there.

 

[idav]

Creationism is the best choice because of the lack of evidence of the tree model. No observable, repeatable tree model, no science, and no evolution that is remarkably different than mere change within an associated biologic family classification. Asking why it couldn’t happen is a philosophic question that means nothing really. The evidence is just not there.

There is no evidence for creation so you try and turn it around with lies. There is plenty evidence supporting evolution in every branch of science you can name. Why is the the philosophical question, science answered the how.

 

[I r Baboon]

creationism is the best choice because of the lack of evidence of the tree model. No observable, repeatable tree model, no science, and no evolution that is remarkably different than mere change within an associated biologic family classification. Asking why it couldn’t happen is a philosophic question that means nothing really. The evidence is just not there.

what???