Evolution Observed

[Kenny]

Looks like Metis broke your heart. He was as blunt if not more so than I, and like me he has the background in science. He is also very honest.

Me thinks you pat yourself on the back too much. 1st sentence... assumption on your part with no scientific support. Second sentence part a, there is a difference between blunt and insulting (and I hardly called what he said blunt). 2nd sentence part b - I can accept. Last sentence - honest yet... also? you have haven't convinced me of that. Jury is still out.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK... then I can rely on this partial list of people?

View attachment 19733



Hmmm... I believe James Allan is a geneticist.

• Creationist
• Genetics
• Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland
• M.S. in agriculture from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
• B.S. in agriculture from the University of Natal
• Former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch
• International consultant in dairy cattle breeding

Can I accept his position because he is educated? If not, why? Do yo have a PhD in genetics?

Actually no, everyone has a religious agenda, and some the bizzaro 6 day Creation. For everyone on this list there are a thousand scientist that support the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old.

 

[Kenny]

Actually no, everyone has a religious agenda, and some the bizzaro 6 day Creation. For everyone on this list there are a thousand scientist that support the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old.

Got it... If one disagrees with you, they need more education. If they have an education, they have an agenda. Am I in the presence of an almighty one?

Somehow I knew that one was coming!

 

[shunyadragon]

Got it... If one disagrees with you, they need more education. If they have an education, they have an agenda. Am I in the presence of an almighty one?

Somehow I knew that one was coming!

A number of those that you listed supported the 6 day literal Creation. What none of them have been able to explain is the problem of the Thermodynamics of the earth history as possibly taking place in a 6 day Creation and/or any sort of catastrophic world flood scenario. You do not need to be rocket scientist to understand the problem. All you need is undergraduate geology and physics. The vast amount of energy required for the volcanics, metamorphism. erosion, weathering and sedimentation is exponentially overwhelming any fundamentalist Creationist scenario. If this amount of energy took place in a short period of time the earth would be a cinder orbiting the sun.

None of the scientists on the list have provided a complete coherent scientific explanation of the physical evidence of the rock strata of the earth not even considering the radiometric dating involved. The list you provided is not a partial list. You are scraping the bottom of the bucket of Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute.

I reviewed their biographies, blogs and sites that quoted them, and ALL of them, like you, appeal to their religious belief to justify their belief concerning the science of evolution and the physical history of the earth, and did not provide a coherent scientific explanation of ALL the physical evidence to justify their 'beliefs.'

 

[Polymath257]

So the uneducated must trust the educated to find the truth....?

No. The uneducated must become educated to find the truth. There is a difference between trusting those who are educated and becoming educated yourself.

What if the educated are dead wrong and mislead the masses of uneducated ones down the wrong track?

Then educate yourself enough to correct them.

That is the reason, I believe that Jesus did not choose the educated ones to be his apostles in the first century. The educated ones were badly educated by those who became corrupted by their so-called knowledge. (1 Corinthians 8:1) It led the whole nation astray and prevented them from accepting Jesus as their Christ.

Or, the uneducated were simply the more gullible.

So it has no business ever claiming its teachings as "facts"....and yet it does. When science says something "might have" or "could have" happened, it will be interpreted as "must have" in order for it to appear to be a fact....which it never was. It is nothing but supposition and there are no real facts to back up a thing they claim for macro-evolution. Adaptation will never produce a new "kind" of anything....it will only produce a new variety of any given species in a taxonomic group.

When science says something 'might have' or 'could have' happened, they usually mean that 'to the best of our knowledge and all of the evidence, it happened'. An honest scientists in a journal article will detail the alternative explanations and why they don't fit the evidence. And yes, most scientists are honest.

Nothing about the real world is *absolutely* certain in every single detail.

Well the rantings and ridicule presented by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne have certainly had an influence on their audiences.......what sticks in the minds of students.....the dry words of books or the words of influential teachers?

I would hope that the facts of the case, as presented in the textbooks, will stick in their heads. The populatrizers are those attempting to get some of the word out to the general public.

To remove all mention of the Creator from the topic of science is to remove the scientist from all mention of science. The originator of science is the Creator. He created what scientists study...how ironic.

Well, that is your particular mythology, with no actual evidence to back it up. Science works from observation and extensive testing of ideas, not by faith, but by skepticism.

No, its science's job to tell the truth, but I don't see much of that. When speculation and dodgy interpretation of evidence is so biastly presented as fact, then, Houston, we have a problem. Truth is the casualty.

The problem is not in 'dodgy' interpretation of evidence. It is that the evidence doesn't support your mythology.

education (especially science) as something that sets people apart from the 'uneducated'. That is something that the Pharisees did in Jesus' day. They treated the uneducated like 'dirt'...unworthy of their attention. Do we see the same attitude from the learned ones among us here?

I see education as a good. Furthermore, anyone can become more educated whenever they want. The amount of available information is incredible, much more so than even when I was young. Today there is no excuse for remaining ignorant (i.e, uneducated by choice).

It isn't an education in science that will 'save' anyone. It is an education in the will of the Creator that will be of benefit at the end of the day. Perhaps we should focus on that a little more?

Once you demonstrate that your opinion in this matter is, in fact, the truth, you might have a case. Until then, your ideas can be ignored as contrary to the actual evidence at hand.

A knowledge of science is a wonderful thing and benefits us in our appreciation of the Creator's ability to form the universe and the most exquisite creatures to inhabit this earth with us, but it should never lead us away from him. If it does, then it isn't true science IMO.

I see, when it disagrees with your mythology, it isn't true science.

Sorry, honest investigation doesn't work that way. It looks at the evidence and is willing to go where it leads, not where religious doctrine dictates.

 

[Polymath257]

I've been fascinated over the last several years watching various Christian groups become increasingly anti-education and anti-intellectualism, while at the same time they lament the dramatic fall of Christianity among the young. And even when they're shown survey results indicating that their anti-science attitude is a factor in the decline, they refuse to do anything other than double down.

They have no choice. Since their core beliefs are contrary to the facts on the ground, they have to deny them, or else they lose membership. That means they have to criticize those who spread the facts (i.e, they have to criticize education). But that clearly shows others that they are basing their ideas on falsehoods, so they lose membership.

The only alternative is to change their basic doctrines, but then they also lose membership.

Don't worry, though, there is always a pool of ignorant people willing to believe anything a friendly-seeming congregation tells them to.

 

[Altfish]

OK... then I can rely on this partial list of people?

View attachment 19733



Hmmm... I believe James Allan is a geneticist.

• Creationist
• Genetics
• Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland
• M.S. in agriculture from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
• B.S. in agriculture from the University of Natal
• Former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch
• International consultant in dairy cattle breeding

Can I accept his position because he is educated? If not, why? Do yo have a PhD in genetics?

Have you not heard of Project Steve???

Let me explain....
Project Steve - Wikipedia
...not that numbers prove anything, just evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you not heard of Project Steve???

Let me explain....
Project Steve - Wikipedia
...not that numbers prove anything, just evidence.

One name jumped out of Ken's list to me. That was C. Everett Koop. I did a Google search on him and could only find creationist sources that claimed that he was a creationist. They supposedly quoted him, but no links or proper sources were given.

The creationists that I recognized made such poor arguments that even an advanced high school student could refute their idiocy. Not a very impressive list at all. Mostly a list of nobodies with little to no accomplishments in their names, and no accomplishments in the world of evolution, or geology for that matter.

 

[shunyadragon]

One name jumped out of Ken's list to me. That was C. Everett Koop. I did a Google search on him and could only find creationist sources that claimed that he was a creationist. They supposedly quoted him, but no links or proper sources were given.

The creationists that I recognized made such poor arguments that even an advanced high school student could refute their idiocy. Not a very impressive list at all. Mostly a list of nobodies with little to no accomplishments in their names, and no accomplishments in the world of evolution, or geology for that matter.

I would like to add in my review of the list that in their testimonies there were already evangelical Creationists prior to getting their college education, and some did so like John Klotz, to justify their belief.

As far as Everett Coop is concerned he is pediatric surgeon, and not a scientist in the fields associated with the science of evolution nor geology. He is a Christian, but I find no reference that he believed in fundamentalist Creationism.

9 Things You Should Know About C. Everett Koop

 

[Jose Fly]

It is too bad that the fear and ignorance of creationists overrides their ability to reason. I have yet to see a creationist that even tries to debate honestly.

Shoot, if you can find one that'll even stay in a discussion, that'd be noteworthy. Our resident creationists here at RF (especially those of the Jehovah's Witness faith) are particularly fond of ignoring most of what's posted to them.

 

[Deeje]

No. The uneducated must become educated to find the truth. There is a difference between trusting those who are educated and becoming educated yourself.

By this I assume that you mean "swallow everything science believes and abandon what I believe"?

I have educated myself and that is why I have taken the position that appeals to my personal sense of logic.

Evolutionists keep referring to the "magic" involved in believing in an all powerful Creator supposedly "poofing" things into existence in 7 literal days....(just for the record, I don't believe that for a moment.) And yet no one seems to talk about the "magic" involved in life spontaneously "poofing" itself into existence and morphing into all manner of creatures on this planet. Abiogenesis is "not their field of study" so they can safely ignore it.....or don't want to discuss it. But if evidence was found for a Creator, (which scientist will never allow to happen) what would happen to the whole theory?

IMO, your fantasy is way less believable than you think mine is.

Then educate yourself enough to correct them.

By "educate" do you mean swap my beliefs for yours when you cannot provide proof for anything that science teaches about macro-evolution? Are you serious? Your belief system is less believable than mine, so why would I even want to accept your fairy story? It requires more "faith" than mine does.

Or, the uneducated were simply the more gullible.

Or less carried away by their own importance.

When science says something 'might have' or 'could have' happened, they usually mean that 'to the best of our knowledge and all of the evidence, it happened'. An honest scientists in a journal article will detail the alternative explanations and why they don't fit the evidence. And yes, most scientists are honest.

Nothing about the real world is *absolutely* certain in every single detail.

Then stop teaching kids that it is a "fact" when it is nothing more than an invented fiction that you accuse Bible believers of accepting. You have no facts to back up your assumptions....all you have is educated guesswork.
Evolution's shaky foundations have been exposed....and none of you can provide any evidence that does not rely on biased interpretation and the power of suggestion.

I would hope that the facts of the case, as presented in the textbooks, will stick in their heads. The populatrizers are those attempting to get some of the word out to the general public.

Everyone knows that the general public will believe anything that is sold to them via clever marketing. You talk about gullibility...?

How very optimistic of you to assume that science education depends on books. Today's kids do not live in the world of boring printed words.....they live in the world of images and sound. Hence the need for graphics and computer generated images used to indoctrinate impressionable minds that evolution is a fact. What would they have to offer without these? Dry bones, along with dry supposition? A reality check is in order I feel.

Well, that is your particular mythology, with no actual evidence to back it up. Science works from observation and extensive testing of ideas, not by faith, but by skepticism.

Evolutionary science is itself a mythology, based on belief, not evidence. Macro-evolution is no more provable than the existence of an all-powerful Creator. That is a fact.

The problem is not in 'dodgy' interpretation of evidence. It is that the evidence doesn't support your mythology.

The real evidence does not support your mythology either. You rely on interpretation of evidence as much as we do. You have just convinced yourselves that your 'gods' are right and my God doesn't exist. Your 'scripture' is valid but mine is not. You rely on faith more than we do....you just can't see it.

I see education as a good.

I do too.....but when it is used to indoctrinate children with myth masquerading as fact....the pot is calling the kettle black. You do exactly what you accuse Bible believers of doing.

Furthermore, anyone can become more educated whenever they want. The amount of available information is incredible, much more so than even when I was young. Today there is no excuse for remaining ignorant (i.e, uneducated by choice).

I agree. But we should expose children to all points of view and allow them a well rounded education.....giving them informed choice......one that does not ridicule one position, whilst promoting the other as the "intelligent" choice. This is one tactic that promoters of evolution push more than any other. It plays on our natural desire to fit in and not stand out as different....or stupid. No one wants to become an intellectual 'leper' in their own community. That is why the silence is deafening.

Once you demonstrate that your opinion in this matter is, in fact, the truth, you might have a case. Until then, your ideas can be ignored as contrary to the actual evidence at hand.

But it's validity isn't demonstrated by actual evidence...it is assumed....big difference.

The evidence for the Creator's existence is everywhere, but the kind of evidence you require will never materialize until the final judgment of the inhabitants of this earth. Faith is a pre-requisite for those who wait on the Creator to fix what humans (mainly men of science) have done to his earth.
I believe we will all answer to the same judge. You can believe he's a figment of my imagination....but what if you're dead wrong?

I see, when it disagrees with your mythology, it isn't true science.

But you never see that you do the same thing. Logic is replaced by what men assume to be true.
My logic does not allow me to believe your fairy story and viced versa. There is no end to this saga, so people must choose which scenario appeals to their logic and whether they are 'spiritual" by nature. Don't underestimate the power of a spiritual mind. It is guided by a force you think doesn't exist.

Sorry, honest investigation doesn't work that way. It looks at the evidence and is willing to go where it leads, not where religious doctrine dictates.

LOL....scientists look at the evidence and see what they want to see. What supporter of evolution is ever going to see the 'evidence' any other way? Since these are the ones who write the papers and books for publication, I wonder why they all agree? And why anyone who disagrees with them is automatically uneducated or gullible? I can't imagine.

Its simply a matter of 'cause and effect'....your reality has no cause and its effect has no purpose. Its a dumb story to placate those who want the Creator to go away. He's not going anywhere. I have a reason for my existence and a hope for the future that doesn't depend on the ones who are messing up this planet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By this I assume that you mean "swallow everything science believes and abandon what I believe"? [/quote[

No one is asking that of you. You appear to be asking that of others.

I have educated myself and that is why I have taken the position that appeals to my personal sense of logic.

The problem is that your education is sorely lacking and your "logic" appear to be faulty as well. Perhaps if you learned what is and what is not evidence then you could begin to learn.

Evolutionists keep referring to the "magic" involved in believing in an all powerful Creator supposedly "poofing" things into existence in 7 literal days....(just for the record, I don't believe that for a moment.) And yet no one seems to talk about the "magic" involved in life spontaneously "poofing" itself into existence and morphing into all manner of creatures on this planet. Abiogenesis is "not their field of study" so they can safely ignore it.....or don't want to discuss it. But if evidence was found for a Creator, (which scientist will never allow to happen) what would happen to the whole theory?

Projecting again. And we get it, you are not a YEC, I don't think that makes your slightly less strident denial of science makes you any better than them. And abiogenesis is not magic, it is merely chemistry and scientists are studying it today. Also if evidence for your creator was found you could change the minds of others. But you do not seem to understand what is and what is not evidence.

IMO, your fantasy is way less believable than you think mine is.

Projecting again.

By "educate" do you mean swap my beliefs for yours when you cannot provide proof for anything that science teaches about macro-evolution? Are you serious? Your belief system is less believable than mine, so why would I even want to accept your fairy story? It requires more "faith" than mine does.[/quote]

No, he means learning the basics of science. We can provide "proof", the proper term is evidence by the way. Ad once more, you are projecting again. Your beliefs are a fairy story. You really need to quit doing that.

Or less carried away by their own importance.

Nope, people offering to help you are hardly carried away by any sense of importance. You are giving yourself undue importance by making that claim.

Then stop teaching kids that it is a "fact" when it is nothing more than an invented fiction that you accuse Bible believers of accepting. You have no facts to back up your assumptions....all you have is educated guesswork.
Evolution's shaky foundations have been exposed....and none of you can provide any evidence that does not rely on biased interpretation and the power of suggestion.

Sorry, but like it or not it is as much of a fact as gravity is. We went over that already.

Everyone knows that the general public will believe anything that is sold to them via clever marketing. You talk about gullibility...?

Creationists should be banned from using face palms. It is highly ironic whenever they make that error.

How very optimistic of you to assume that science education depends on books. Today's kids do not live in the world of boring printed words.....they live in the world of images and sound. Hence the need for graphics and computer generated images used to indoctrinate impressionable minds that evolution is a fact. What would they have to offer without these? Dry bones, along with dry supposition? A reality check is in order I feel.

Textbooks are still very useful tools in this day and age. That is why creationists of the sort that one finds at the Discovery Institute tried to illegally get their books into schools. Though if you prefer videos I have tons of them.

Evolutionary science is itself a mythology, based on belief, not evidence. Macro-evolution is no more provable than the existence of an all-powerful Creator. That is a fact.

Wrong again. Your ignorance does not refute facts. We have evidence for your claims. Literally mountains of evidence. You really need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

The real evidence does not support your mythology either. You rely on interpretation of evidence as much as we do. You have just convinced yourselves that your 'gods' are right and my God doesn't exist. Your 'scripture' is valid but mine is not. You rely on faith more than we do....you just can't see it.

Now you are openly lying or demonstrating that you do not even have a high school level understanding of science. Once again, let's discuss the nature of evidence.

I do too.....but when it is used to indoctrinate children with myth masquerading as fact....the pot is calling the kettle black. You do exactly what you accuse Bible believers of doing.

Your posts here tell us that that is not so. In fact you want to do what you accuse others of. Once again you are projecting.

I agree. But we should expose children to all points of view and allow them a well rounded education.....giving them informed choice......one that does not ridicule one position, whilst promoting the other as the "intelligent" choice. This is one tactic that promoters of evolution push more than any other. It plays on our natural desire to fit in and not stand out as different....or stupid. No one wants to become an intellectual 'leper' in their own community. That is why the silence is deafening.

In the sciences there is only one point of view currently. The fault lies largely with the supporters of creationism. They could try to support their claims properly, the big question is why don't they do so?

But it's validity isn't demonstrated by actual evidence...it is assumed....big difference.

Wrong again and another indication that you have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence.

The evidence for the Creator's existence is everywhere, but the kind of evidence you require will never materialize until the final judgment of the inhabitants of this earth. Faith is a pre-requisite for those who wait on the Creator to fix what humans (mainly men of science) have done to his earth.
I believe we will all answer to the same judge. You can believe he's a figment of my imagination....but what if you're dead wrong?

Then why can't you ever post any? There is no evidence that I am aware of. Please educate me.

But you never see that you do the same thing. Logic is replaced by what men assume to be true.
My logic does not allow me to believe your fairy story and viced versa. There is no end to this saga, so people must choose which scenario appeals to their logic and whether they are 'spiritual" by nature. Don't underestimate the power of a spiritual mind. It is guided by a force you think doesn't exist.

No, logic is merely a consistent, non-self contradicting way to reason. We use logic. You, not so much.

LOL....scientists look at the evidence and see what they want to see. What supporter of evolution is ever going to see the 'evidence' any other way? Since these are the ones who write the papers and books for publication, I wonder why they all agree? And why anyone who disagrees with them is automatically uneducated or gullible? I can't imagine.

More projection.

Its simply a matter of 'cause and effect'....your reality has no cause and its effect has no purpose. Its a dumb story to placate those who want the Creator to go away. He's not going anywhere. I have a reason for my existence and a hope for the future that doesn't depend on the ones who are messing up this planet.

No, just because you do not understand the cause does not mean that it does not exist.

 

[Polymath257]

By this I assume that you mean "swallow everything science believes and abandon what I believe"?

Not at all. But it does require knowing what the science actually says instead of arguing against a strawman.

I have educated myself and that is why I have taken the position that appeals to my personal sense of logic.

Sorry, but your own posts show otherwise. If you had actually educated yourself, you wouldn't be characterizing what science says in the way that you do. You don't necessarily have to believe what the scientists say, but you should at least be honest about what they say.

Evolutionists keep referring to the "magic" involved in believing in an all powerful Creator supposedly "poofing" things into existence in 7 literal days....(just for the record, I don't believe that for a moment.) And yet no one seems to talk about the "magic" involved in life spontaneously "poofing" itself into existence and morphing into all manner of creatures on this planet. Abiogenesis is "not their field of study" so they can safely ignore it.....or don't want to discuss it. But if evidence was found for a Creator, (which scientist will never allow to happen) what would happen to the whole theory?

And this is a perfect example. Nobody claims life 'poofed' into existence. And the 'morphing' does have explanations if you choose to look for them. What *is* claimed is that life is produced by natural processes via known chemical and physical laws.

If evidence was found for a creator, NOTHING AT ALL would happen to the theory of evolution and very little for the topic of abiogenesis. The evidence is quite independent of the existence of a creator.

IMO, your fantasy is way less believable than you think mine is.

By "educate" do you mean swap my beliefs for yours when you cannot provide proof for anything that science teaches about macro-evolution? Are you serious? Your belief system is less believable than mine, so why would I even want to accept your fairy story? It requires more "faith" than mine does.

No, you don't have to 'swap' beliefs. But you should at least know what the actual beliefs are with which you are disagreeing. You have shown no such knowledge.

Or less carried away by their own importance.

Which do you think more likely? That the ignorant will be more gullible because of their ignorance OR that the educated might actually be correct occasionally?

Then stop teaching kids that it is a "fact" when it is nothing more than an invented fiction that you accuse Bible believers of accepting. You have no facts to back up your assumptions....all you have is educated guesswork.

First of all, *ALL* science is educated guesswork supported by observations. And it is the support of observations that makes it a 'fact'. This is as true of the 'theory' of gravity as it is of evolution. It is always, and by necessity, an approximation based on the best evidence we have.

Evolution's shaky foundations have been exposed....and none of you can provide any evidence that does not rely on biased interpretation and the power of suggestion.

if you think the interpretation is wrong, find an experiment that will clearly show such. That is what it means to be wrong in science: it conflicts with observations.

Everyone knows that the general public will believe anything that is sold to them via clever marketing. You talk about gullibility...?

How very optimistic of you to assume that science education depends on books. Today's kids do not live in the world of boring printed words.....they live in the world of images and sound. Hence the need for graphics and computer generated images used to indoctrinate impressionable minds that evolution is a fact. What would they have to offer without these? Dry bones, along with dry supposition? A reality check is in order I feel.

Well, I would certainly like for truth and facts to be the basis of beliefs than propaganda and illusion. What you seem to be promoting is the latter, however.

Evolutionary science is itself a mythology, based on belief, not evidence. Macro-evolution is no more provable than the existence of an all-powerful Creator. That is a fact.

No, it is not. That you don't understand that 'macro-evolution' is just 'micro-evolution' over longer time periods is an example of your lack of understanding. Unless you can give a mechanism preventing small changes adding up to large changes, you have no claim. And, on the contrary, we have extensive fossil evidence showing that large scale changes do happen.

The real evidence does not support your mythology either. You rely on interpretation of evidence as much as we do. You have just convinced yourselves that your 'gods' are right and my God doesn't exist. Your 'scripture' is valid but mine is not. You rely on faith more than we do....you just can't see it.

Whether God exists is irrelevant to the evidence. That is the whole point. Make a specific claim where the evidence is misinterpreted and why you think so. Show a better interpretation and how to test between yours and that of the scientific community.

I do too.....but when it is used to indoctrinate children with myth masquerading as fact....the pot is calling the kettle black. You do exactly what you accuse Bible believers of doing.

The Bible does nothing. Bible-believers do. They are the indoctrinators of superstition and ignorance.

I agree. But we should expose children to all points of view and allow them a well rounded education.....giving them informed choice......one that does not ridicule one position, whilst promoting the other as the "intelligent" choice. This is one tactic that promoters of evolution push more than any other. It plays on our natural desire to fit in and not stand out as different....or stupid. No one wants to become an intellectual 'leper' in their own community. That is why the silence is deafening.

Sorry, but flat-earth belief and creationism are not intelligent choices.

But it's validity isn't demonstrated by actual evidence...it is assumed....big difference.

And that is where you are wrong. The evidence is built up over a long period of time, from the initial observations contradicting the 'great flood' story, to observations of how species changed at various stages of the fossil record, to how genetics works, etc.

The evidence for I have investigated the possibility and found the hypthesis to be contrary to the evidence.the Creator's existence is everywhere, but the kind of evidence you require will never materialize until the final judgment of the inhabitants of this earth. Faith is a pre-requisite for those who wait on the Creator to fix what humans (mainly men of science) have done to his earth.

And this is why your views will not be accepted by science: science does not take things on faith. It is always skeptical and demanding of specific evidence.

I believe we will all answer to the same judge. You can believe he's a figment of my imagination....but what if you're dead wrong?

I am comfortable with the probabilities. The evidence shows your particular mythology is wrong. I am comfortable with that.

But you never see that you do the same thing. Logic is replaced by what men assume to be true.

No. Your 'faith' is replaced by what the facts on and in the ground show.

My logic does not allow me to believe your fairy story and viced versa.

No, your deliberate refusal to learn keeps you believing your fairy tale.

There is no end to this saga, so people must choose which scenario appeals to their logic and whether they are 'spiritual" by nature. Don't underestimate the power of a spiritual mind. It is guided by a force you think doesn't exist.

I don't underestimate the power of human ignorance. But yet I will fight it.

LOL....scientists look at the evidence and see what they want to see. What supporter of evolution is ever going to see the 'evidence' any other way? Since these are the ones who write the papers and books for publication, I wonder why they all agree? And why anyone who disagrees with them is automatically uneducated or gullible? I can't imagine.

Disagreement is common in science: there are always debates about particulars. But the basic fact of evolution was debated fully about 150 years ago. The new evidence only supports the conclusions from that time. Making the same arguments as were shown invalid 150 years ago will make sure you are ignored by those who have progressed beyond them.

Its simply a matter of 'cause and effect'....your reality has no cause and its effect has no purpose. Its a dumb story to placate those who want the Creator to go away. He's not going anywhere. I have a reason for my existence and a hope for the future that doesn't depend on the ones who are messing up this planet.

Not even close. Again, you show your lack of knowledge of what the science actually says (whether you believe in it or not).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deeje, a good starting point is to learn what is and what is not evidence. In science the concept of evidence is well defined. Scientific evidence is observed facts, data, etc. that supports or refutes a scientific theory or hypothesis. To have evidence one must at the very least have a scientific hypothesis, that is a testable and therefore falsifiable explanation of observed events. Can you name one testable hypothesis for creationism? If you can't name one then you can't claim evidence for your beliefs. This article may help, there are of course others out there:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"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."

I can show how the evidence supporting the theory of evolution fits that definition. I doubt if you can do the same.

 

[shunyadragon]

John Grebe does not have an advanced degree in any of the sciences related to evolution. He has never done any research nor taught science in a university.

From: John Grebe CFSE: Executive Profile & Biography - Bloomberg

As an engineer his areas of expertise include functional safety, low-level analog signal acquisition, microprocessors and software architecture. Additional industry experience includes flow meter design for an industry leader. He holds nine U.S. patents on products in the process control industry. Mr. Grebe has taught for the ISA professional courses on safety and reliability. He also teaches topics in Engineering Management as an Adjunct Instructor for Drexel University's Masters Program in Engineering Management. Mr. Grebe has over 26 years of experience in industrial and medical instrumentation. He has a wide breadth of experience encompassing New Product Development (both hardware and software), Manufacturing Engineering, Manufacturing Test, Quality Control, Process Definition, Process Improvement, Field Service and Customer Support and specializes in services and products to assist companies in cost effective development of safety-related products. Mr. Grebe has a BSEE and a MSEE from Drexel University and an MBA from Villanova University.

 

[Deeje]

Not at all. But it does require knowing what the science actually says instead of arguing against a strawman.

Ditto. You yourself are arguing against a strawman. You are arguing against what you think the Bible says...not what it actually says.

Sorry, but your own posts show otherwise. If you had actually educated yourself, you wouldn't be characterizing what science says in the way that you do. You don't necessarily have to believe what the scientists say, but you should at least be honest about what they say.

I have been honest in everything I have said. I have quoted many scientists in various threads showing what they actually say, rather than what people assume that they say.

These are excerpts from Wiki on the topic of "Scientific Evidence"....

"A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence. These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. . . .

When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence. . . .

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory"

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Do you see what I see? There is no proof for anything science classifies as a theory. These admissions are what I have been saying all along.

And this is a perfect example. Nobody claims life 'poofed' into existence. And the 'morphing' does have explanations if you choose to look for them. What *is* claimed is that life is produced by natural processes via known chemical and physical laws.

No one has come close to duplicating how life arose in the first place, and no one can tell us how amoebas ultimately became dinosaurs.....all they can do is guess....and they do it badly. That sounds more like a far fetched fairy tale than what the Bible says. The Genesis account allows for an old earth and a slow and deliberate process of creation over eons of time. The Genesis "days" were epics of unknown length. This sounds way more reasonable to me than the preposterous scenario put up by scientists.

If evidence was found for a creator, NOTHING AT ALL would happen to the theory of evolution and very little for the topic of abiogenesis. The evidence is quite independent of the existence of a creator.

I don't think you understand what evidence for the Creator would mean. How do you assume that "NOTHING AT ALL would happen to the theory of evolution and very little for the topic of abiogenesis."

If the Creator presented himself tomorrow and tapped you on the shoulder, do you honestly believe that your precious theory would not disintegrate before your eyes? A first cause for life would ultimately be established and then humans would have to explain why they treated the Creator and his believers so abominably. You think that the egos that drive science would not be humiliated? Oh dear....

No, you don't have to 'swap' beliefs. But you should at least know what the actual beliefs are with which you are disagreeing. You have shown no such knowledge.

I really do....I just completely disagree with the conclusions reached by men like Dawkins and Coyne who have a clear atheist agenda. To them, God cannot exist and they will move heaven and earth to make sure he stays dead in the minds of their devotees. Meanwhile they will continue to elevate themselves and their superior intellect.
Getting rid of God allows them to occupy his place.

Which do you think more likely? That the ignorant will be more gullible because of their ignorance OR that the educated might actually be correct occasionally?

Like Jesus, I think the uneducated have a better chance of believing because of not having their perceptions completely changed by the power of scientific suggestion.
The 'gods' of science speak and the masses fall at their feet.

You believe every word they say....and yet they have no proof for anything but the adaptation they have observed.

First of all, *ALL* science is educated guesswork supported by observations. And it is the support of observations that makes it a 'fact'. This is as true of the 'theory' of gravity as it is of evolution. It is always, and by necessity, an approximation based on the best evidence we have.

I know you'd like to think that evolution is as provable as what gravity is but that is simply not true.
Lumping things together is science's way of pulling a swifty. Gravity/evolution...one provable, the other not. Micro-evolution/macro-evolution....one provable, the other not. Unless you are aware of how they get away with so little evidence, there it is. The power of suggestion....perception management at its finest.

 

[Deeje]

if you think the interpretation is wrong, find an experiment that will clearly show such. That is what it means to be wrong in science: it conflicts with observations.

What it means to to be wrong in science is to shut up and don't tell anyone. As the above quote from Wiki demonstrates....pre-conceived "assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence."
Objectivity is the casualty along with the truth.

Well, I would certainly like for truth and facts to be the basis of beliefs than propaganda and illusion. What you seem to be promoting is the latter, however.

Ditto

That you don't understand that 'macro-evolution' is just 'micro-evolution' over longer time periods is an example of your lack of understanding.

Prove to me that macro-evolution can be demonstrated by experiments with adaptation. Show us why you think that one explains the other. If you believe that there is only time in the way, show us proof of where the morphing takes place so that an entirely new creature appears on the scene, unrelated to its supposed ancestors. Show us how science proves relationship when all they have is a tooth or a jawbone fragment. Why does similarity always seem to be mistaken for relationship?

Unless you can give a mechanism preventing small changes adding up to large changes, you have no claim. And, on the contrary, we have extensive fossil evidence showing that large scale changes do happen.

You can't provide a mechanism whereby adaptation continues to the point where different creatures emerge. Science thought it up...the burden of proof is on them.

What was Darwin's observation? Were the finches morphing into another species of bird altogether? Or were there just new varieties of finches? Were the iguanas becoming something other than a new variety of iguana? What about the tortoises? Show us why Darwin thought evolution was the answer? All he saw was adaptation. If his imagination was running riot, it wasn't because of anything he saw.

Whether God exists is irrelevant to the evidence. That is the whole point. Make a specific claim where the evidence is misinterpreted and why you think so. Show a better interpretation and how to test between yours and that of the scientific community.

It wouldn't matter what was shown to you if it was a matter of faith. No amount of evidence would be good enough. Your faith is in science, but my faith is in the originator of all that science studies. You believe that you have all the evidence you need to stick with your beliefs.....so do I. We all have choices.

The Bible does nothing. Bible-believers do. They are the indoctrinators of superstition and ignorance.

Evolutionary science is as much an indoctrination as religious beliefs are. The superstition and ignorance have been around for eons of human existence, but it never impacted the world like science has in this last 100 years.
Has science made the world a better place? Or has it contributed to the damage that threatens our very existence. You can worship science all you like....religion has never harmed the world like science has.....both physically and spiritually.

Sorry, but flat-earth belief and creationism are not intelligent choices.

I don't recall admitting to a belief in either.

The evidence is built up over a long period of time, from the initial observations contradicting the 'great flood' story, to observations of how species changed at various stages of the fossil record, to how genetics works, etc.

According to the opinion of scientists. Observations are at best at the mercy of the guessers and the assumers.

And this is why your views will not be accepted by science: science does not take things on faith. It is always skeptical and demanding of specific evidence.

My view doesn't have to be accepted by science in order to be true...why would you think that? The "specific evidence" has specific interpretation.....no skepticism is exercised if the one presenting it agrees with you. Right?

I am comfortable with the probabilities. The evidence shows your particular mythology is wrong. I am comfortable with that.

OK...duly noted.

Your 'faith' is replaced by what the facts on and in the ground show.

If you say so. I reject the interpretation for a number of reasons. They aren't facts just because science calls them facts. OK?

your deliberate refusal to learn keeps you believing your fairy tale.

My refusal to learn?.....now that's funny.

You have a problem with your own refusal to learn.....I wonder which kind of knowledge will win at the end of the day? Lets wait and see.

I don't underestimate the power of human ignorance. But yet I will fight it.

Me too. There is more than one kind of ignorance.

Disagreement is common in science: there are always debates about particulars. But the basic fact of evolution was debated fully about 150 years ago. The new evidence only supports the conclusions from that time. Making the same arguments as were shown invalid 150 years ago will make sure you are ignored by those who have progressed beyond them.

As I have said many times....if the foundations of the building are unsound, nothing you build on it, no matter how elaborate the construction....it will be doomed to fall.
I hope I live to see it....it will be one almighty crash, with the carcasses of large egos strewn all over the place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deeje, there is so much wrong with your prior post so let me cut to the quick. You have no idea of what is and what is not evidence. Let's discuss the nature of evidence, we can leave the theory of evolution out of it for now. Unless you can be honest about evidence you will simply continue to demonstrate your utter ignorance of all of the sciences.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is a bright note on the trends of the polls concerning evolution. In previous years the range of those rejecting evolution ranged from ~42% to ~47% of the population. The range in the polls is now ~34-~38%, which is a positive trend. I hope it continues.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, there is so much wrong with your prior post so let me cut to the quick.

There is no way that you can say with any degree of certainty that I am wrong about any of it...all you can say is that in your opinion, you think I am wrong. I can live with that since I do not value your opinion in the slightest.

You have no idea of what is and what is not evidence.

Oh but I do. If you need to explain what evidence is, then that is a pretty poor platform to start with. Will that be science's interpretation too?....you know like the word "theory" doesn't really mean theory...it means that we can call it a fact when we have no evidence to substantiate any of it.
Your explanations like your poor excuses are wearing thin.

Let's discuss the nature of evidence, we can leave the theory of evolution out of it for now. Unless you can be honest about evidence you will simply continue to demonstrate your utter ignorance of all of the sciences.

Do you evolutionists really have such a serious need to convert people to the atheistic musings of pompous intellectuals who think they know everything about everything? I thought that evangelism was supposed to be a Christian exercise.....you attempt to proselytize more than we do. Why is there this need in you guys to push your case so hard? What difference would it make to you for people to hold onto their belief in something they consider way more logical....and just as provable as evolution is?

Will it make you feel better if God comes down to earth and you get to point to all the other atheists and say..."see all these guys were fooled too"? Is it just more ego stroking to prove that you are right? You have proven no such thing....sorry.
I can see how much you all enjoy the recognition of your peers, so if preaching to the converted makes you feel good.....go for it.

"The nature of evidence"....is scientists interpreting their findings in a way that never arrives at actual proof, but depends entirely upon how those findings are able to squeeze into their pet theory.