• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution Observed

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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. :D

Wrong again Deeje, I can show that you are wrong. Just because you are incredibly ignorant you should not think that others share your plight.

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.

Deeje, please try to be honest. I know that that is incredibly hard for you. You are the one that does not understand the subject. And you appear to not even understand what the word "theory" means. Once again, just because your definition is wrong it does not mean that others are wrong. You are once again projecting.

Your explanations like your poor excuses are wearing thin.
bore.gif

Now please, don't lie about me. Just because you are losing is no reason to lie about others.

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? :shrug:

If you want to live in a cave that is fine with me. I am merely trying to help a poor ignorant woman. You really should not post here if you can't debate. And as a supposed Christian you should not continually break the Ninth Commandment.

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"? :confused: 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.
121fs725372.gif

What makes you think that your mythical god even exists? How would you react if someone threatened you with the Easter Bunny. You have to do a lot better than that. The fact is that you, like all other creationists, call your own god a liar.

"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. :rolleyes:

Nope, it is merely the best way to determine what ideas are right or not. You try to keep yourself "safe" by keeping yourself amazingly ignorant. But then you have to show that you cannot follow your own book of myths and have to make false claims about others to make yourself feel better.

It is really too bad that you can't be honest. But then, that is one of the reasons that you are still a creationist. There is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Ditto. You yourself are arguing against a strawman. You are arguing against what you think the Bible says...not what it actually says.


Not at all. I am merely arguing *for* the evidence actually observed. The interpretation of the Bible is irrelevant.

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.

If you want proof, go to mathematics or alcohol. As I have said many times, what science gives is the best approximation based on the evidence available. It does NOT give proof, although it *can* eliminate falsehoods when they contradict observation.


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.

No, it is NOT a guess to use the atual biochemistry we see in life to investigate the nature of life. It is not simply a guess to use the fossil evidence to show how life has changed over time. It is NOT simply a guess to use the remnants of past metabolism in today's life to help us understand life in the past.

It is NOT simply a guess to observe the life is a chemical process and that chemical processes have a regularity and a commonality that produces some of the basic building blocks of life.


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....
4fvgdaq_th.gif

No, it would not be hmiliated at all. Why not? Because the conclusions are based on the evidence we have. That wouldn't change simply because a deity shows up and claims authorship (even if that authorship could be proven). It would *still* be the case that the evidence shows evolution happened. It would *still* show that life is a chemical process. At most, the existence of a deity shows that evolution *may* have been the mechanism that deity chose.



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.

What you seem to deny is that people can honestly look at the evidence and conclude no deity is required for understanding the universe.


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

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.

And what you don't grasp is the 'theory of gravity' isn't provable either. The detailed descriptions are *always* going to be tentative and based on the best measurements we have. It is always possible more accurate measurements will show an error in the next decimal point.

This is how it is when dealing with the real world. It is *always* a matter of using the best available evidence and the best available techniques to extract the maximum information. But it is *never* perfect: not for gravity, not for biology, and not for geology.

But it *is* good enough to show that life has changed over time in large scale ways (macro-evolution) and that there was never a global flood on Earth while humans were around. It is also plenty goo enough to show that humans are a type of great ape.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
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. :D

We can say that your mythology is wrong to a degree of certainty that exceeds our confidence in our decoding of the genetic code.



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.
bore.gif

No, a theory needs evidence to back it up. In fact, it needs a great deal of evidence to be called a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. To be called a theory means it has been substantiated by observation in many different ways.


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? :shrug:

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"? :confused: Is it just more ego stroking to prove that you are right? You have proven no such thing....sorry.

Once again, the evidence for evolution stands on its own. It doesn't matter whether there is a God or not: evolution still happened. The evidence is solid. A deity revealing (him)self would not change the conclusions about evolution, the Big Bang, or anything else at the same level of confidence.
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.
121fs725372.gif


"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. :rolleyes:

No, it is NOT a matter of squeezing evidence into a pet theory. That is what creationists do. And that is ultimately a form of lie. Again, that is what creationists do. Actual scientists follow the evidence and see where it leads. They may have a pet hypothesis, but will be willing to give it up when the evidence shows it is wrong. That is the difference between a real scientist and a fake one: willingness to give up a pet hypothesis when the actual evidence shows it is wrong.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
So the uneducated must trust the educated to find the truth....? What if the educated are dead wrong and mislead the masses of uneducated ones down the wrong track? o_O
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.



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. :confused: 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.



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?



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. :D



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.



You tend to worship 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?

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?

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.

If they are wrong, you (or anyone else) should be able to demonstrate that they are wrong and where they have gone wrong. That's the beauty of science.
So, get cracking.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What it means to to be wrong in science is to shut up and don't tell anyone.
Simply false.

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.

Fortunately, scientists have a variety of pre-concieved ideas, which allows for more creativity in formulating hypotheses, and better arguments against the ideas presented. The upshot is that anything that survives has been tested against a wide range of counter ideas.

Prove to me that macro-evolution can be demonstrated by experiments with adaptation.

Define macro-evolution precisely.

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.
But that is *precisely* what evolution says does NOT happen! The new creatures *are* related to their ancestors. That is the whole point!

Once again, you show that you don't understand what the science actually says. You are fighting against a strawman, and not the actual beliefs of the scientists.

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?

Often they have much, much more than simply a tooth or a fragment of jaw. And the relationship is proven through comparative anatomy: looking closely at how different species differ. There is a reason why we can identify a fossil of an ancient feline and distinguish it from a fossil of a bear. And that is true even if neither the bear nor the cat are modern species.

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.

And the fossil evidence shows exactly how and when this happens.

The problem, again, is that you seem to think that 'different creature' have to be an example of a crocodile coming from a duck. That isn't what happens, nor is it what anyone claims happens.

What was Darwin's observation? Were the finches morphing into another species of bird altogether? Or were there just new varieties of finches?
There were different species of finches. Very distinct and easily recognized as different.

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.

And again, you fail to understand what the theory of evolution actually says. Once a mammal, the descendants will always be mammals. But they can divide off and be primates or felines, or horses, etc. They are still mammals. Once horses develop, the progeny will still be horses of different sorts (zebras, donkeys, etc), but will still be distinct species.


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.

No, it is NOT based on faith. it is based on the actual evidence many people have collected.


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.
Fortunately, science has impacted in a positive way, for the most part.

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.

Yes, science has made the world a MUCH better place. Less disease. Less hunger. Longer life.

Yes, there are more dangers, but we have more ability to fight them now than ever before.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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?
It appears to me that what everyone appears to be saying to you is that a person should have some kind of basic knowledge of what they're talking about, before they talk about a thing.
If you're going to talk about evolution, for example, you should know a few things about say, genetics and basic science.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It appears to me that what everyone appears to be saying to you is that a person should have some kind of basic knowledge of what they're talking about, before they talk about a thing.
If you're going to talk about evolution, for example, you should know a few things about say, genetics and basic science.
No problem on that one and has some truth to it... but what you said and what they said doesn't seem to quite match up.

Not to mention... how do they know what education I have had?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No problem on that one and has some truth to it... but what you said and what they said doesn't seem to quite match up.
I have interpreted the posts I've read on the thread in the way I mentioned. Now, that could be due to the fact that I kind of already know what they are trying to say, given that I've been known to say it as well.

Not to mention... how do they know what education I have had?
Some things are evident from a person's post.

If I wandered into a thread about auto mechanics and started talking about thingamabobs, I think it would become very clear, very quickly that I have no idea what I'm talking about. :D
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No problem on that one and has some truth to it... but what you said and what they said doesn't seem to quite match up.

Not to mention... how do they know what education I have had?

If you have a background in the science of geology and genetics, please step forward. The reason I believe you do not is the language and terms you use in your argument do not reflect a knowledge of science.

You also failed to respond to my questions concerning the science of evolution and the science of the age of the earth.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No problem on that one and has some truth to it... but what you said and what they said doesn't seem to quite match up.

Not to mention... how do they know what education I have had?
When you make posts like this:

"To be honest! :eek: OMG, I can't believe I'm being honest!

I'm really have too many questions and am very congnizant of the fact that science continues to correct itself. (In the area of evoltuion and its efforts to promote atheism, I also have a bias inherit distrust. I look at the human being and all that is around and, quite frankily, I find it absurd for people to think there is not God. (My personal view).

Additionally, I don't think a billion years is enough to creat what we see by chance. I think it would take at leat a trillion years.

So, I let people be people that have different veiwpoints; don't make much to do about the differences; and remain with my viewpoints until someone says something that is convincing enough for me do consider my position."

You tell us that you know nothing about this topic. To start with the theory of evolution in not way goes against the existence of a God. It only shows that a literal reading of Genesis is wrong. But then the Flood myth was refuted long before the theory of evolution came along. Secondly that you do not understand how and why science keeps improving itself tells us that you have a grade school level of science understanding at best.

That is just a beginning. Your lack of science education is obvious to anyone that even has a decent high school level of understanding.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If we grow up with a specific paradigm, then we tend to stick with it, and a lot of this has to do with the fact that if we change one aspect of that paradigm there's often the fear that other aspects may fall as well, and that can be quite disconcerting.

What I ran across over and over again with my students is that they often arrived in my anthro course with some "attachments", to use a Buddhist word for it", that had nothing to do with what the basic ToE actually says. If one is taught from the time they're knee-high to a grasshopper that the ToE is anti-Bible, it can be very difficult to shake that paradigm. I know because I went through this process myself, and it ain't easy, let me tell ya, especially since I had thoughts about going into the ministry.

IOW, have patience, and remember that one can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Of course I've never resorted to using vinegar. :rolleyes:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If we grow up with a specific paradigm, then we tend to stick with it, and a lot of this has to do with the fact that if we change one aspect of that paradigm there's often the fear that other aspects may fall as well, and that can be quite disconcerting.

What I ran across over and over again with my students is that they often arrived in my anthro course with some "attachments", to use a Buddhist word for it", that had nothing to do with what the basic ToE actually says. If one is taught from the time they're knee-high to a grasshopper that the ToE is anti-Bible, it can be very difficult to shake that paradigm. I know because I went through this process myself, and it ain't easy, let me tell ya, especially since I had thoughts about going into the ministry.

IOW, have patience, and remember that one can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Of course I've never resorted to using vinegar. :rolleyes:


To be fair a question was asked and it was answered by a couple of us. He conflated the theory of evolution with atheism. That ignores the fact that worldwide most Christians accept the theory of evolution and who knows how many accept it from other religions. He also made the common creationist error of thinking that evolution was totally random.

He really should have asked how his understanding of the theory of evolution was wrong. There is nothing bad about asking honest questions. Most creationists can't do that. Most of their questions have a false assumption built into them. They are on the order of "Have you quit beating your wife yet? Please answer yes or no." The question and demanded response dishonestly assume that one is beating one's wife. Honest questions will always be answered gladly.

And I have been on the wrong end of scientific debates in my life. One was so counter-intuitive that almost everyone will respond that it is impossible. Another was being on the wrong end of the global warming debate due to my own political prejudices when the subject first came out. Luckily I was able to learn from my errors.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Some things are evident from a person's post.

If I wandered into a thread about auto mechanics and started talking about thingamabobs, I think it would become very clear, very quickly that I have no idea what I'm talking about. :D

:D I suppose if they took everything I said on a "literal" basis mixed in with a little bit of judgmental attitude instead of thaking the thought I was expressing, one could have decided to come to that erroneous position :D
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
If you have a background in the science of geology and genetics, please step forward. The reason I believe you do not is the language and terms you use in your argument do not reflect a knowledge of science.

You also failed to respond to my questions concerning the science of evolution and the science of the age of the earth.
That's because I don't believe you really discuss things
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
:D I suppose if they took everything I said on a "literal" basis mixed in with a little bit of judgmental attitude instead of thaking the thought I was expressing, one could have decide to an erroneous position :D

"Thaking?!?" = Dialogue with a dull thaxe.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
That's because I don't believe you really discuss things

My questions were specific and related to known physical evidence. I believe it is your problem from misusing scientific language as others noted, and not willing to discuss the specific questions I presented on the physical evidence,
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
My questions were specific and related to known physical evidence. I believe it is your problem from misusing scientific language as others noted, and not willing to discuss the specific questions I presented on the physical evidence,
Don't know how much time I have available... I just might take another look at your questions.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
:D I suppose if they took everything I said on a "literal" basis mixed in with a little bit of judgmental attitude instead of thaking the thought I was expressing, one could have decided to come to that erroneous position :D
Our opinions obviously are not erroneous. If you can ask honest questions they will be answered. Here is an example of a dishonest question:

"Have you quite beating your wife yet? Answer yes or no." That question and demand for an answer has a false assumption built into it. If you can ask questions without false assumptions in them they will be answered. The vast majority of creationists, whether YEC, OEC, or ID followers, tend to be incredibly dishonest when it comes to debating their beliefs. Surprise us.
 
Top