Failure of creationists/theists to undertand scientific theory & facts

[Luminous]

Do you ever get the feeling science becomes the theme, as if to be a god, dogma..amongst ToE supporters....,hey. I'm suprised they have'nt applied for religious status.

Why do you insist evolution is science, evolution is what nature does ,developes or evolves, changes, ...science is the study of these changes or evolutionary stages.
As a Christian, it's not that difficult to comprehend and accept, the developmental changes with species and the whole of nature or as some will call it ,Evolution"
It certainly is interesting how these living organisms can develope, within the DNA structure it's made up of, not a real hard thing for anyone to comprehend.

This would be a great thread for ToE proponents, " Why Ignore The Evidence of ID"
Is it somewhat inferior to admit the evidence is available or even mention.

OH yes, to them: science is god. So i guess they are just as stupid as you, and you agree. Religion is a believe in supernaturalities, science is ubbernatural. The debates's between Atheist and religious ODs.

 

[Luminous]

Roli: "eliphant in the room" means- cumbersome nuisance. which is religious ODs that hate that the sciences are put before their nonsense believes.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok Auto, science is a fact, I never once refuted it,it is the developmental stages within species, or evoultion, or whatever you specifically want to label it.

NO, science is not a fact, it is a method. Evolution is a fact, as well as a scientific theory, which means an explanation of facts.

I'm not afraid of it, I comprehend what everyone is saying, but what amazes me is how everything brought to the table, such as the statement below, are dismissed, or in this case, ignored, why is that ?
The elephant in the room,
Have you ever actually read what creationist/scientists have to say, or do you purposely ignore and stay clear of their professional perspectives and just accept what you choose and what supports your claim.
I 'm sure you have a defense, on every angle, but regardless, this speculation and contemplation of intelligent design in the lab is stirring the scienitfic community.


2) Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.
G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.
J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

G: What elephant?
G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!
​

Because it's nothing but an unsourced, anonymous rumor about an alleged statement by a single "scientist." It's not evidence, not a fact, not a published study, nothing, roli, just a rumor. Even if true, it's not science, just a conversation. Also, since creationism is a lie and all creationists lie, I strongly suspect that it's a lie. If not, why not give the name?

 

[Autodidact]

I love science,but my point is TOE is an ongoing investigation unlike discovering that you can circumnavigate the Earth so ob done lets go home.

Are you familiar with the evidence supporting ToE? Did you know there are still people who insist the world is flat? Similarly, there are still people who insist that ToE is wrong. They are equally divorced from reality.

Of course it must be taught ,it is an integral part of being a Human being, i have no problem with TOE but i do have a problem when its said that it is Science so it must be right.

It's as close as we human beings know to the truth.

A good example is when my wife was pregnant with our youngest Son,she had all the usual checks scans etc,we then had a letter with an appointment to see a speialist.
The consultant explained to us that there was strong evidence that the Baby would be Downes syndrome and advised termination,well apart from not believing it,Downes syndrome or not we were having that Baby.
Thankfully they were totally wrong and my Son now 13 is a fine sportsman and doing nicely at school,obviously this is medical science but do you get me Science is'nt about just being right its about pushing the barriers,History is littered with scienific fact that ended being scientific wrongs but without it we would'nt know much would we.

Can you see how illogical this is? A doctor was wrong once about something else, therefore this theory is suspect? Huh? It's not one scientist, England, it's all of Biology. The entire field of study has been based on this theory for over a century. Sure, it might get updated or revised, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the pinnacle of scientific knowledge right now, on par with our understanding of electricity, gravity and atoms.
People oppose it only because of their weird religious trips, not because of a lack of evidence supporting it.

 

[Autodidact]

Have you ever actually read what creationist/scientists have to say, or do you purposely ignore and stay clear of their professional perspectives and just accept what you choose and what supports your claim.

There are no creation scientists, because creationism is religion, not science.
I am very familiar with creationism, having read and familiarized myself with their arguments until I couldn't stomach it any more.

I 'm sure you have a defense, on every angle, but regardless, this speculation and contemplation of intelligent design in the lab is stirring the scienitfic community.

No, it's not. You've been misinformed. Name ten biologists working in the world today who accept Intelligent Design as correct. The only manufactured "controversy" comes from the Discovery Institute, a propaganda arm of a religious movement, founded by a lawyer and funded by a millionaire.
So I guess you're not the same person who keeps insisting that ID is not the same as creationism then?

 

[Luminous]

lets believe that 'scientist':
God made the big bang in a way to, at this time, have us be( through fate of organic materials and evolution processes) in existance.

there, this scientist also believes that genesis creationism is completely wrong. and that there is no need to TEACH ID to our kids because its an unbacked opinion just like any religion.

But can this scientist then disagree that maybe we are not the end product of the Big Bang but that maybe we are just the stepping stone for 'god's' ultimate plan of perfect life(which could be robotics, as many sci-fi writers have hinted.)
God's ultimate plan (these human made robots believe that humans were in existance only to create them as God's ultimate children. that they are God's truer image because they can hold so much more information and have such little amount of lies and opinions not backed by evidence.)

 

[England my lionheart]

40% of Republican Presidential Candidates do NOT believe in Evolution « Kevin Burton’s NEW FeedBlog i have added this just becuse i thought is was funny,especially for our American cousins.

 

[Luminous]

Its called political pandering, They lie to get votes; And its clear, because they all rebuked their stance and restanced themselfs as "simply stated the fact that science is not some 100% dogma thing", which is true. But they did not forsee that most republicans now believe in evolution and that their doubleback would be clearly seen as deception by the voters. The evengelicals have to be anti-evolution because if not, their bible could be deemed completely metaphorical and so their religion would be based on a nice lie.

#86

 

[painted wolf]

And we all know how well the Republicans did this election season.
Especially those candidates.

wa:do

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This is in response to Lawrence's thread, Errors in the theory of evolution.

Why do (Christian) theists and creationists failed to understand scientific theory and scientific facts, especially in regarding to Evolution?

No, let me correct myself.

It is not simply Christians who failed to understand the difference. It is mainly American Christians who failed to understand the working of science.

Lawrence is not only one who don't understand science. Others have expressed similar ignorance, due to their belief in church dogma teachings, bible or God.

To them, the theory of Evolution is just a theory, with no facts. They have failed to see over the decades, discoveries have been made. These discoveries are evidences that validate Charles Darwin's theory, time and again.

Evidences can either prove or disprove any given theory. If the evidences or repeated testing can prove the theory have substance, then the more evidences found to support the theory, the theory will become scientific facts. We called such evidence-finding, observations, experiments, testings, and validations, as scientific method.

Charles Darwin have done his own research, prior to writing his work, On the Origin of Species (1859), when he sailed on board the HMS Beagle, where he had made a number of discoveries.

His visit to the islands of Galapagos was pretty profound on his researches with living species. The islands are quite remote in the Pacific. You would think that each island would roughly have the same types of animals, but he found that each island have unique features. The islands are close enough together, and yet there are some animals are distinctive from the neighboring islands. Different islands have change some animals because they were required to adapt to different environments.

Since then, other scientists have visited these islands, and have confirmed his finding.

For creationists and theists to ignore the evidences at Darwin's time, and since then, showed the lack of understanding these creationists/theists have for evolution as proven facts.

Why do they failed to see evidences given that prove a theory? Why do continue to say that Evolution is not science or not facts?

Well it could be that not many people know much about science in general.

What puzzles me are how scientists who know science believe in creation. Hmmmmmm?

What also puzzles me is how evolutionists want to say that the whole panopoly of life is caused by evolution. "And as they spoke it was so?"

 

[Father Heathen]

What puzzles me are how scientists who know science believe in creation. Hmmmmmm?

Because they're dishonest with themselves and don't objectively analyze their faith like they do everything else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So I guess you're not the same person who keeps insisting that ID is not the same as creationism then?

They're not the same. Many forms of Creationism have more intellectual honesty than the ID movement does. At least they're up front with their position that in a conflict between the Bible and evidence, they'll take the Bible.

 

[Storm]

So I guess you're not the same person who keeps insisting that ID is not the same as creationism then?

9-10ths Penguin is right, they're not the same. "Creationist" refers to anyone who believes in a Creation. I'm a Creationist, and I embrace evolution to the point of making it a central tenet of my theology.

 

[challupa]

9-10ths Penguin is right, they're not the same. "Creationist" refers to anyone who believes in a Creation. I'm a Creationist, and I embrace evolution to the point of making it a central tenet of my theology.

Okay now I'm confused. If you are a creationist why would you embrace evolution to the point of making it a central tenet of your theology. I thought you either believed one or the other. What am I missing?

 

[painted wolf]

Well it could be that not many people know much about science in general.

Very true.

What puzzles me are how scientists who know science believe in creation. Hmmmmmm?

But in creationism. A great many scientists like Ken Miller, have no problem with evolution and the idea that God created everything.

What also puzzles me is how evolutionists want to say that the whole panopoly of life is caused by evolution. "And as they spoke it was so?"

Because that is what the evidence shows. We don't see evidence to indicate otherwise.
We all share DNA, we all share a growing development of anatomy and physiology.
Now Evolution says nothing about how that first living thing arrived.

wa:do

 

[Father Heathen]

Okay now I'm confused. If you are a creationist why would you embrace evolution to the point of making it a central tenet of your theology. I thought you either believed one or the other. What am I missing?

Perhaps because belief in god and belief in evolution are in no way mutually exclusive? Why couldn't evolution be a continual creation process of some "higher power", or at least kick-started by such? Neither Christian Fundamentalism nor Biblical literalism have a monopoly on god.

 

[Storm]

Okay now I'm confused. If you are a creationist why would you embrace evolution to the point of making it a central tenet of your theology. I thought you either believed one or the other. What am I missing?

It's not one or the other, that's my point. There's theisticevolution, among other options.

Personally, I believe in what someone cleverer than I dubbed "the living Godiverse," that our universe is actually a living, sapient being. I believe that this being is immature, and evolution is a cosmic force, the process of God growing up. I also believe that there is another, adult Godiverse which Created us.

I don't want to hijack this thread discussing my beliefs, though. If you have more questions, kindly follow the link in my sig, and I'll discuss it with you there.

 

[challupa]

It's not one or the other, that's my point. There's theisticevolution, among other options.

Personally, I believe in what someone cleverer than I dubbed "the living Godiverse," that our universe is actually a living, sapient being. I believe that this being is immature, and evolution is a cosmic force, the process of God growing up. I also believe that there is another, adult Godiverse which Created us.

I don't want to hijack this thread discussing my beliefs, though. If you have more questions, kindly follow the link in my sig, and I'll discuss it with you there.

No actually you explained it quite well thank you. I agree they are compatible when trying to understand the universe.

 

[Luminous]

So you all agree that Genesis creationism is a blatant lie? one could say that genesis was a metaphor, but i put forth that the whole bible is one giant metaphor not to be believed but only thought about.

 

[challupa]

So you all agree that Genesis creationism is a blatant lie? one could say that genesis was a metaphor, but i put forth that the whole bible is one giant metaphor not to be believed but only thought about.

It certainly cannot be taken literally that's for sure. Have you ever read a book called the Metaphysical Interpretation of the Bible? It is an interesting book for sure. It takes the things that can't be taken literally and gives them a symbolic or metaphyiscal meaning. It made more sense anyway.