Ignorance about evolution no longer a valid excuse for creationists

[Oneatatime]

And this is the saddest part of the creationist movement; the purposeful deceit practiced by its proponents.

Clearly such people don't feel the sense of shame that I do when I realise that I've been arguing for a position which in light of new information becomes untenable. Its this shame which drives me to swallow my pride and admit my error, although often the result isn't mockery but a sense of mutual joy at the success of reason over dogmatic resistance to change.

There are few things as intellectually intoxicating as the realisation that your ideas and views are wrong when considered from a broader evidence base.

 

[PolyHedral]

Which is fine. We all put faith in things. Just about every day I put faith in my car's brakes to stop it, because I have no science to tell me they will.

You do actually; it's worked every time in the past.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Not quite sure what that means. Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Correction: Evolution and a belief in god are not mutually exclusive.
The biblical creation story, on the other hand, is just plain wrong in the light of the evidence for Evolution.

For that matter, considering the many miracles wrought by God and witnessed by many, ignorance about creationism is not a valid excuse for evolutionists either.

The plural of anecdote is not data.
Unverified and unreliable witness accounts from people long dead do not count as evidence.

Evolution does NOT explain the origin of the Universe. It only attempts to explain what happened AFTER the Universe was created.

That would be the realm of Cosmology.
And just as a side-note, the biblical account does not provide any form of explanation either beyond the usual "god did it".
I might as well say that 'Steve' did it and that would be just as valid an explanation.

 

[Thief]

Unverified and unreliable witness accounts from people long dead do not count as evidence.

So if you wrote down what ever you did witness....and then died....
your writings become lies?
So much for your postings here.
We know you will die.
We can then say you are already lying.

And just as a side-note, the biblical account does not provide any form of explanation either beyond the usual "god did it".
I might as well say that 'Steve' did it and that would be just as valid an explanation.

If you want to call Him ....'Steve'...go ahead.

 

[Skwim]

You do actually; it's worked every time in the past.

Oh, I could so come down on you and show you up for the smartie you are, but at the moment I'm feeling generous and will simply brush aside your comment. Consider yourself graced by my benovolence.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If you want to call Him ....'Steve'...go ahead.

You know Steve from down at the convenience store too?!?
Wow... Small world!
The point was, as I'm sure you are clever enough to have deduced, is that once you accept claims without evidence, you might as well put anything in the place of an actual explanation.

 

[PolyHedral]

Oh, I could so come down on you and show you up for the smartie you are, but at the moment I'm feeling generous and will simply brush aside your comment. Consider yourself graced by my benovolence.

:bow:

 

[Valjean]

Wouldn't all belief without evidence, ie: faith, have equal credibility and validity? Wouldn't there would be no grounds to say that Jehovah was any more real than Thor or the tooth faerie, as the evidence for each is equal?

Considering the numberless things that can be imagined but have no evidence supporting their existence, how does one decide between them?

 

[LuisDantas]

You know Steve from down at the convenience store too?!?
Wow... Small world!
The point was, as I'm sure you are clever enough to have deduced, is that once you accept claims without evidence, you might as well put anything in the place of an actual explanation.

So true.

Worse still, it ends up being an intentional mistake. We end up having no more of an idea of what actually happens, but attempting to make do by choosing a name for our own ignorance.

That may brush worries aside (for a while anyway) but it is in no way a good thing. It clarifies nothing and only adds to confusion.

 

[JustWondering2]

Clearly such people don't feel the sense of shame that I do when I realise that I've been arguing for a position which in light of new information becomes untenable. Its this shame which drives me to swallow my pride and admit my error, although often the result isn't mockery but a sense of mutual joy at the success of reason over dogmatic resistance to change.

There are few things as intellectually intoxicating as the realisation that your ideas and views are wrong when considered from a broader evidence base.

Very well put my friend! By the way I feel your pain! As a child I believed as you did until I began to see things in the Bible srories that didn't make sense to me and began to also learn about and become very interested in science.

Unlike you though I do still believe in a God. IMHO the problem with fundamentalist/creationists is there literal reading of the Bible and their stedfast belief that their version of it (which ever one they have chosen) is 100% true and 100% the word of God! All I have to say on that subject is, consider the source and the chain of custody of said ancient writtings! Not to mention all the translations and the fact a Roman King supervised the panel that decided what books were in and what books were out.

Now consider this. Lets agree for a moment that God dictated the book of Genesis to it's author. Could the men of that time in any way comprehend 4.5 billion years, evolution, science? Of coarse not! The Creation story was written in the language of the time in terms that could be understood by the people of the time.

Make Sense?
JustWondering

 

[Thief]

Wouldn't all belief without evidence, ie: faith, have equal credibility and validity? Wouldn't there would be no grounds to say that Jehovah was any more real than Thor or the tooth faerie, as the evidence for each is equal?

Considering the numberless things that can be imagined but have no evidence supporting their existence, how does one decide between them?

Well gee....
Step one.....choose...is there spiritual life or not.
(if you can't get past this...what are you doing?)

If you choose spiritual life then is there a hierarchy.
Is so...there is an Almighty.

Not a tooth fairy...not Santa Claus....

An entity capable of putting you together...you are not your own handiwork.....

And also capable of letting you grind to a halt and be dust.

Unless of course you chose spiritual life.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well gee....
Step one.....choose...is there spiritual life or not.
(if you can't get past this...what are you doing?)

If you choose spiritual life then is there a hierarchy.
Is so...there is an Almighty.

Not a tooth fairy...not Santa Claus....

An entity capable of putting you together...you are not your own handiwork.....

And also capable of letting you grind to a halt and be dust.

Unless of course you chose spiritual life.

Thanks for giving us a perfect example of what Seyorni was talking about.

 

[Valjean]

Well gee....
Step one.....choose...is there spiritual life or not.
(if you can't get past this...what are you doing?)

If you choose spiritual life then is there a hierarchy.
Is so...there is an Almighty.

Where do you come up with this? Spirituality need not involve deity, much less hierarchy. I'm spiritual, but not theistic. And what do you make of atheistic Buddhists, for example?

Not a tooth fairy...not Santa Claus....
An entity capable of putting you together...you are not your own handiwork.....
And also capable of letting you grind to a halt and be dust.
Unless of course you chose spiritual life.

And yet there is no more evidence of this entity than there is for the tooth fairy, just a lot of talk. Just because something appears miraculous and inexplicable to you doesn't mean it must be the work of an invisible magician in the sky. That's an argument from ignorance -- and an invalid conclusion.

And who "put together" this God of yours?

 

[Thief]

Where do you come up with this? Spirituality need not involve deity, much less hierarchy. I'm spiritual, but not theistic. And what do you make of atheistic Buddhists, for example?

'God created Man...a little less than the angels.'
Three levels.....God....angelic...Man....
And then there levels below us.

And yet there is no more evidence of this entity than there is for the tooth fairy, just a lot of talk. Just because something appears miraculous and inexplicable to you doesn't mean it must be the work of an invisible magician in the sky. That's an argument from ignorance -- and an invalid conclusion.

And who "put together" this God of yours?

There is no evidence for the tooth fairy...your analogy is poor.
The evidence for a Creator is all around you.
It's obvious.
You know an artist by His handiwork.

I make nothing of atheistic Buddhists.
And they seem to make nothing of themselves.
That seems to be their goal!

Nobody put God together.
He is the First.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no evidence for the tooth fairy...your analogy is poor.
The evidence for a Creator is all around you.
It's obvious.

Apparently only so to those who want to believe.

You know an artist by His handiwork.

I make nothing of atheistic Buddhists.
And they seem to make nothing of themselves.
That seems to be their goal!

Nobody put God together.
He is the First.

You realize anyone is free to just disregard such statements, right?

 

[Thief]

Apparently only so to those who want to believe.




You realize anyone is free to just disregard such statements, right?

Empty retorts...like some others I Know.

Did you have a declaration to make?

How about....?
Knowledge of evolution is no excuse to ignore God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Empty retorts...like some others I Know.

See, that is the point. There is not even a need for a retort.

Arbitrary belief can be freely had... and freely rejected. Such is its nature, until and unless you actually provide some evidence that it corresponds to reality.

Did you have a declaration to make?

How about....?
Knowledge of evolution is no excuse to ignore God.

Then again, there is no need of an excuse either.

 

[Thief]

See, that is the point. There is not even a need for a retort.

Arbitrary belief can be freely had... and freely rejected. Such is its nature, until and unless you actually provide some evidence that it corresponds to reality.




Then again, there is no need of an excuse either.

And then again....empty retorts are a sign of ignorance.
You don't really have anything to say.

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed I don't. You are free to believe. But please, remember that there is a rule against proselitism, and that either way this is not a religious debate are to begin with.

 

[Revoltingest]

The thread is under "Evolution Vs Creationism", so injecting religion seems appropriate.
The OP even looks like proselytizing....but for evolution. You know...converting the fundies.