Two reasons to question evolution

[Big_TJ]

Evolution, IMO, is religious dogma pretending to be science. Scientists cannot agree on how evolution supposedly occurred because the evidence for it is simply lacking. So bluster and propaganda are used to shore up the failed theory.
And if we evolved, then life would have no meaning, as some evolutionists admit. For instance, biologist William Provine says that Darwinism means “no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life.”

Rusra02,
Let's be honest; did you quote this from a Watchtower or Awake article? If so, which issue?

 

[Big_TJ]

Rusra02,
Let's be honest; did you quote this from a Watchtower or Awake article? If so, which issue?

Don't worry; I found it. Here is the article where it is likely that Rusra02 copy and paste from:

Science and Religion

 

[rusra02]

First of all it's only fair, and even demanded by forum rules, that quoted sources be cited. Shame on you :slap: Then shame on you for misquoting Provine, although this is a tactic we've grown accustomed to.

Anyway, the relevant statement from Provine (with source included):

"First, the argument from design failed. There is no intelligent design in the natural world. When mammals die, they are really and truly dead. No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly. Modern evolutionary biology not only supports Darwin's belief in evolution by descent, and his belief in natural selection, but all of the implications that Darwin saw in evolution have been strongly supported by modern evolutionary biology.
source

​

Note that Provine says "“no ultimate foundation for ethics;" ← note the semicolon you slipped in, not "no ultimate meaning in life exists,← note the word "exists" and the comma you left out. Then you changed "no ultimate meaning in life exists,. . . . to " no ultimate meaning for life," And furthermore ended it with a period, which isn't there, rather than the comma, which is, AND then you left out the remainder of the sentence "and free will is merely a human myth."

Of course, if you lifted the quote from some other source which included these changes and omissions then you can't be faulted for them, but in as much as you chose to leave out your source there's no way we can know, so as it stands the blame for these deliberate changes lies with you.

As for the conclusions Darwin came to, they certainly don't mean that "Darwinism means 'no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life.' " It means what it says. Go back and reread it carefully, without your "bias glasses" on. As it stands, it's evident you either have difficulty comprehending what you read, or have no compunctions about deliberately misrepresenting what you read.

and FYI, your credibility quotient is pretty much at rock bottom right now.

Your post simply confirms mine. Provine said what I stated; I did not obscure or change the meaning of what he said. It's par for the course for many evolutionists to attack anyone who challenges their theory, even if it means picking fly specks out of pepper to do it. At least they won't have to explain the lack of evidence for the ToE if they can change the focus away from the facts. Hopefully, honest persons can see through such duplicity.

 

[Revoltingest]

The "scientists disagree" rationale for debunking evolution is a failure.
Disagreement about a process doesn't mean the process is not at work.

Let's consider an analogy. (It's not an exact one, so let's not carp about
differences. Please just consider the salient similarities.)
If the fed wants a new type of aircraft, they typically have a couple
companies independently come up with their best design to meet the specs.
These competitors disagree about the best solution to the problem, & come
up with different designs. (Engineers are always arguing about how best
to accomplish something. I even used to argue with myself because to
become entrenched in a single solution would blind one to a better alternative.)
Does this mean that engineering practice is wrong? No. It's useful.
Evolution is similarly useful because it explains & predicts.

 

[Looncall]

That because you continually and ignorantly mistaken evolution is about the origin of first life (abiogenesis), when it is not, know matter how many times we have tried to explain what you don't understand.

Your willful ignorance to understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution only demonstrate you don't have the capacity to learn the differences because your religious bias have clouded your reasoning.

Worse still. You often quote from pseudoscience articles, and even when you do quote from scientific site or article, you often misquote them, or you deliberately take them completely out of context, as skwim have pointed out (post 18).

I have lost the desire to explain to you (again) the differences because of this bias of yours and because of your stubborn ignorance.

I am coming to think that the trouble with creationists is not so much bias and ignorance as it is that religion has actually impaired their ability to reason. Pathetic, isn't it?

 

[LuisDantas]

I am coming to think that the trouble with creationists is not so much bias and ignorance as it is that religion has actually impaired their ability to reason. Pathetic, isn't it?

And yet tragic at the same time.

 

[Skwim]

I am coming to think that the trouble with creationists is not so much bias and ignorance as it is that religion has actually impaired their ability to reason. Pathetic, isn't it?

It certainly helps put it on the back shelf.

 

[Looncall]

And yet tragic at the same time.

Yes, indeed. All those wasted lives!

 

[rusra02]

I am coming to think that the trouble with creationists is not so much bias and ignorance as it is that religion has actually impaired their ability to reason. Pathetic, isn't it?

I could say the same thing about evolutionists, but will not stoop to such scurrilous personal attacks. I believe there are many sincere believers in evolution who simply have not heard the facts. This is in large part due to the largely successful propaganda campaign relentlessly waged against anyone who dares question the ToE. Still, the facts are coming to light and honest truth seekers should not be put off searching for the truth. (Psalms 10:4)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I could say the same thing about evolutionists, but will not stoop to such scurrilous personal attacks. I believe there are many sincere believers in evolution who simply have not heard the facts. This is in large part due to the largely successful propaganda campaign relentlessly waged against anyone who dares question the ToE. Still, the facts are coming to light and honest truth seekers should not be put off searching for the truth. (Psalms 10:4)

I have dedicated years of my life learning the arguments on the side of creationism and am familiar with almost all of the arguments and haven't heard a new one in a while. I also have familiarized myself as to why the arguments are either wrong or invalid.

So what are some of the facts I am unaware of?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your post simply confirms mine. Provine said what I stated; I did not obscure or change the meaning of what he said. It's par for the course for many evolutionists to attack anyone who challenges their theory, even if it means picking fly specks out of pepper to do it. At least they won't have to explain the lack of evidence for the ToE if they can change the focus away from the facts. Hopefully, honest persons can see through such duplicity.

I don't know ... honest people don't claim that there is no evidence when in fact there are mountains of evidence for TOE.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It had been raised by a poster in the thread that evolution had not been observed...(blah, blah, blah..!!)

"see" here..(http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3971053-post56.html)

To that I countered with the following.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVqxyYBuI_U

 

[averageJOE]

I could say the same thing about evolutionists, but will not stoop to such scurrilous personal attacks. I believe there are many sincere believers in evolution who simply have not heard the facts. This is in large part due to the largely successful propaganda campaign relentlessly waged against anyone who dares question the ToE. Still, the facts are coming to light and honest truth seekers should not be put off searching for the truth. (Psalms 10:4)

So please do us all a favor and go to this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...m/169579-ultimate-challenge-creationists.html and present the facts.

 

[rusra02]

I have dedicated years of my life learning the arguments on the side of creationism and am familiar with almost all of the arguments and haven't heard a new one in a while. I also have familiarized myself as to why the arguments are either wrong or invalid.

So what are some of the facts I am unaware of?

Of course, it's impossible to answer that question, not knowing you. I don't know if you are aware, for example, of the growing Intelligent Design research taking place at the Discovery Institute and elsewhere. Or the fact that many scientists and educators, having examined the evidence closely, have changed their thinking and no longer accept the ToE as the explanation for life's diversity.
Or that Antony Flew, famous former atheist, studied DNA and concluded evolution could never have produced such. Hopefully you are aware that one does not have to physically see a Designer to conclude from the evidence that there is a Designer. (Hebrews 3:4)

 

[jonathan180iq]

Of course, it's impossible to answer that question, not knowing you. I don't know if you are aware, for example, of the growing Intelligent Design research taking place at the Discovery Institute and elsewhere. Or the fact that many scientists and educators, having examined the evidence closely, have changed their thinking and no longer accept the ToE as the explanation for life's diversity.
Or that Antony Flew, famous former atheist, studied DNA and concluded evolution could never have produced such. Hopefully you are aware that one does not have to physically see a Designer to conclude from the evidence that there is a Designer. (Hebrews 3:4)

I think you're an honest person.

I have much less of a problem with claims coming from your side of the fence than from those who try and pass off easily debunked pseudoscience babble as real scientific research. I believe you to be sincere, but ignorant of the topic which you are trying to delve into.

The problem that I don't think you're recognizing is personal bias. The same is true despite all their good intentions. When a place like the Discovery Institute goes into a situation looking for a solution based on a premise, they are ultimately flawed. (And I know what your immediate response is going to be.)

No one goes into a setting looking to prove evolution. That's not how science works. We mostly operate under the understanding of a premise - fair. But the goal is not to find evidence for evolution. Unless something more satisfactory in explanation comes along, this is as good as it gets.

Institutes that are created in order to figure out how intelligent design works are ultimately going to be limited by their own mental anchor of trying to find a deity.

This statement, right here, says it all:
"Or the fact that many scientists and educators, having examined the evidence closely, have changed their thinking and no longer accept the ToE as the explanation for life's diversity."

This is one of those regurgitated phrases that creationists and IDers use to placate themselves. It's an appeal to emotion that, likewise, has no place in science.

The whole point of science is to remove personal input and bias as much as possible. Peer review is the second stage of that.

There are gaps in the knowledge of the understanding of long-view evolutionary theory. The existence of those gaps is not reason enough to scientifically argue for anyone's deity of choice. That's just not how it works, even though creationists have been trying since the beginning of time.

Before people understood how weather worked, there was a god of rain - Just because we don't know everything about everything does't mean there is a god of the hebrews. Do you follow?

Learn something from your spiritual predecessors and find your spiritual richness elsewhere. It's not going to be found in the physical explanations of the world, which will forever be more documented and supported factually then a biased interpretation of some gap theory because you really want it to be true.

Faith doesn't require proof and it should not get it's fulfillment in the physical.

 

[averageJOE]

Of course, it's impossible to answer that question, not knowing you. I don't know if you are aware, for example, of the growing Intelligent Design research taking place at the Discovery Institute and elsewhere. Or the fact that many scientists and educators, having examined the evidence closely, have changed their thinking and no longer accept the ToE as the explanation for life's diversity.
Or that Antony Flew, famous former atheist, studied DNA and concluded evolution could never have produced such. Hopefully you are aware that one does not have to physically see a Designer to conclude from the evidence that there is a Designer. (Hebrews 3:4)

So when you say that people "have not heard the facts", and asked for you to present those facts, your response is "it's impossible to answer that"?

 

[rusra02]

So when you say that people "have not heard the facts", and asked for you to present those facts, your response is "it's impossible to answer that"?

--\--
The question asked was "So what are some of the facts I am unaware of?"
I personally do not know of what facts he is or is not aware, but presented a few facts that many persons are not aware of.

 

[averageJOE]

--\--
The question asked was "So what are some of the facts I am unaware of?"
I personally do not know of what facts he is or is not aware, but presented a few facts that many persons are not aware of.

Got it. So why not go here:http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...m/169579-ultimate-challenge-creationists.html and present any and all facts?

 

[jonathan180iq]

--\--
The question asked was "So what are some of the facts I am unaware of?"
I personally do not know of what facts he is or is not aware, but presented a few facts that many persons are not aware of.

Do you split hairs like this when you're in regular conversation with real people?

It's just a way of asking you to provide the evidence that you're referring to. If you have some great discovery that validates the argument of Intelligent Design, then please share it.

 

[averageJOE]

--\--
The question asked was "So what are some of the facts I am unaware of?"
I personally do not know of what facts he is or is not aware, but presented a few facts that many persons are not aware of.

Got it. So why not go here:http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...m/169579-ultimate-challenge-creationists.html and present any and all facts?

Pretty much what I expected. Crickets.