Why creationism wins.

[dust1n]

The extremes of ignoring easily available information to maintain a simple pointless religion belief run deep.

Really a shame though. Science has created a man-made species 2 years ago, yet people choose to remain completely unaware of fascinating insights into the nature of existence. Oh well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"He describes himself as an evolutionist, and he has rejected biblical creationism."

Michael Denton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I already posted that quote.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, I already posted that quote.

Yeah, I saw that after I posted.

I guess if you're willing to cherry pick the Bible, you'd be willing to cherry pick anything.

 

[sojourner]

And I wonder how the snake could hear Eve. Snakes don't have ears. They hear only from ground vibration, from what I understand. So did the snake in the garden have ears, vocal cord, and hyoid bone? A lot of things God had to remove after the fall.

Sounds like God must've re-created things after the creation (including blood clothing and immune system, since the world was "perfect" before the fall).

Don't forget legs. Apparently, the snake once had legs, for its punishment was to crawl on its belly. Therefore, the bible proves evolution. The legs evaluated out from under the snake.

 

[Ouroboros]

Don't forget legs. Apparently, the snake once had legs, for its punishment was to crawl on its belly. Therefore, the bible proves evolution. The legs evaluated out from under the snake.

Hehe. Yup.

Shows that evolution must've happened at some point. Also, that the concept of "kind" doesn't really separate legs/no-legs species. Snakes with legs (which doesn't exist anymore) are supposedly the same kind as the no-legs one. So can legged snakes give birth to no-legged ones? Well, according to the Bible they must be able to.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

"He describes himself as an evolutionist, and he has rejected biblical creationism."

Michael Denton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I knew a molecular biologist actually accepting Creationism sounded a little fishy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I knew a molecular biologist actually accepting Creationism sounded a little fishy.

Yeah, it's weird. I personally know a very respected virologist who believes that the earth is about 6,000 years old - the whole nine yards.

I think that once you get into your field and only study one thing - or do a certain job with it - you can focus on that one thing and toss everything else aside. It happens in academia all the time - scholars will immerse themselves completely in their expertise, gain some respect, and make outlandish statements about their general field but not their expertise.

So I think some scientists are able to study one little thing without any real concern for everything else.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, it's weird. I personally know a very respected virologist who believes that the earth is about 6,000 years old - the whole nine yards.

Smart people are always in danger of having blind spots. There are some books about this. People who think that their high IQ somehow magically will make them always right about everything they read and think and in every possible science, they're the ones who fall for this. It's very easy for a physicist to think that he/she knows best about chemistry, biology, or whatever, when talking to people who don't know either. Even when people are within a certain field of expertise, they can fall prey for the same trap, thinking that they know the "Truth(tm)" in a particular sub-field.

With information doubling every 18 months (as of know), we're heading for a complete information overload like nothing else, so I think because of that it's only going to get worse.

I think that once you get into your field and only study one thing - or do a certain job with it - you can focus on that one thing and toss everything else aside. It happens in academia all the time - scholars will immerse themselves completely in their expertise, gain some respect, and make outlandish statements about their general field but not their expertise.

Also, when you write your thesis, it's very specific within the field of your PhD. You become the expert on the particular crockedness of West African black-ants antennas, and nothing else. But since you have a PhD, whatever you think of the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics, or Nutrition must be right... you were smart enough to get a PhD, right? That's how some (or many?) think.

So I think some scientists are able to study one little thing without any real concern for everything else.

And not really trying too hard to understand the evidence or arguments.

The "Renaissance Man" is dead.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

With information doubling every 18 months (as of know), we're heading for a complete information overload like nothing else, so I think because of that it's only going to get worse.

This isn't the case with everything... and not all of the new information is good. In fact, not much of it is good.

In my field, there might be two or three good books written on each given subtopic, and maybe a few compilations and journal articles. Once you've read everything in the field, it's fairly easy to keep track of one's interests. It's not like you need to take two or three years and do nothing but read to keep up.

In the field in general, there might be 200 or so good books produced each year, and you can use book reviews to keep up with and read the good ones. Again, it's nothing like the thousands of volumes that have accumulated over 2,000 years.

 

[Ouroboros]

This isn't the case with everything... and not all of the new information is good. In fact, not much of it is good.

Agree. I call it "noise". The more complex a system becomes, the more noise is generated.

In my field, there might be two or three good books written on each given subtopic, and maybe a few compilations and journal articles. Once you've read everything in the field, it's fairly easy to keep track of one's interests. It's not like you need to take two or three years and do nothing but read to keep up.

Sure.

Same thing in math. It's not expanding as fast as other areas. But in engineering, medicine, biology, technology, computer science, etc, we're seeing a tremendous expansion. But not only in those areas, also what we see is the high-speed increase of information about personal stuff. People posting photos of their breakfast plates or whatever. So it's not all pertinent or useful information. And what's even worse, there's a lot of misinformation. Sometimes because of misunderstanding, but sometimes intentional propaganda to undermine proper science.

In the field in general, there might be 200 or so good books produced each year, and you can use book reviews to keep up with and read the good ones. Again, it's nothing like the thousands of volumes that have accumulated over 2,000 years.

Oh, sorry. I was actually mistaken. clinical knowledge is doubling every 18 months currently, but human information/knowledge is doubling every 12 months.

Knowledge Doubling Every 12 Months, Soon to be Every 12 Hours | Industry Tap

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Agree. I call it "noise". The more complex a system becomes, the more noise is generated.

I call it noise, too.

 

[Intertia]

Until evolution can show me a pineapple giving birth to a moose, I'll stick with the Truth of Creationism.

This is a common misconception about what the theory of evolution is.

Lets say, and I'll make this very simply, we have a dog.

Lets use numbers to represent this,

2 = Dog.

This dog is a husky,

3 = Husky,

So this dogs number would be 23.

This dog can reproduce with anything that starts with the number 2. (Again, I'm making this really simple to explain why this hasn't happened.)

So if another dog, let's say a German Shepard, and represent it with 25, were to mate with this dog, they would be able to produce offspring. Because the '2' is the same.

A pineapple is number 05. It cannot reproduce with a dog because the number is 0 not 2. (And the obvious fact it doesn't have a reproductive system for the dog to interact with.)

This is why you will never see a moose (or any animal/plant/etc.) mate with a pineapple to produce offspring.

This isn't evidence against a creator, simply against the fact that a creator would be stupid enough to make a world which changes rapidly, and not allow the living creatures in the world to be able to change with it.
How can you praise something as such a transcendent being and then assume it wasn't even smart enough to create a dynamic universe in both the 'dead' matter and the 'living'.
And it is dynamic, this much is overwhelmingly self evident.

The theory of evolution is not definite on how the first genomes resulted in so much variety, and I'm not near qualified enough to explain that. If I could guess it was that the coding that made up reproductive systems was far simpler.
But as the world exists today, I can explain why you won't see that happen between a moose and a duck,

 

[idav]

I am in the worst kind of denial.

1) I deny that evolution is substantiated by every inquiry into natural science for the past 200 years.

2) I deny that I cannot prove God exists without using Scripture OR creationism

3) I deny that it is possible to disprove the existence of an evangelical God

4) I know how to debate. I deny that this is a delusion of grandeur.

5) I know how to evaluate scientific evidence while denying the basic scientific methods that affirm evolution.

Yippie! I'm ready to debate, because I have established a meaningful contact with evolutionists through which I can participate in the discussion!

What utter contempt for humanity that I have. I disrespect myself so much that I will pretend to embrace thinking that I despise to lie to myself and everyone else.

Seriously, the presence of this debate area is an insult to our collective intelligence. There has never been a meaningful challenge to the theory of evolution produced by anyone. We may as well have a forum where we engage in debates about things like unicorns and elves - that would be a much more intellectually stimulating.

Creationists: you lost the debate 200 years ago. Get over yourselves. For once in your miserable intellectual life put on your big boy / girl pants and move on.

Yet, mr angellous_evangellous, evolution cannot even explain monkeys. Why would evolution give us tails and then take them away? That is just stupid and proves evolution is dumb and can't make up it's mind. Then it still leaves the poor monkeys with tails!!!! I facepalm evolution.......

 

[Ouroboros]

Yet, mr angellous_evangellous, evolution cannot even explain monkeys. Why would evolution give us tails and then take them away? That is just stupid and proves evolution is dumb and can't make up it's mind. Then it still leaves the poor monkeys with tails!!!! I facepalm evolution.......

LOL!

I know you're joking, but you talking about monkeys and their tails reminded me of the thumb-less monkeys. There's a monkey, colobus, that doesn't have a thumb. It's thumb actually de-evolved. I think it's because it improves their bracciation.

 

[idav]

LOL!

I know you're joking, but you talking about monkeys and their tails reminded me of the thumb-less monkeys. There's a monkey, colobus, that doesn't have a thumb. It's thumb actually de-evolved. I think it's because it improves their bracciation.

In all seriousness though I can feel the pain of the OP. I really wonder what our generations have been learning in science class. In light of how the rest of world is doing in educatiion.....I am like......what do you mean US no I live somewhere educated.

 

[outhouse]

How can you praise something,

Not there.


That does not exist.

That there is no evidence for.

That there is no trace in nature of having said concept do anything what so ever?

 

[Ouroboros]

In all seriousness though I can feel the pain of the OP. I really wonder what our generations have been learning in science class. In light of how the rest of world is doing in educatiion.....I am like......what do you mean US no I live somewhere educated.

I can feel his pain too, have done so for many years now.

What's even worse, I used to be a full-fledged, card-carrying, holy-roller Creationist Christian(tm) in capital letters and everything. LOL! I rejected evolution because the Bible said so.

Jesus said that in Blorb 1:1 "Oh hark ye heathen, the theory of the evolution of kinds is a falsehood brought on by Satan. Do not believe or talk about evolution amongst ye, or My Father will smite you with lightning and brimstone!" It's all there. Honest.

 

[Ouroboros]

The theory of evolution is not definite on how the first genomes resulted in so much variety, and I'm not near qualified enough to explain that. If I could guess it was that the coding that made up reproductive systems was far simpler.

You know what's funny. I'm taking a class in nutrition right now, and they can't explain where nutrients first came about either, so I'm thinking about rejecting the whole idea of lipids, proteins, and all that, because the science behind nutrition can only be true if we know how carbon based chains can be formed in nature.... ooops, wait, we do know how they form... (they've found amino-acids in space. :/)

 

[rusra02]

"He describes himself as an evolutionist, and he has rejected biblical creationism."

Michael Denton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps it would have been more honest to quote the whole paragraph?

"Denton is best known for his 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in the book he presented a systematic critique of neo-darwinism ranging from paleontology, fossils, homology, molecular biology, genetics and biochemistry and argued that evidence of design exists in nature. He describes himself as an evolutionist, and he has rejected biblical creationism. Because of his book he is often regarded as the person who laid the intellectual foundations for the Intelligent Design movement.[5] The book influenced both Phillip E. Johnson, the father of intelligent design, and George Gilder, co-founder of the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement.[6] Since writing the book Denton has changed many of his views on evolution, however he still believes that the existence of life is a matter of design.[7]

 

[gnostic]

I have respect for the people - but no respect for their irresponsibility.

Anyway, they can be respected for many other things, but deserve nothing for intellectual obstinance.

Hear, hear