• 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!

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

Jenny Collins

Active Member
Somebody else said I am not using the reply button, but I am hitting it, don't know what is happening! Do you know what ad populum is? Just because the majority of scientists believe something doesn't make it true! At one time the majority of scientists believed in the phlogiston theory too! And I am sure some of those 99 percent have doubts! Whenever an evolutionist defects, he gets feedback from others, that they secretly had doubts too, but were afraid to admit it! Didn't want to be scoffed at and berated, didn't want to risk losing their jobs! Peer pressure is powerful! It is nice that you think your investigation has made you conclude that evolution is true, but you were influenced by your professors first, then used confirmation bias to prove what they spoon fed you! You have your opinion, but I am sure that the scientists who defected from the cult of evolution, have theirs too!
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
If you are an atheist, why are you trying to tell me the meaning of the Bible days in Genesis? Atheists claim to be so knowledgeable of the Bible, but I meet very few who actually understand it! You think because a sabbath is mentioned in relation to the 7 days of creation, those days are literal 24 hour periods! That means no such thing
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
The primary "evidence for evolution" is the fact that we see it happen. We see populations evolving all the time, right in front of us. In some cases we actively fight the process (e.g., evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria) and in others we exploit the process to our own ends (e.g., domestication of animals).

Either way, that populations evolve over time is a repeatedly observed and documented fact.


Sure, just like any other methodology can give erroneous results. I have a clock in my house that won't keep good time. Does that mean all clocks are useless all the time? Of course not.

Radiocarbon curves have been calibrated with objects of known ages and via dates derived from independent means (e.g., stalagmites, lake varves). So the methodology is quite reliable.


I'm confused as to why you're arguing against dating methods, since earlier it seemed like you accept a 4+ billion year old earth. Usually it's only young-earth creationists who try and argue against dating methods.
You are talking about microevolution, in your example of bacteria
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
You may have read about something like this, but if you , then your sources were badly misinformed (or lying to you). Something as simple as a flood will not affect radioactive decay. There have been *extensive* tests for what will affect the decay rates. Chemical environment, pressure, and temperature do not do so. Even if a flood could affect how much C-14 was produced in the upper atmosphere (at best a small effect), it would have had no effect at all on the other dating methods, such as Rb/Sr, K/Ar, or U-series.
The flood may have affected radiation levels, I just looked it up
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
1 Corinthians 13:9-10 says, "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away."

(My respect for you just increased. You actually read the Scripture.)

That passage you quoted is from the ASV (American Standard Version), very similar to the KJV. I'm glad this site provides 3 versions to read from; the other one (Basic English Bible), in translating the Gr.word "teleion", uses the word "complete"; many other translations do. It sort of fits the contrasting context better....when saying something is "in part", or "partially", saying "perfect" doesn't quite give the essence of the intended polarity, as the word "complete" does.

Simply put: the Bible is 'complete'.....those gifts ended, with the writings of the Apostle John. You definitely need all of the Scriptures to understand it. A good example of this, is the serpent in Genesis 3. We can't 'completely' get an accurate picture of who was behind the ventriloquism, until Revelation 12:9! And John 8:44.

It's late, goodnight.

 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The flood may have affected radiation levels, I just looked it up
Looked up where?
There are only two radioactive atoms whose decay rates are mildly sensitive are Beryllium 7 and rhenium-187, none of which are important in dating anything. The reason why these and only these show environmental effects and why others do not are explained below,
How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates

A recent claim that decay rates depend somewhat on neutrino flux (which if it did would overturn extremely well validated physics) has been decisively refuted. There was experimental error that led to the spurious claim.
https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

decayratesof.jpg
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
It would be my opinion that if the density of an element can change over time, such a change might have an impact on all radiometric dating methods. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that what I am proposing is not true. Do you have some?
All you've done is repeat the same errors and fallacies I described in my last two posts. First you employ a double standard and second you shift the burden of proof.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My experience is, on forums such as this that when I request evidence to support particular claims, the claimant usually posts informational sites that do nothing but regurgitate yet more claims, without ever attaching any thing that I could possibly construe to be actual evidence.

That's not my experience, but either way, it's irrelevant. This process has to begin with you seeking information, making a good faith effort to understand it, bringing it back here, sharing what you learned, what you didn't understand, and what you disagree with and why.

If you won't do that, I won't be sharing information with you for reasons already given. I'm watching how you deal with those that are trying to teach you, whose efforts I appreciate. People interested in learning science are being treated to understandable descriptions of issues like the types of nuclear decay and what does and doesn't affect it, and to what degree.

You declined the chance to learn that and only answered, "Sure, sure...I get it. I understand perfectly. That is called blind faith. After-all, it's science we're talking about, right? How could it ever be wrong." Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?
https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...evolution-atheism.195716/page-14#post-5132626
What message do you think you send there about your claim of thirsting for knowledge?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And usually, when I take the bate, and go and search the site for evidence, I am always disappointed and further inundated with yet more unsubstantiated claims.

Then this domain -scientific understanding - is apparently not for you. You seem to be closed out at every turn. You can't assimilate scientific understanding from a post (you're still very confused about where carbon comes from after several explanations, and you seem to understand nothing about radioactive decay after having had it described to you repeatedly as well), you say that you can't benefit from a provided link, and you seem to be saying that you are unable to learn science using Google. Sorry, but short of private lessons with a tutor or enrolling in a school, you have no access to this information.

This is what a faith based confirmation bias that selects what you can see and cannot see before ideas ever enter consciousness looks like. When people report that they can't see the evidence, or can't see how what is presented constitutes evidence, they aren't lying. In fact, they think the people disagreeing with them are lying - deliberately spreading known falsehoods - and wonder why they are being so dishonest.

This process goes by two names: antiprocessing, and Morton's demon. It's worth a look-see:

.Antiprocess - Wikipedia - "is the preemptive recognition and marginalization of undesired information by the interplay of mental defense mechanisms: the subconscious compromises information that would cause cognitive dissonance."

Morton's demon is the anthropomorphizing of this process invoking an imaginary demon analogous to Maxwell's demon who sits at the portal to your mind and admits some ideas while blocking others according to whether they support or contradict the ideas believed by faith. It was the invention of earth scientist and former young earth creationist (YEC) - now an old earth creationist (OEC) - Glenn Morton:

"Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon, Morton''s demon < Creation Science, Morton's Demon >, on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

[snip]

"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it

[snip]

"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."

Morton is describing his own experience both in and out of YEC. I find him sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. The mystery is how he broke free.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Also, it is my belief that if you cannot provide evidence from your own understanding, then you do not actually understand the concept or idea that you are trying to substantiate. And if you do not actually have the ability to show your evidence, it pretty much means that you believe in the concept without having evidence to support that concept. And that is faith.

This is another example of words that you don't want to read never being seen. I told you why I don't bring you evidence. Did you not understand my words?

I explained to you the difference between justified belief and unjustified belief, or religious type faith. Yet here you are having not responded to my explanation and repeating your error as if nothing I said got through. And probably nothing did. It's not what you wanted to read or think about, so you didn't, and you are probably unaware of that.

Nothing you have read appears to have had any impact on your data base. That's exactly what we expect to see in the case of an antiprocessing, faith-based, confirmation bias as described above. Nothing challenging your faith based beliefs gets through.

If you suffered from this, how could you know given the presence of the demon?

I do not care to see how faithful people are to science. I want to see the science that makes them so faithful to it.

Go for it. The world of knowledge is at your fingertips. Slake your thirst for knowledge.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, I'm sorry, Polymath simply submitted more claims. He did not submit evidence for any of his claims. And I said that C-14 is 4 times more dense than it was 200 million years ago, according to current flawed dating methods, not 50 thousand years ago.

I have no evidence, unless you are capable of seeing logic as evidence. The universe is expanding. The earth is expanding as well. The density of the earth is now nearly 4x less than it was 200 million years ago. It is my logical assumption that the elements, which are also a part of this expanding universe that is decreasing in density are decreasing in density as well. If my logic is unsound, show me why I am wrong.

To what logic are you referring? I just see unsupported claims that are known to be wrong. Logic is valid reasoning that connects true premises to sound conclusions.

Your error is not logical. It is factual.

You should take a moment to review what you are doing here. Do you know how much damage you do to your ethos* arguing science with people that know that you don't understand it?

*******

*In the study of argumentation, ethos refers to how the writer or speaker is perceived by his audience. It's a combination of perceptions such as, Is he knowledgeable about that which speaks? Is he fair? Does he have any unstated purpose? Is he polite? Can he be trusted? - in short, his character, credibility, and motivations.

This is all separate from the argument or message itself (logos). If you're not perceived favorably, your message will probably not be well received. You start off at a disadvantage in every discussion thereafter.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The idea of plate tectonics has been falsified, yet scientists who have placed their faith in the notion of tectonic plate subduction seem to remain firm in their faith to tectonic plate subduction...kinda like how the religious keep on believing contrary to being told there is no evidence of their god.

Your factual claims are wrong. Plate tectonics has not been falsified, and plate subduction is not a controversial area. Plates drift. Some separate, some slide by one another, and some impact one another with one subducting below the other.

It would have been as easy for you to seek out the data as it was for me. This is from Googling. It took about 30 seconds to find these and others:

"Subduction of the Nazca plate beneath Peru: evidence from spatial distribution of earthquakes" Geophys. J. R. astr. SOC. (1979) 57, 537-555 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.926.7586&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.926.7586&rep=rep1&type=pdf
"Geochemical evidence for the melting of subducting oceanic lithosphere at plate edges" Nature 409, 500-504 (25 January 2001) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6819/full/409500a0.html

Are you a young earth creationist? Old earth creationists only need battle evolutionary science if they are going to battle science at all, but YECs have to contend with Big Bang cosmology and plate tectonic theory, both of which operate on timescales of billions of years.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm sorry, I'm just looking at the science of plate tectonics as rationally as I can. I see with my eyes that the earth's continental crusts all fit together at one time in the past, and I know the ages of the oceans according to the mainstream scientific theories. It is apparent that the earth was much smaller in the past, and that when those continental plates were all together on one interconnected continuous crust, there were no oceanic plates. So I am simply and reasonable attempting to provide an answer.

You are correct that the continents all fit together to form a single land mass in the past, but so what? Can you make your argument explicitly? What is the significance to you that a supercontinent broke up?

You might be confusing the age of specific oceans, which ages are measured in millions of years, with the idea of oceans on earth, which water is billions of years on the surface of the planet.

The rifting and separation of Pangaea created the Atlantic and Indian oceans on either side of Africa, which had been landlocked in Pangaea, but not the water in them, which was one large ocean called Panthalassa surrounding the only continent.

http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/images/tectonics-pangea-animation.gif
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I forget what it was about the flood, but there was something that could have occurred, forget what! You can't argue against it and say I am badly informed, since I didn't even say what it was!

And the reason is that there is NOTHING about a flood that would change the decay rates.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I am using the reply button, don't know what you mean! The Genesis accounts did occur and just because you smirk about them, doesn't prove anything! Scoffing isn't proof

No, you are not using the reply button. When you read someone else's post, there is a 'reply' button at the bottom right. If you click on that, their post will be quoted in yours. It helps to keep track of who you are replying to.
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
If you don't follow the correct procedures, that is quite possible.
Since I didn't give any examples, only made a vague comment, it is surprising that you would say correct procedures weren't used! Very specific answer to a general statement! Correct procedures were used, and I know this because if they weren't, there would be no proclamation that the tests didn't work! They would instead be embarrassed that they goofed and cover it up
 
Top