Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Jenny Collins]

Evolution is an observed fact. People who come to conclusions after examining the data can see this.

People who come to conclusions before examining the data will have different conclusions, and will subsequently evaluate the evidence differently, rejecting whatever contradicts their faith-based beliefs. It's not a method for deciding what is true that I can endorse or would trust.

You can't convince a skeptic to adopt your faith based approach to deciding what is true. Faith is antithetical to rational skepticism and empiricism.

I don't know why you think I should be impressed by what you say about science, when you speak just as dogmatically about the Bible, and demonstrate that you don't understand it! Thinking that saying "morning and evening" and "sabbath" make the days in Genesis literal! The word sabbath is not pinned down to a literal 24 hour period! There are many sabbaths in the Bible! I am changing the subject but for a reason! It shows how dogmatic you can be, even about subjects which are not your strong point! The claim is made that atheists know the Bible more than believers and in some ways they do, that is than most believers! But Jewish, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons know the Bible exceptionally well, and match or surpass atheists! And not only that, atheists know Bible trivia, but don't understand context! They learn it in a very biased, cherry picking way

 

[Jenny Collins]

What was your larger point? That what you call "macroevolution" has to be observed for it to be true?

Why would we expect to observe a process that encompasses at least thousands of years if not millions?

Science is based on what can be observed and explaining it, not on what cannot or has not been observed. The observations are well accounted for by assuming evolution over deep time.

Science is littered with arrogant minds and misinterpretations! Angry scientists arguing with each other who is right, and promoting their ideas so they can get their names in books and glittering prizes and awards! It has been claimed that peer review keeps them in check, and then I researched peer review and find out how flawed that is! Not the gold standard that many claim!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

According to people like you, the only scientists who are entitled to an opinion about evolution are evolutionary scientists!

Nobody is denying you or anybody else the right to an opinion about evolution.

Why would skeptics put credence in the objections of non-experts over experts? How about if your butcher disagreed with your doctor about your medication regimen, or your cousin in drug rehab wanted to rewrite the will an attorney had prepared for you? They're all entitled to their opinions, but I can't imagine why you would care about any of them.

 

[Jenny Collins]

You don't get to call it a belief when there's enough verifiable evidence to show that it actually does happen as a matter of fact. The theory of evolution might be shaky, and even then not as shaky as people with your agenda seem to think. But evolution as an observable phenomenon happens, as a fact.

Also: There's evidence for it. But there isn't evidence for your claims. The burden of proof is entirely upon you if you make empty unsubstantiated claims. Evolution is to a very large degree substantiated no matter how hard you try to believe it isn't.

You might have different ways into absorbing said facts into your beliefs, but you can't get around them by hand-waving and imagining that those facts don't exist.

/E: Let's do the rest of your post too.



Firstly, it's only over your head if you don't understand it. Second: Everyone's entitled to an opinion. It's just that some peoples' opinions are more informed than others'. You don't need to be an evolutionary scientist to understand it, but being one is obviously a good plus... That being said: They say evolution isn't a belief.

You don't get to call it a belief when there's enough verifiable evidence to show that it actually does happen as a matter of fact. The theory of evolution might be shaky, and even then not as shaky as people with your agenda seem to think. But evolution as an observable phenomenon happens, as a fact.

Also: There's evidence for it. But there isn't evidence for your claims. The burden of proof is entirely upon you if you make empty unsubstantiated claims. Evolution is to a very large degree substantiated no matter how hard you try to believe it isn't.

You might have different ways into absorbing said facts into your beliefs, but you can't get around them by hand-waving and imagining that those facts don't exist.

/E: Let's do the rest of your post too.



Firstly, it's only over your head if you don't understand it. Second: Everyone's entitled to an opinion. It's just that some peoples' opinions are more informed than others'. You don't need to be an evolutionary scientist to understand it, but being one is obviously a good plus... That being said: They say evolution isn't a belief.

Yes, some people's opinions are more informed than others! Like comparing your opinion to Dr Frantisek Vyskocil who defected from evolutionary conjecture!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Nobody is denying you or anybody else the right to an opinion about evolution.

Why would skeptics put credence in the objections of non-experts over experts? How about if your butcher disagreed with your doctor about your medication regimen, or your cousin in drug rehab wanted to rewrite the will an attorney had prepared for you? They're all entitled to their opinions, but I can't imagine why you would care about any of them.

The only thing wrong with your analogy is that if I am a non expert and you are an expert, I can seek out the opinions of another expert who doesn't agree with you! Like if I want a facelift and I have the option of a good one, or the one who worked on Michael Jackson! Michael Jackson's doctor can tell me that since he is a certified doctor of cosmetic surgery that I should listen to him and let him operate on me! Or I can shop around and weigh the opinions of different plastic surgeons and look at their results! The Bible talks about "blind guides" and if you follow them, "you will both fall into a pit"

 

[Jenny Collins]

Evolution is an observed fact. People who come to conclusions after examining the data can see this.

People who come to conclusions before examining the data will have different conclusions, and will subsequently evaluate the evidence differently, rejecting whatever contradicts their faith-based beliefs. It's not a method for deciding what is true that I can endorse or would trust.

You can't convince a skeptic to adopt your faith based approach to deciding what is true. Faith is antithetical to rational skepticism and empiricism.

I h

What was your larger point? That what you call "macroevolution" has to be observed for it to be true?

Why would we expect to observe a process that encompasses at least thousands of years if not millions?

Science is based on what can be observed and explaining it, not on what cannot or has not been observed. The observations are well accounted for by assuming evolution over deep time.

Evolution is an observed fact. People who come to conclusions after examining the data can see this.

People who come to conclusions before examining the data will have different conclusions, and will subsequently evaluate the evidence differently, rejecting whatever contradicts their faith-based beliefs. It's not a method for deciding what is true that I can endorse or would trust.

You can't convince a skeptic to adopt your faith based approach to deciding what is true. Faith is antithetical to rational skepticism and empiricism.

I have other things to do today and neither of us is getting anywhere! I may not be an "expert" but I am not "in love with my own voice" as many who claim to be experts are, either! People who are cocksure miss details! Example, there was a test where some weird blots were put on a slide, in the shape of an elephant or something like that! I may be off on some details! Students examined the slides under a microscope and missed this! This shows that learned people miss details and that can throw off their whole understanding! Have a good day and Christian love to you

 

[Polymath257]

Mac

Macroevolution cannot be observed, so it is not an observed fact! You will claim that processes can be observed that give credence to it, but that is YOUR interpretation! And as far as my "faith based beliefs" influencing my point of view, I do not think that my belief in God is as useless as you do! That said, there have been scientists who have defected from evolution, solely based on the fact that it made no sense! Some have been atheists, so they were not influenced by their faith

Actually, it *has* been observed! The fact that species are different during different geological eras show that macroevolution happens. It doesn't give a *mechanism* for the changes, but it does show those changes have happened.

 

[sayak83]

You have not presented proof that Radiocarbon dating is good! I have just been all over the internet, going to reliable sites that say it IS NOT good, but you seem to think that because you SAY it is, that that someone overrides what the experts say!

Correct, I have not talked about radiocarbon dating.

1)You claimed that earth and atoms expanded with the expansion of space. I have refuted the claim with proof and evidence
Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

2)You claimed that the laws of physics were different earlier and Big Bang only produced light. I have refuted this claim showing how the laws of quantum mechanics when applied to the early hot universe just after the Big Bang predict the generation of light elements in certain ratios that have been confirmed by observation, showing not only that the laws of physics have remained unchanged in the last 14 billion years, but also we have quite a good grasp of how to apply them to the universe. Derivations, predictions and observational validation were all included.

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

3)You claimed that the decay constants of radioactive elements vary with the environment. I have shown that this is only true for Beryllium 7 and Rhenium and not for any other element. I have shown you links that explain why this is so and the link itself references detailed derivations of these results from physics papers. I have also shown how the idea that neutrino flux impacting decay rates of radioactive chlorine has been refuted, with early results conclusively shown to be from experimental error.
Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

I am also adding the detailed derivation of the laws of radioactive decay from quantum mechanics that I have shown to be invariant in (2) directly from a physics textbook, and I am fully prepared to go through the derivations step by step if you are interested.
http://www.umich.edu/~ners311/CourseLibrary/bookchapter13.pdf


All my links are either mathematical derivations and/or direct links from science websites curated by scientists. For example the articles on Big Bang nucleosynthesis quoted in (2) was written by:-

Achim Weiss
is a scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching near Munich, in Germany. His main area of research is stellar physics. One part of his work concerns the evolution of Lithium-plateau stars, which is important for observational tests of the predictions of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. To Einstein Online, he has contributed the spotlight texts Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Equilibrium and Change, and Elements of the past.

His scientific papers and research credentials can be found below:-
Structure and Evolution of Single Stars


Thus
a) Have you carefully read through the links and derivations that were present in my posts?
b) Do you grasp the basic logical and mathematical structure of the arguments and the conclusions that can be derived and/or inferred from them?

If you have done this, what flaws or weaknesses have you found in them? Please feel free to point them out and tell me the reasons why they do no refute the three claims you have made here.

If you have not found any flaws or weaknesses, why do you not accept these refutations and change your beliefs? Will you retract the three claims above and say:-
1') The evidence and the application of the laws of physics shows that earth, atoms and galaxies has not expanded with expansion of space.
2') The evidence shows that the laws of physics have remained unchanged from Big Bang and the steps on Big Bang nucleosythesis causing the formation of the light elements is indeed correct.
3')The evidence and the laws of physics shows that decay constants of the overwhelming majority of radioactive elements are insensitive to the environment and invariant with time.

If you do not retract your claims, provide reasons why. If you base your claims on any source, internet or otherwise, link it and provide reasons why you believe it over my own arguments and sources.

I will await your response.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know why you think I should be impressed by what you say about science ...

I don't. I don't expect you to believe me.

... when you speak just as dogmatically about the Bible ...

Can you offer an example of what you are calling dogmatic speech from me? How are your ideas, say about evolution, not dogmatic?

You make assertions, they are rebutted, and you call the rebuttal dogmatism.

What's more dogmatic than your comment, "Evolution is ludicrous"?

... and demonstrate that you don't understand it!

It's a very easy book to understand. It is full of words that can mean whatever the reader brings to the process. In such cases, the words mean neither of two competing ways to read them - or both, whichever you prefer. They are just poetry, like song lyrics.

What does the following mean?

"Cinderella, she seems so easy, "It takes one to know one, " she smiles
And puts her hands in her back pockets Bette Davis style
And in comes Romeo, he's moaning. "You Belong to Me I Believe"
And someone says, "You're in the wrong place, my friend, you'd better leave"
And the only sound that's left after the ambulances go
Is Cinderella sweeping up on Desolation Row"

It means nothing specifically. It means whatever you want it to mean.

The proper way to approach the language in the Bible is to understand that when words are clear, they mean what they say, when they are not, the mean nothing specific. There is no more to understanding the Bible than that.

What do Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 mean? They mean what they say, and their accounts of creation don't align. What does that mean? It means that the Bible contradicts itself there.

Like wise with the two genealogies connecting David to Jesus. Each one means what it says it does, and together, because they conflict, one again, they say that the Bible is full of contradictions. Both genealogies can't be correct.

Thinking that saying "morning and evening" and "sabbath" make the days in Genesis literal!

It does.

The word sabbath is not pinned down to a literal 24 hour period! There are many sabbaths in the Bible! I am changing the subject but for a reason! It shows how dogmatic you can be, even about subjects which are not your strong point! The claim is made that atheists know the Bible more than believers and in some ways they do, that is than most believers!

You're going to have to better than keep calling me dogmatic and telling me what I don't understand.

But Jewish, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons know the Bible exceptionally well, and match or surpass atheists!

Yet they all disagree about it. Doesn't that undermine your argument about them all understanding the Bible if they understand it differently?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And not only that, atheists know Bible trivia, but don't understand context! They learn it in a very biased, cherry picking way

I find that the cherry picking comes from the faithful. I'll consider all of the scriptures on a topic, and don't care if they are vague, ambiguous, and/or contradict one another, which is often the case.

The believer has to sanitize that, and cherry pick one or a few of those scriptures that seem to agree with him or her, and rationalize the others away using any number of common techniques such as claiming allegory, citing mistranslation, or just making things up, as three Christians did on another thread to try to sanitize the story of Job.

Several skeptics reported said that what they had seen was the story a capricious god cruelly toying with the life of a good man for a trivial reason - to demonstrate to a demon that no matter what was done to Job, he would not curse that god.

We were told by believers that we did not understand the story. They each proceeded to tell the thread what the story actually meant. Unfortunately, they couldn't agree.They offered three different interpretations.

One said that the point of the story is to be a person of integrity and faith no matter the circumstance in life, and no matter what well meaning but judgmental friends tell you.

Another said that Job was being tested the way a soldier would be to make him a better man - some kind of training.

A third said that Job was being punished because he was only behaving well to force God's blessings rather than for the sake of goodness itself, for which reason God allowed, and even convinced Satan to take away his blessings.

Notice that all three added an element to the story that wasn't there, and each added a different element.

The point is that the unbelievers all saw more or less the same thing, and each believer that weighed in disagreed and modified the story in a different way. That's the difference between reading the scripture impartially, and reading it through a faith based confirmation bias. In the former case, one simply reads the words and reports what they say however immoral, vague, or confused they appear. In the latter case, if the apparent meaning of the words needs to be sanitized, it is.

I'd say that that makes a the unbeliever a better judge of what scripture says.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What was your larger point? That what you call "macroevolution" has to be observed for it to be true?

< sound of a coyote faintly baying on a distant mountaintop >

Ad why would we expect to observe a process that encompasses at least thousands of years if not millions?

< sound of a distant, barely audible ship's whistle through the fog and a buoy clanging >

Cat got your tongue?

Science is based on what can be observed and explaining it, not on what cannot or has not been observed. The observations are well accounted for by assuming evolution over deep time.

Science is littered with arrogant minds and misinterpretations! Angry scientists arguing with each other who is right, and promoting their ideas so they can get their names in books and glittering prizes and awards! It has been claimed that peer review keeps them in check, and then I researched peer review and find out how flawed that is! Not the gold standard that many claim!

You're sounding pretty dogmatic again.

 

[Polymath257]

The only thing wrong with your analogy is that if I am a non expert and you are an expert, I can seek out the opinions of another expert who doesn't agree with you! Like if I want a facelift and I have the option of a good one, or the one who worked on Michael Jackson! Michael Jackson's doctor can tell me that since he is a certified doctor of cosmetic surgery that I should listen to him and let him operate on me! Or I can shop around and weigh the opinions of different plastic surgeons and look at their results! The Bible talks about "blind guides" and if you follow them, "you will both fall into a pit"

Yes, you *should* look at the opinions of various experts. The difficulty is determining *who* is an expert. How do you do that? Well, you read enough about a variety of subjects, from math to physics to biology, to history and compare what they say to what you have read. You learn enough about the whole subject to see if someone is misrepresenting the area. And you look at the history of the debate and the motivations of those involved.

When you do this for the creationists, you find that the *original* viewpoint was Biblical literalism. That began to change when evidence was found that the Earth is MUCH older than the Bible suggested. The original viewpoint was that species do not change over time. That changed when paleontology had discovered enough fossils to show that the species from even a million years ago differ from those today (originally the exact timing wasn't know, by the way-just relative timing). A number of theories were proposed to explain the observed differences (Lamarck was one of many to propose a possibility). Then, Darwin proposed the mechanism of natural selection and that Humans were subject to the same forces as other animals. At this point, religious leaders came into the fray, claiming that the hypothesis contradicted their religiously based viewpoints and was thereby immoral. There were even debates (Huxley-Wilberforce) about the specifics. In these debates, those with the evidence of species change won handily.

The religious authorities still maintained the falsity of the new evolutionary theory and were able to get legislatures to pass laws against its teaching. Again, this was NOT based on the scientific evidence, but on religious feelings. In the mean time, the study of genetics arose, and the merger of evolutionary theory with the new field of genetics was accomplished. This opened up a range of research possibilities and the ability to test the previous ideas at a much deeper level.

The creationists still insisted that their religious viewpoint needed to be considered and started writing tracks about evolution and surrounding areas of science. I have read those tracks and they show a clear lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution actually says as well as deep misunderstandings of other areas of science. At about this point, there were laws passed saying that Creationism and evolution had to be taught together to 'teach the controversy'. These were struck down in court because it was clear that the creationist position was religiously based and NOT based on an understanding of science and its methods.

This lead to a shifting of the religious position to promote 'Intelligent Design'. While it used all of the previous misunderstandings of evolution, cosmology, physics, etc that were seen in the creationist literature, they promoted their viewpoints as an alternative to the legislatures. It should be pointed out that the IDers did not do any independent research, merely attacking the positions of the other scientists. They produced no testable hypotheses, performed no critical evaluation of their ideas and generally did not use the scientific method for their views. Nor did they ever do original research. Instead of actually doing science, they wrote popular tracks directed to those with religious viewpoints and to the social (as opposed to the scientific) crowds.

So, now you can evaluate the 'experts'. Do you want someone who has actually done science, conducting research that is testable and tested, submitting ideas for publication in reviewed journals, who abides by the overall procedures of science? Or do you prefer someone whose primary publications are directed to the lay audiences? Who show deep misunderstandings of even the basics of science, let alone the specifics of the areas they write about? Do you want someone who actually *does* science, or do you want someone who only writes popular tracks?

 

[Polymath257]

Wha

So what is my agenda exactly? The burden of proof is not on me! Those who introduce a conjecture such as evolution have the burden of proof! And it is not factual and can't be proven! No matter how hard you want to believe that evolution is true, it isn't and repeating it yourself and others, over and over will not magically make it become true

You are right. Debate will not make evolution true or not. The actual evidence does. And the actual evidence is that species change over geological time. And that *is* evolution.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Yes, you *should* look at the opinions of various experts. The difficulty is determining *who* is an expert. How do you do that? Well, you read enough about a variety of subjects, from math to physics to biology, to history and compare what they say to what you have read. You learn enough about the whole subject to see if someone is misrepresenting the area. And you look at the history of the debate and the motivations of those involved.

When you do this for the creationists, you find that the *original* viewpoint was Biblical literalism. That began to change when evidence was found that the Earth is MUCH older than the Bible suggested. The original viewpoint was that species do not change over time. That changed when paleontology had discovered enough fossils to show that the species from even a million years ago differ from those today (originally the exact timing wasn't know, by the way-just relative timing). A number of theories were proposed to explain the observed differences (Lamarck was one of many to propose a possibility). Then, Darwin proposed the mechanism of natural selection and that Humans were subject to the same forces as other animals. At this point, religious leaders came into the fray, claiming that the hypothesis contradicted their religiously based viewpoints and was thereby immoral. There were even debates (Huxley-Wilberforce) about the specifics. In these debates, those with the evidence of species change won handily.

The religious authorities still maintained the falsity of the new evolutionary theory and were able to get legislatures to pass laws against its teaching. Again, this was NOT based on the scientific evidence, but on religious feelings. In the mean time, the study of genetics arose, and the merger of evolutionary theory with the new field of genetics was accomplished. This opened up a range of research possibilities and the ability to test the previous ideas at a much deeper level.

The creationists still insisted that their religious viewpoint needed to be considered and started writing tracks about evolution and surrounding areas of science. I have read those tracks and they show a clear lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution actually says as well as deep misunderstandings of other areas of science. At about this point, there were laws passed saying that Creationism and evolution had to be taught together to 'teach the controversy'. These were struck down in court because it was clear that the creationist position was religiously based and NOT based on an understanding of science and its methods.

This lead to a shifting of the religious position to promote 'Intelligent Design'. While it used all of the previous misunderstandings of evolution, cosmology, physics, etc that were seen in the creationist literature, they promoted their viewpoints as an alternative to the legislatures. It should be pointed out that the IDers did not do any independent research, merely attacking the positions of the other scientists. They produced no testable hypotheses, performed no critical evaluation of their ideas and generally did not use the scientific method for their views. Nor did they ever do original research. Instead of actually doing science, they wrote popular tracks directed to those with religious viewpoints and to the social (as opposed to the scientific) crowds.

So, now you can evaluate the 'experts'. Do you want someone who has actually done science, conducting research that is testable and tested, submitting ideas for publication in reviewed journals, who abides by the overall procedures of science? Or do you prefer someone whose primary publications are directed to the lay audiences? Who show deep misunderstandings of even the basics of science, let alone the specifics of the areas they write about? Do you want someone who actually *does* science, or do you want someone who only writes popular tracks?

When you write such long winded rebuttals, I only skim a little of them! I have about 4 people debating me at once, and have limitations! This is how I define "experts", they are people who have degrees or personal knowledge about a subject! Someone could be an "expert" and face ad hominen attacks, just because they didn't pass through the accredited schools! But they can research on their own! There can be people who don't have an expansive knowledge of a subject, but know certain key facts, and those key facts make all of the difference! That would describe me! There are also people like me, who have heard both sides and one side sounds stronger than the other! That would describe me! And there are highly intelligent, highly educated people who are schooled in the subject, yet in spite of all that education and brain power, come to different conclusions! They may share the same overall scientific understanding, but they take that knowledge and apply it differently! One may be influenced by variables, that the other hasn't considered! I think of the discovery of Mary Schweitzer, I forget the details, but she discovered something that defied scientific thinking of the time! She was hesitant to come forward out of fear of the arrogant scoffing that she would surely face! But eventually the naysayers couldn't argue her findings! There is always the potential of some small detail, that can throw out the window, the logic of the majority thinking

 

[Jenny Collins]

I don't sound dogmatic, I sound absolutely convinced! Just because I am sure of myself, doesn't mean I am wrong! There is such a thing as overconfidence, and such of thing as not doubting yourself because you know what you are talking about

 

[Jenny Collins]

Yes, you *should* look at the opinions of various experts. The difficulty is determining *who* is an expert. How do you do that? Well, you read enough about a variety of subjects, from math to physics to biology, to history and compare what they say to what you have read. You learn enough about the whole subject to see if someone is misrepresenting the area. And you look at the history of the debate and the motivations of those involved.

When you do this for the creationists, you find that the *original* viewpoint was Biblical literalism. That began to change when evidence was found that the Earth is MUCH older than the Bible suggested. The original viewpoint was that species do not change over time. That changed when paleontology had discovered enough fossils to show that the species from even a million years ago differ from those today (originally the exact timing wasn't know, by the way-just relative timing). A number of theories were proposed to explain the observed differences (Lamarck was one of many to propose a possibility). Then, Darwin proposed the mechanism of natural selection and that Humans were subject to the same forces as other animals. At this point, religious leaders came into the fray, claiming that the hypothesis contradicted their religiously based viewpoints and was thereby immoral. There were even debates (Huxley-Wilberforce) about the specifics. In these debates, those with the evidence of species change won handily.

The religious authorities still maintained the falsity of the new evolutionary theory and were able to get legislatures to pass laws against its teaching. Again, this was NOT based on the scientific evidence, but on religious feelings. In the mean time, the study of genetics arose, and the merger of evolutionary theory with the new field of genetics was accomplished. This opened up a range of research possibilities and the ability to test the previous ideas at a much deeper level.

The creationists still insisted that their religious viewpoint needed to be considered and started writing tracks about evolution and surrounding areas of science. I have read those tracks and they show a clear lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution actually says as well as deep misunderstandings of other areas of science. At about this point, there were laws passed saying that Creationism and evolution had to be taught together to 'teach the controversy'. These were struck down in court because it was clear that the creationist position was religiously based and NOT based on an understanding of science and its methods.

This lead to a shifting of the religious position to promote 'Intelligent Design'. While it used all of the previous misunderstandings of evolution, cosmology, physics, etc that were seen in the creationist literature, they promoted their viewpoints as an alternative to the legislatures. It should be pointed out that the IDers did not do any independent research, merely attacking the positions of the other scientists. They produced no testable hypotheses, performed no critical evaluation of their ideas and generally did not use the scientific method for their views. Nor did they ever do original research. Instead of actually doing science, they wrote popular tracks directed to those with religious viewpoints and to the social (as opposed to the scientific) crowds.

So, now you can evaluate the 'experts'. Do you want someone who has actually done science, conducting research that is testable and tested, submitting ideas for publication in reviewed journals, who abides by the overall procedures of science? Or do you prefer someone whose primary publications are directed to the lay audiences? Who show deep misunderstandings of even the basics of science, let alone the specifics of the areas they write about? Do you want someone who actually *does* science, or do you want someone who only writes popular tracks?

By the way, I don't define myself as a creationist! I know that there are people who lump all who believe that God created us and didn't use evolution, as creationists, but I do not define myself that way! I consider that word reserved for the fundamentalist, Protestant Evangelists! They have their own way of thinking!

 

[Polymath257]

When you write such long winded rebuttals, I only skim a little of them! I have about 4 people debating me at once, and have limitations! This is how I define "experts", they are people who have degrees or personal knowledge about a subject! Someone could be an "expert" and face ad hominen attacks, just because they didn't pass through the accredited schools! But they can research on their own! There can be people who don't have an expansive knowledge of a subject, but know certain key facts, and those key facts make all of the difference! That would describe me! There are also people like me, who have heard both sides and one side sounds stronger than the other! That would describe me! And there are highly intelligent, highly educated people who are schooled in the subject, yet in spite of all that education and brain power, come to different conclusions! They may share the same overall scientific understanding, but they take that knowledge and apply it differently! One may be influenced by variables, that the other hasn't considered! I think of the discovery of Mary Schweitzer, I forget the details, but she discovered something that defied scientific thinking of the time! She was hesitant to come forward out of fear of the arrogant scoffing that she would surely face! But eventually the naysayers couldn't argue her findings! There is always the potential of some small detail, that can throw out the window, the logic of the majority thinking

Easy Google:
Mary Higby Schweitzer - Wikipedia

 

[Jenny Collins]

Why are you

I find that the cherry picking comes from the faithful. I'll consider all of the scriptures on a topic, and don't care if they are vague, ambiguous, and/or contradict one another, which is often the case.

The believer has to sanitize that, and cherry pick one or a few of those scriptures that seem to agree with him or her, and rationalize the others away using any number of common techniques such as claiming allegory, citing mistranslation, or just making things up, as three Christians did on another thread to try to sanitize the story of Job.

Several skeptics reported said that what they had seen was the story a capricious god cruelly toying with the life of a good man for a trivial reason - to demonstrate to a demon that no matter what was done to Job, he would not curse that god.

We were told by believers that we did not understand the story. They each proceeded to tell the thread what the story actually meant. Unfortunately, they couldn't agree.They offered three different interpretations.

One said that the point of the story is to be a person of integrity and faith no matter the circumstance in life, and no matter what well meaning but judgmental friends tell you.

Another said that Job was being tested the way a soldier would be to make him a better man - some kind of training.

A third said that Job was being punished because he was only behaving well to force God's blessings rather than for the sake of goodness itself, for which reason God allowed, and even convinced Satan to take away his blessings.

Notice that all three added an element to the story that wasn't there, and each added a different element.

The point is that the unbelievers all saw more or less the same thing, and each believer that weighed in disagreed and modified the story in a different way. That's the difference between reading the scripture impartially, and reading it through a faith based confirmation bias. In the former case, one simply reads the words and reports what they say however immoral, vague, or confused they appear. In the latter case, if the apparent meaning of the words needs to be sanitized, it is.

I'd say that that makes a the unbeliever a better judge of what scripture says.

bringing up the words of people who are believers, but don't think as I do? Most believers have misguided ideas, and to claim that their thinking is mine, is a strawman! Many, and in fact the majority, of believers, have screwy ideas! If you try to discredit me, because of them, what good is that? I know what is and isn't allegory, because I know the Bible well

 

[Polymath257]

By the way, I don't define myself as a creationist! I know that there are people who lump all who believe that God created us and didn't use evolution, as creationists, but I do not define myself that way! I consider that word reserved for the fundamentalist, Protestant Evangelists! They have their own way of thinking!

Nonetheless, you show all the usual characteristics of the typical creationist. How do your ideas on the *science* differ from the creationists?

 

[Jenny Collins]

Well, you could read and find out. Go to standard textbooks, research journals, learn some math perhaps, and see if you can actually find flaws with the official analyses. In other words, learn about the subject *before* you pontificate about it.

I have read extensively about biology, evolution, genetics, anatomy, etc. I am NOT an expert, but I am a educated layperson. That means I can at least tell when BS is being promoted or a significant misunderstanding of biology is underway.

I don't know whether punctuated equilibria or neutral drift or standard darwinian processes will be the best explanations. But I *do* know that anyone who claims the universe, or even the Earth, is less than a billion years old can be dismissed outright because they are deeply misunderstanding how things are. I can *attempt* to point out where they are wrong, but often they will ignore such advice because of their dogma. And it is usually a religious dogma that they are clinging to in the face of the evidence.

You don't know what I have or haven't read, for starters! Secondly, maybe you have researched those things, well that throws out the weak excuse I hear so often: "He is the wrong kind of scientist" Those other scientists read the same material that you have, and they don't conclude that evolution is true! So their opinion is valid