Jenny Collins
Active Member
I rea
-
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?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
And how do you determine that they have extensive knowledge? Why do you accept degrees from degree mills (i.e, non-accredited institutions)?
yes, it is scary to present a hypothesis that is contrary to current thinking. But that is how scientific progress is made. *IF* you can substantiate your ideas with evidence, this is the way to achieve scientific fame.
Of course he's entitled to an opinion. And you are entitled to disregard it.
He's not authoritative in evolutionary science, but he is knowledgeable and can explain much of it.
Did you see my comment on ethos? Polymath has a strong reputation earned on another discussion website where he had been for years as had I. When you see a person who can think clearly, has a large fund of knowledge, has never (or perhaps rarely) been shown to be wrong, and appears to be interested in teaching rather than indoctrinating, he becomes somebody that can be trusted based on his words alone. I have come to expect him to post only about what he knows well. We have a valuable asset in Polymath, although I must say that this thread has several stellar posters. Gnostic is one, as is Jose Fly, and so is sayak.
My apologies if I have overlooked anybody.
These people are assets if you'd like to learn.
Jenny Collins
Active Member
Yeah, but they all "KNOW" it in one sense of the word! In and of itself, that doesn't prove they understand it, although I believe one of the group knows it pretty well! But anyway, atheists "knowing" the Bible leaves them on the same ground
Jenny Collins
Active Member
"Degree mills"? Scoffing, pure and simple! Sweeping generalization! People can go to those schools and do just fine! But there are Yale and Harvard grads, who disbelieve in evolution, and highly esteemed scientists who reject it!
Jose Fly's avatar is of a character from a Chick track, a professor that loses his cool as the Christian in his class is shown frustrating. It is mocking skeptics by portraying them as angry and overwhelmed by Christian apologists.
You can look at it here: Big Daddy?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Really? I find it hard to believe that a person's avatar pic has that much influence. BTW, my pic is a bit of a spoof. It's taken from a Chick Tract, and is how Jack Chick depicted scientists. I find that sort of thing hilarious.
Here's a tip.....when reading and responding to someone's posts, focus your attention on the content of their posts. The less you focus on silly ancillary things like avatars and signatures, the better.
Maybe I should just change it to a big smiley face. Tell you what.....I'll change it and my signature line and we'll see if the creationists and anti-science folks here start responding differently.
Anyways, back to the subject at hand.....again, the primary "evidence for evolution" is the fact that we see it happen, all the time, right in front of us. Trying to wave that away with "that's microevolution" doesn't work, because as I noted earlier, "microevolution" is evolution. That's why it has the term "evolution" in it. What you did is like trying to argue that microwaves aren't waves.
Thumper
Thank the gods I'm an atheist
But you are wrong.
That biology on this planet changes over time is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. It has been observed and measured ad nauseum for over 150 years. This multi-generational change is referred to as biological evolution. Period.
Arguing against this fact is absurd. One might argue about specific mechanisms that drive these biological changes, but that's all.
So you can choose to learn enough about the subject to pose some legitimate questions or you can continue to be in denial. That is really your call.
But you should consider that the only thing which really matters about any of this is does our current understanding of how biology works help us in any way? In medicine, human healthcare, crop production, ... anything at all that is better because of our understanding of biological evolution. And that answer is a resounding YES.
Your very next question should be, is there any other understandings of how biology functions that can provide us with more or better abilities in any of these fields of study? This answer is NO.
Nothing else matters, really. Your lack of understanding about biology is meaningless as long as what we've got serves us.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Yes it has. Microevolution is evolution within the same species, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and has been repeatedly observed, documented, and studied. Macroevolution is the evolution of new species, which has also been repeatedly observed, documented, and studied.
Burden of proof only applies when you are trying to convince somebody that your claim is correct. To do that, you need the cooperation of the other person. You need them to come to the table with an open mind - that is, one willing to review the evidence and argument impartially and to be convinced by a compelling argument.
They're always asking for proof and evidence, but the faithful don't offer proof or evidence, don't need proof or evidence to believe, and can't be budged from their faith-based positions using proof or evidence.
It's never a cooperative effort with such a person - just interaction with a closed mind encased in a faith based confirmation bias refusing to see the evidence. There's no hope of getting through in such situations, and I really don't bother trying much. I don't feel a burden of proof when I make claims to such people. When they ask for evidence, I send them to Google. One day, one of them might actually do it.
If you're honest with yourself, you'll recognize that absolutely nothing could convince you that evolution accounts for the tree of life. There is no such thing as compelling evidence to a person committed to not understanding it.
And you seem to think that your word should be taken that you found a reliable source, understood it, and that it did what you claim it did.
We've already covered this. I answered this objection. My answer remains the same. Your objection is true but irrelevant.
It's everybody's interpretation except creationists. Evolution is settled science. It has bee observed, and the theory accounting for it has made confirmed predictions, is falsifiable but has never been falsified, and has been useful in applied biological sciences. That pretty much confirms the theory.
What use do you see there?
What atheists reject the theory of evolution? Some may object to some ideas in the theory, but that is not "defecting from evolution"
If you find some, you're talking about people that have rejected the only hypothesis that can account for the diversity and commonality of the tree of life without an intelligent designer.
To paraphrase Doyle, when you are down to one possibility, if your reasoning is sound, however improbable it seems, it must be the correct. If you eliminate that one as well, you're completely at sea.
That doesn't sound plausible. Who does that?
I'm going to guess that just about every person that rejects evolution is a theist. There's simply no room for any other naturalistic interpretation of the data. If you don't like naturalisitic evolution, you're back to intelligent design.
You're being dogmatic again.
"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.
"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.
"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash." - anon.
"František Vyskočil is a Czech neuroscientist and a Professor of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neurobiology at Charles University."
What does he think about the physics of skyscrapers or parasitology?
Your comment is unrelated to mine. I didn't ask about a lay person getting multiple opinions. I asked if the lay person should listen to an expert or another lay person. It was an argument for ignoring the opinions of such lay people as the Czech neuroscientist to whom you just referred, who disagree with the consensus of the experts.
Thank you, and good day to you as well.
You sound dogmatic to me. If you don't doubt yourself, you qualify.
Not that I care, but since you call others dogmatic when you're so certain and write as if you cannot be wrong, I'm pointing out that that is you as well.
OK, but you meet my definition of a creationist if you believe that God created the universe and/or life.
I didn't claim that their thinking is yours. The strawman is saying that I did.
The post was about something else. If you care to know what that is, read it again carefully. If you still can't tell, ask me and I'll explain what it meant and why it was written.
Arguments can be valid, not opinions. Opinions are subjective preferences and unsupported claims, neither of which is of much value to others. We care what people know and can demonstrate or argue effectively, not what they merely believe.
People trained in critical thinking aren't convinced by opinions. They are convinced by supporting evidence and sound arguments. Opinions are at most a starting point for exploring an idea.