Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you offer an example of what you are calling dogmatic speech from me?

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

So no, then? You have no such example to offer?

How are your ideas, say about evolution, not dogmatic?

< faint sound of a train passing a great distance away >

Yet they [JWs. Mormons, etc.] all disagree about [what the Bible means]. Doesn't that undermine your argument about them all understanding the Bible if they understand it differently?

< sound of a slowly dripping faucet in the next room >

I've got a bunch of these on tap. I suspect that I'll have the opportunity to use them all with you.

 

[Polymath257]

I rea

It works for certain biographical information. You had mentioned her and I showed a link that had *some* information about her. Do I consider it a thorough biography? Of course not. Is it a place to start? Sure.

Some Wikipedia articles are decent. Some are far from it. Look for those with references that can be traced to research level journals if you want something technical.

 

[Jenny Collins]

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.

You mention critical thinking! Some of the little twerps who come on this site and others, like to throw around the term "critical thinking" and I find that they don't apply it to others correctly, and should question their own thinking more often than they do! For once I would like to see these little cocky twerps consider that they don't always practice it, but no, instead they go around telling others that they don't! I knew for a long time what flawed reasoning was because I lived with a headstrong mother who would drive me crazy! And when I was 18 I discovered names for some of the things I already recognized! And as I aged, I learned more of them! Then one day I was talking to an atheist, a young guy who tells me that I practiced confirmation bias! I asked what that was, and he explained and guess what? I knew the concept, knew it much longer than he did, but he learned the name for it before I did, and wanted to throw around his knowledge! Not only that, he didn't even correctly apply it to me! I always choke back disgust when people go around throwing around the term "critical thinking" as if they are so good about it and I fail so miserably! And in most cases, these little twits so in love with themselves, are young enough to be my child! I brushed up on the terms online a few times, and one thing that I keep reading about, is how educated people are just as guilty of fallacious thinking as the "rest of us"

 

[Jenny Collins]

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.

y

You ask what atheists object to evolution? Many have and then they left it behind in the dust! Frantisek Vyskocil was one! He began questioning it, and later started believing in God! When I said atheists have defected from it, my point was that they didn't have any initial religious bias that influenced them! And I am sure that some atheists have rejected evolution and not moved on to become believers! Because before evolution was ever proposed as a conjecture, atheists existed!

 

[Jenny Collins]

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.

No it hasn't, but I like your new avatar!

 

[Jenny Collins]

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.

Evolution is absurd, but if you are intent on being spoon fed that lie, I will not stand in your way

 

[Deeje]

And? "Microevolution" is evolution. That's why it has the term "evolution" in it.

And therein lies the heart of this whole issue. There is a clearly delineated separation between these two "kinds" of "evolution". (pardon the pun) The fact is, scientists use one to explain away the impossibility of the other. No adaptive change in any creature produced a completely different kind of animal or bird or insect or bacteria. No morphing of creatures has ever been clearly established, since the "transitional" forms presented are many millions of years apart and nothing is seen in between to link them. The links are missing because they never existed.

 

[Deeje]

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.

That works equally well for creation too. We don't know the mechanism, but we see that creatures appeared at different points in time. Since no transitional forms have been found that would confirm a slow evolutionary process, science assumes one scenario to be true, whilst believers assume the other.....both can't be right. The evidence IMO, points to a Creator who intelligently designed the entire scope of life with its many interconnecting eco-systems all working beautifully to self-replicate and self-perpetuate life on this very unique and thoughtfully prepared planet.

I find the notion that this is all "accidental" to be highly illogical and quite unintelligent.

 

[Deeje]

Really? I find it hard to believe that a person's avatar pic has that much influence.

I think I remember telling you the same thing.....you became your avatar. It depicted someone who was hostile, reactive and unreasonable. It was hard not to see you that way, especially from the tone of your posts.

 

[shunyadragon]

The reason the Bible is considering a literal history, but not necessarily literal in all details, as a minority propose is linked to the early compilation of the Bible by the church fathers. Most of the church fathers supported some variation of a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Pentateuch, and the compilation of the New Testament linked the NT scripture to a literal Genesis. It was not until the 19th century when Evolution and geologic evidence of an earth millions if not billions of years old, began to reveal the cracks of absurdity of a literal Genesis that more symbolic interpretation became viable. Actually early Christian theologians across the board began endorsing variations of an old earth, and versions of Theistic evolution until . . .

http://biologos.org/files/modules/giberson-scholarly-essay-1-1.pdf

Introduction

"Many Evangelicals in America believe that young-earth creationism is the only authentically biblical position for Christians to hold on origins and that all Christians believed this until they started compromising with Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is simply not true. Young-earth creationism is relatively new and as recently as a century ago even fundamentalist Christians saw little reason to reject evolution. The fundamentalist movement takes its name from an ambitious project called The Fundamentals published between 1910 and 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola) that defined the fundamentals of Christianity. In response to modernist preachers and theologians who rejected many traditional Christian ideas, including miracles, the resurrection and the reality of heaven, the authors of the 90 tracts that became The Fundamentals affirmed traditional biblical beliefs. The project was so successful that it produced an entire wing of Christianity, known as fundamentalism, which persists to this day. The contributors to The Fundamentals were the leading conservative Christian leaders at the time, men like R. A. Torrey and A. C. Dixon, united in their belief in traditional doctrines like the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus, the reality of miracles and heaven, and God as the creator of everything. But they were not united in rejecting evolution as a mechanism of creation. And there was no rejection of the scientific research that indicated that the earth was far older than 10,000 years. The “Advent” of Scientific Creationism The most consistent creationist voice at the beginning of the twentieth century belonged to the new Seventh-day Adventist movement, which looked to the mid-nineteenth century prophetic writings of Ellen White for guidance. What we call young-earth creationism today—as promoted by Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, the Institute for Creation Research and other groups—can be traced back to one of White’s visions.

Ellen White (1827-1915) was a prophetess whose writings have been widely translated. She experienced the “Great Disappointment” on October 22, 1844, when Jesus failed to appear as predicted by William Miller, the leader of her sect. Shortly after, she began receiving visions and was soon at the heart of a new branch of Christianity that now boasts more than 14 million followers in 200 countries. Her literary output exceeded 5,000 articles and 40 books."

Henry M. Morris - Wikipedia

It was "an American young Earth creationist, Christian apologist, and engineer. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. He is considered by many to be "the father of modern creation science." He is widely known for coauthoring The Genesis Flood with John C. Whitcomb in 1961.

All of these early YEC Creationist appealed to the church fathers and the necessary links between a literal interpretation of Genesis and the NT understanding of prophesy, and Jesus Christ. It is a Catch 22 of Biblical interpretation that is tough to get around.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well if evolution = atheism; then The Pope and The Archbishop of Canterbury are atheists.

Actually many YEC believers consider them non-believers, anti-Christs and worse.

 

[Deeje]

Macroevolution is the evolution of new species, which has also been repeatedly observed, documented, and studied.

Where has this been observed? Certainly NOT in the fossil record. It may have been "documented and studied", but one has to ask "what" was documented and studied?.....someone else's ideas on how it all "must have" happened? I have never seen any real evidence that wasn't an embellished suggestion, backed up by appeals to pride. "You would have to be "dumb" not to believe this". (to quote Jerry Coyne)

 

[shunyadragon]

Where has this been observed? Certainly NOT in the fossil record. It may have been "documented and studied", but one has to ask "what" was documented and studied?.....someone else's ideas on how it all "must have" happened? I have never seen any real evidence that wasn't an embellished suggestion, backed up by appeals to pride. "You would have to be "dumb" not to believe this". (to quote Jerry Coyne)

You are apparently about one hundred years behind concerning the scientific evidence concerning evolution and genetics.

What is your educational qualification that you can make these absurd assertions concerning the science of evolution?

 

[Deeje]

You are apparently about one hundred years behind concerning the scientific evidence concerning evolution and genetics.

What is your educational qualification that you can make these absurd assertions concerning the science of evolution?

I am aware of the Baha'i position on this issue from other posters of your faith on these forums.
My "absurd assertions" are based on a lot of research. Science is not my religion. My God created the things that science studies....ironic that the clay can make accusations about the existence of the potter.....? The masterpiece denying the existence of the Master artist.

"Scientific evidence" for organic evolution you say?...it doesn't exist except in the minds of those who have been persuaded to believe it.
Do some research outside of the biased mainstream sites....you might be surprised at what you find.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am aware of the Baha'i position on this issue from other posters of your faith on these forums.
My "absurd assertions" are based on a lot of research. Science is not my religion. My God created the things that science studies....ironic that the clay can make accusations about the existence of the potter.....? The masterpiece denying the existence of the Master artist.

"Scientific evidence" for organic evolution you say?...it doesn't exist except in the minds of those who have been persuaded to believe it.
Do some research outside of the biased mainstream sites....you might be surprised at what you find.

Based on a lot of research?!?!?!?

How can you assert the existence nor none existence of evidence based on what?!?!?

Over the years I have evaluated many sites, and remains the knowledge of the evidence takes precedence over blind assertions. should I simply count the number of teeth in the mouth of the ***, consult scripture?

 

[Deeje]

Based on a lot of research?!?!?!?

How can you assert the existence nor none existence of evidence based on what?!?!?

Based on their own articles. Read them for yourself and show me where there is no suggestion masquerading as fact.
Tell me what a hypothesis is and then tell me why science had to change the definition of the word "theory" to mean something other than what the dictionary defines. Science is not on a pedestal to me. That pedestal is already occupied.

Over the years I have evaluated many sites, and remains the knowledge of the evidence takes precedence over blind assertions. should I simply count the number of teeth in the mouth of the ***, consult scripture?

I am assuming that you intended to say the word for donkey here? If I want to know how many teeth they have, I would consult any number of sites and compare their data. Test it out...Google "donkey teeth" and see how many sites come up that are not scientific sites. Science is not the 'be all and end all' of knowledge you know.

I can consult scripture for many things that science cannot tell me....like how did life originate?
It tells me how I can be a good wife and mother or what I should look for in a prospective mate. What is the benefit of morality or honesty? What does the future hold for the planet and its inhabitants? What will happen to me when I die? Would I look to science for the answer to those questions?

If they can't tell me how life began, then what does it matter how or if it changed? I know logically which is the more important question. They can't answer it, nor can they produce life in any form. "I dunno" is not a very scientific position, is it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are apparently about one hundred years behind concerning the scientific evidence concerning evolution and genetics.

What is your educational qualification that you can make these absurd assertions concerning the science of evolution?

Forgive me, but I must interject:
The same as Meyer, Axe, Behe, Wells, etc., etc. Are they not scientists?

When was the last time you looked at the fossil record? It should be called "evolution of the gaps." Quite a lot of faith is required to believe in "descent with modification." It is not accurate science, it's fiction. As more of the Cambrian Explosion lägerstatten is examined, and the stratigraphy of the Precambrian and Ediacaran, more nails are being hammered into Darwinian evolution!

Essentially, you have to believe that an estimated 8 billion species, both flora and fauna with so many diversified body plans, developed in only c. 540 million years! At that rate, we should be seeing beneficial, structural, macromutations within observed species, every few years. Yet, it's never been observed! Oh, bacteria are adapting, becoming resistant to treatment, but they're still bacteria. (They're not growing appendages.)
And Darwin's finches, are still birds.

No, Macro evolution is the absurd pseudoscientific farce.

 

[Sapiens]

Forgive me, but I must interject:
The same as Meyer, Axe, Behe, Wells, etc., etc. Are they not scientists?

They are outliers and really do not amount to a hill of beans all of their arguments have more than effectively been falsified, just look at the job Miller did on Behe in Pennsylvania.

When was the last time you looked at the fossil record?

This morning.

It should be called "evolution of the gaps." Quite a lot of faith is required to believe in "descent with modification."

All one need do is recognize the obvious.

It is not accurate science, it's fiction.

That's your claim, let's look at your data.

As more of the Cambrian Explosion lägerstatten is examined, and the stratigraphy of the Precambrian and Ediacaran, more nails are being hammered into Darwinian evolution!

Again, an unsupported claim.

Essentially, you have to believe that an estimated 8 billion species, both flora and fauna with so many diversified body plans, developed in only c. 540 million years! At that rate, we should be seeing beneficial, structural, macromutations within observed species, every few years. Yet, it's never been observed! Oh, bacteria are adapting, becoming resistant to treatment, but they're still bacteria. (They're not growing appendages.)
And Darwin's finches, are still birds.

That's less support for your claim than error riddled wishful thinking. Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment answers most of the issues you raise.

No, Macro evolution is the absurd pseudoscientific farce.

Again just a claim.

 

[sayak83]

Essentially, you have to believe that an estimated 8 billion species, both flora and fauna with so many diversified body plans, developed in only c. 540 million years! At that rate, we should be seeing beneficial, structural, macromutations within observed species, every few years. Yet, it's never been observed! Oh, bacteria are adapting, becoming resistant to treatment, but they're still bacteria. (They're not growing appendages.)
And Darwin's finches, are still birds.

Based on the fossil record, average lifetime of a species before it either becomes extinct or evolves into daughter species (like say mammoth to elephant or sabretooths to modern tigers etc.) is about 5 million years = 5*10^6 years. The speciation event itself takes 0.5 to 1 million years.
https://phys.org/news/2011-08-fast-evolutionary-million-years.html
Current number of species on earth is 8 million = 8*10^6 species (this is a low estimate). Species distribution see below, (for animals which are about 50% of the total, rest are plants and fungi). Insects and spiders/scorpions comprise 80% of all animal species and all vertebrates(fish to mammal) form only about 5%.

On average then, we have a complete turnover of 8*10^6 species in about 5 million years (its of course staggered and occurs gradually over 1 million year frame on average). We have 550 million years since Cambrian. So there would be (again taking crude average) 110 such turnovers. Hence total number of species = 110*8*10^6= 880*10^6= 8.8*10^8 species overall.

So living species form (8*10^6)/(880*10^6)= 0.009=0.9% of total species since Cambrian. Thus we get the rough figure that 99% of all species on earth have become extinct. Depending on the estimate of current species (that has historically varied widely), the total species count also varies.

Since speciation occurs over a million year frame (from regional variation to subspecies to partial to full reproductive isolation) one can only expect to see
a) The few cases of rapid speciation that do occur
b) The various stages of speciation that one expects in accordance to the theory of evolution.
Both cases are present
Darwin was Right | Evidence from observed speciation
Further, every ring species and subspecies (like giraffe 1 Long Neck, 4 Species: New Giraffe Diversity Revealed) are predicted examples of ongoing slow speciation.

But lets make a generous estimate and say that 10% of total speciation occurs fast enough (a century or so) to leave a trace in history. This 10% is spread over 5 million years. So

expected speciation that can be observed over any given century = 0.5*100*0.1*8*10^6/(5*10^6)= 8 observable speciation events among animals. Of this 80% i.e. 7 events will be in the insect world while just 5% i.e. less than 1 will be among the vertebrates.

Of course the kind of evolution you want. Class to Class happens over far far longer periods of time. There are only about 100 classes of animals in the world and classes are very long lived. Total number of classes in history of life are no more than 300 and evolution from one class to another occurs over 50-100 million year ranges.

List of animal classes - Wikipedia

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You mention critical thinking! Some of the little twerps who come on this site and others, like to throw around the term "critical thinking" and I find that they don't apply it to others correctly, and should question their own thinking more often than they do! For once I would like to see these little cocky twerps consider that they don't always practice it, but no, instead they go around telling others that they don't!

In what sense are these twerps cockier than you are being now?

I always choke back disgust when people go around throwing around the term "critical thinking" as if they are so good about it and I fail so miserably! And in most cases, these little twits so in love with themselves, are young enough to be my child!

Message received. This area annoys you.