• 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
What scientific books and papers written by evolutionary scientists on evolution have you read so far? Could you list a few?
One thing that I have to share! Evolution is not my pet subject! I only have so much time in the day! Right now, I am recovering from surgery otherwise I wouldn't have time for all of this! But I spend more time reading the Bible, and Bible based things! I also read a little about other subjects! I am not a science geek, in fact right now I am debating someone on here about the meaning of the Hebrew word Ra! He think because some modern Bibles use the obscure word "evil" that it means it in the sense we think, but it actually means calamity! But anyway, I am not immersed in the subject of science, so have certain limitations and can't argue on the level of some! But as I have already stated here, I first and foremost believe the Bible, which I have proven to myself! I also know that evolution is not consistent with the Bible! And although I am not a science expert, I can choose a side of the issue! I think someone who knows a little about a lot, is more qualified to have a world view, than someone who immerses themselves in one subject! And "The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God" Some plain, simple people have more discernment than those of higher learning! For example, there is a nasty priest on Yahoo Answers who picks on my religion! He uses all of this high sounding language and claims that my religion is guilty of "exegesis", etc I know the Bible well, but I haven't been as schooled as he is! Then I got into a debate on facebook with a Baptist who has a phd in religious studies and he was telling me I was wrong about scripture, etc! So I said to him: "What do you think of Catholics?" He said Catholicism was the whore of Babylon! Then I told him about the priest and how we was throwing around his education and scholarly opinion too! Yet those two would condemn each other! So just because I am supposedly less educated with them, am I necessarily wrong?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
No, they are not lying! They believe their delusion! Are they incompetent? I don't know about overall, but in these instances that would be a resounding yes!

Great work on this thread JennyC. :thumbsup: I am enjoying your replies. :)

I agree, they are not lying on purpose, but deluded and swayed by their own bias. The 'incompetence' comes when they "must" interpret the "evidence" to fit neatly into their theory. They might bicker about the details, but they stick to the basics of the theory. Its the basics that have the biggest flaws....no real evidence.

Their hostility just shows their desperation to prove that they can't possibly be wrong. After all, they have literally staked their lives on evolution eliminating the need for a Creator. It is indeed why there is an assumption that "evolution = atheism". A Christian cannot accept evolution because it goes against everything Jesus taught. Other theists may have no belief in a creator god, so they can claim not to be atheists. If there is only one true God who is the creator of all life, then they all going to be very disappointed at the end of the day. :(
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Vous comprenez? Are you showing off? "I was schooled by Dawkins and consider him a friend" Are you showing off? I don't mind talking to these other atheists here, but there is something about you that just rubs me wrong

LOL...an 'altitude' problem? :D
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This wasn't only about evolution, but I read Bad Astronomy by Philip Plait! In my younger days, when I didn't have internet I spent a lot of time at the library and read different books, not necessarily all the way through, but enough to get an idea! In recent years I have read articles online, bits and pieces here and there! I have been on various sites and had debates with evolutionists and heard their views, and I have read material on the side of creation! You would say that is biased, but you read your books written from the perspective that evolution is true, so I could say the same about you!
Best of luck for your recovery from surgery. :balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon:
We can stick to astronomy and cosmology if you like. In which I would at least want a promise from you that you would read Post 408 of this thread where I last provided an extensive reply about issues you raised pertaining to cosmology, laws of physics, expansion of space and the Big Bang.

I have read creationists books as well, like Darwin's doubt. Its unclear how you can get a good idea of any scientific theory by debating with folks on the internet. Why should I not conclude that you are arguing from ignorance? Can you at least link a website curated by evolutionary scientists from which you have gotten your knowledge about evolution?
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
God is all knowing but he can choose to use that ability or not! He can see into the future but often doesn't choose to use the ability, doesn't want to interfere with free will! I am sitting in a chair right now, and I CAN stand up but choose not to! God CAN see how things will turn out, but doesn't always choose to
There are at least seven unwarranted and unsupported assumptions that must be granted prior to dealing with your additional unwarranted and unsupported assumptions. Pretty slim pickins.
Keep telling yourself that! Just cocky bluster! I agree about Fundamentalists! However why you would praise someone who admits he is hostile, I don't understand!
As I noted and you ignored, "I'm sure that he was using the word "hostile" in the sense of, "being in opposition to," as in, "hostile to the proposal" rather than hostile in other sense.
Since you questioned my choice of words about the meaning of evolution, you are the one who can tell me the fault you find with them!
I did not question your choice of words, I asked you too clarify a term of your own invention. If you can't do so, just say so.
I think you are playing dumb and think I worded it awkwardly and are trying to pick it apart! Clearly I don't mean that an animal doesn't "change into" another one!
Defining by exclusion is rather time consuming, could you please define it by what you actually meant?
And as far as your right to butt into conversations, I wasn't questioning your ability and not saying it is against rules! But it is still butting in! You have the choice, because it is a public forum! No one questions that! If you notice, I am conversing with around 5 people and I cannot talk to hundreds at one time, and since I notice that you don't have much worthy to respond to, I am going to ignore you! Keep telling yourself what you want to believe, don't let me stop you!
Sounds like you're having trouble keeping up with the opposing views [noises of chickens clucking].
I know evolution isn't true, so don't have to read every claim that comes my way, to reject it! I have read lots already!
Please name the last three treatises on evolution that you read from cover to cover.
The examples you give are microevolution, moths becoming moths, bacteria becoming bacteria, fruit flies becoming fruit flies is not macroevolution! I have read enough of the justification for scientists that believe evolution, don't need to read every link someone gives me! In fact, I prefer to talk to the people who I am dealing with, don't like a lot of links to visit!
Evidently that is no true, you don't seem to like to correspond (I assume that is talking to you) with me.
Vous comprenez? Are you showing off? "I was schooled by Dawkins and consider him a friend" Are you showing off? I don't mind talking to these other atheists here, but there is something about you that just rubs me wrong
Scientists are not "Rock Stars" who live in rarefied atmospheres. We work in offices and labs, we go out into the field, we teach in classrooms, eat in the cafeteria, put on our pants one leg at a time and urinate and defecate just like everyone else. One of the finest things about education at a first class university is the chance to study with a number of world renowned experts. Just as Dawkins studied under the Nobel Prize winner, Tinbergen, I was lucky to have studied with Dawkins, a handful of Nobel Prize winners (one who won two!) and other really smart (and mostly helpful) people ... that is how it works, that is why I went to university and is, in large part, why I am here today endeavoring to keep creationists and their fellow travelers honest.

I assume what "rubs you the wrong way" is the clear knowledge that I will, in the end, reduce you to, "I don't care, that's what I believe." But, from what I''ve read here, there are others in the conversation that are far more dangerous to your faith than I am.
This wasn't only about evolution, but I read Bad Astronomy by Philip Plait! In my younger days, when I didn't have internet I spent a lot of time at the library and read different books, not necessarily all the way through, but enough to get an idea! In recent years I have read articles online, bits and pieces here and there! I have been on various sites and had debates with evolutionists and heard their views, and I have read material on the side of creation! You would say that is biased, but you read your books written from the perspective that evolution is true, so I could say the same about you!
Let's not pretend that there is equal evidence is the books flogging creationism and those detailing evolution.
 
Last edited:

Jenny Collins

Active Member
There are at least seven unwarranted and unsupported assumptions that must be granted prior to dealing with your additional unwarranted and unsupported assumptions. Pretty slim pickins.
As I noted and you ignored, "I'm sure that he was using the word "hostile" in the sense of, "being in opposition to," as in, "hostile to the proposal" rather than hostile in other sense.
I did not question your choice of words, I asked you too clarify a term of your own invention. If you can't do so, just say so.
Defining by exclusion is rather time consuming, could you please define it by what you actually meant?

Sounds like you're having trouble keeping up with the opposing views [noises of chickens clucking].

Please name the last three treatises on evolution that you read from cover to cover.

Evidently that is no true, you don't seem to like to correspond (I assume that is talking to you) with me.

Scientists are not "Rock Stars" who live in rarefied atmospheres. We work in offices and labs, we go out into the field, we teach in classrooms, eat in the cafeteria, put on our pants one leg at a time and urinate and defecate just like everyone else. One of the finest things about education at a first class university is the chance to study with a number of world renowned experts. Just as Dawkins studied under the Nobel Prize winner, Tinbergen, I was lucky to have studied with Dawkins, a handful of Nobel Prize winners (one who won two!) and other really smart (and mostly helpful) people ... that is how it works, that is why I went to university and is, in large part, why I am here today endeavoring to keep creationists and their fellow travelers honest.

I assume what "rubs you the wrong way" is the clear knowledge that I will, in the end, reduce you to, "I don't care, that's what I believe." But, from what I''ve read here, there are others in the conversation that are far more dangerous to your faith than I am.
Let's not pretend that there is equal evidence is the books flogging creationism and those detailing evolution.
No, what rubs me the wrong way is your air of superiority! I may find some things mildly annoying about the other atheists I am debating with here, but with you it is different! You have that air of superiority! I point out how you use the French term, which is pretentious and you say "altltude problem" which I assume means that I am beneath you and I don't understand you because I am too dumb to! I actually did understand it because the word had "comprehend" in it, but what is annoying is that you try too hard! You can't just have a discussion with people, you have to show off your dazzling brilliance and say derogatory, immature things like (cluck, cluck, cluck, chicken) The last time I heard that was in grade school, and even if you use big french words, your manner is very immature! I am reading over what you wrote! You string along these pretentious sentences, trying to sound all high and mighty! When your obnoxious ways annoy, right away you assume that it is your dazzling intelligence that they find intimidating! And the way you string sentences together makes you sound arrogant! Calling books, treatises! Trying to say things in the most indirect way possible, trying way too hard! "rarefied atmospheres" Lol "There are at least seven unwarranted and unsupported assumptions that must be granted prior to blah, blah, blah" It isn't that any big words were used in that sentence, but you have that way of talking that you think is articulate but leaves people wondering what you meant! I actually read about this, some professor was going to a seminar and read the introductory pamphlet and it was written the same way! Then the whole speech was the same way! Instead of saying echo, some long word was used, forget the term! Simple is best! But I guess that just means that I am too dumb and you are too high above me! William Faulkner criticized Hemingway, because he spoke clearly and concisely! And Hemingway responded that he "knew the ten dollar words" but didn't need to use them to prove himself! If there was a direct, simple word, he used it! And yes, you care way too much about prestige and that you know Nobel prize winners (if that is even true)! You are way too impressed with status and try to impress others yourself! You name drop (Dawkins was a good friend of mine) and quote him bragging about being hostile! And your own hostility shows in your comments here
 
Last edited:

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Rather than insults, how about some answers:
  1. Please name the last three treatises on evolution that you read from cover to cover.
  2. What scientific books and papers written by evolutionary scientists on evolution have you read so far? Could you list a few?
  3. Please define precisely how one would identify when "something" changes into "something else."
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
No, what rubs me the wrong way is your air of superiority! I may find some things mildly annoying about the other atheists I am debating with here, but with you it is different! You have that air of superiority! I point out how you use the French term, which is pretentious and you say "altltude problem" which I assume means that I am beneath you and I don't understand you because I am too dumb to! I actually did understand it because the word had "comprehend" in it, but what is annoying is that you try too hard! You can't just have a discussion with people, you have to show off your dazzling brilliance and say derogatory, immature things like (cluck, cluck, cluck, chicken) The last time I heard that was in grade school, and even if you use big french words, your manner is very immature! I am reading over what you wrote! You string along these pretentious sentences, trying to sound all high and mighty! When your obnoxious ways annoy, right away you assume that it is your dazzling intelligence that they find intimidating! And the way you string sentences together makes you sound arrogant! Calling books, treatises! Trying to say things in the most indirect way possible, trying way too hard! "rarefied atmospheres" Lol "There are at least seven unwarranted and unsupported assumptions that must be granted prior to blah, blah, blah" It isn't that any big words were used in that sentence, but you have that way of talking that you think is articulate but leaves people wondering what you meant! I actually read about this, some professor was going to a seminar and read the introductory pamphlet and it was written the same way! Then the whole speech was the same way! Instead of saying echo, some long word was used, forget the term! Simple is best! But I guess that just means that I am too dumb and you are too high above me! William Faulkner criticized Hemingway, because he spoke clearly and concisely! And Hemingway responded that he "knew the ten dollar words" but didn't need to use them to prove himself! If there was a direct, simple word, he used it! And yes, you care way too much about prestige and that you know Nobel prize winners (if that is even true)! You are way too impressed with status and try to impress others yourself! You name drop (Dawkins was a good friend of mine) and quote him bragging about being hostile! And your own hostility shows in your comments here
And I do NOT have to name three treatises (lol) to you that I have read! I am not your employee, and anything I said to you would just get your derision!
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
Rather than insults, how about some answers:
  1. Please name the last three treatises on evolution that you read from cover to cover.
  2. What scientific books and papers written by evolutionary scientists on evolution have you read so far? Could you list a few?
  3. Please define precisely how one would identify when "something" changes into "something else."
I don't like your attitude and I am not your employee, that has to take assignments from you! I already told someone else the studying that I did on the subject and you can read it there! That person was nice to me, so I answered them! And evolution is not my pet cause! I am not some geek that immerses myself in that nonsense all of the time! I would personally rather spend my time reading the Bible! I have proven the Bible to myself, and I know enough about evolution to know it isn't a worthwhile pursuit, why would I be reading books about it all the time? The issue for me is settled!
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
I don't like your attitude and I am not your employee, that has to take assignments from you! I already told someone else the studying that I did on the subject and you can read it there! That person was nice to me, so I answered them! And evolution is not my pet cause! I am not some geek that immerses myself in that nonsense all of the time! I would personally rather spend my time reading the Bible! I have proven the Bible to myself, and I know enough about evolution to know it isn't a worthwhile pursuit, why would I be reading books about it all the time? The issue for me is settled!
And whatever troubles you so much about my wording and your claim that I said "something turns into something else" (which I didn't even say) please let me know what it was? If you have some criticism, the onus is on you! Evolution is supposedly a process of natural selection and changes brought on by mutations! If you had followed my discussions here you would have known that I knew that was the supposed definition! I had a debate with someone over mutations, and they were mostly harmful! Did you read that?
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
There are at least seven unwarranted and unsupported assumptions that must be granted prior to dealing with your additional unwarranted and unsupported assumptions. Pretty slim pickins.
As I noted and you ignored, "I'm sure that he was using the word "hostile" in the sense of, "being in opposition to," as in, "hostile to the proposal" rather than hostile in other sense.
I did not question your choice of words, I asked you too clarify a term of your own invention. If you can't do so, just say so.
Defining by exclusion is rather time consuming, could you please define it by what you actually meant?

Sounds like you're having trouble keeping up with the opposing views [noises of chickens clucking].

Please name the last three treatises on evolution that you read from cover to cover.

Evidently that is no true, you don't seem to like to correspond (I assume that is talking to you) with me.

Scientists are not "Rock Stars" who live in rarefied atmospheres. We work in offices and labs, we go out into the field, we teach in classrooms, eat in the cafeteria, put on our pants one leg at a time and urinate and defecate just like everyone else. One of the finest things about education at a first class university is the chance to study with a number of world renowned experts. Just as Dawkins studied under the Nobel Prize winner, Tinbergen, I was lucky to have studied with Dawkins, a handful of Nobel Prize winners (one who won two!) and other really smart (and mostly helpful) people ... that is how it works, that is why I went to university and is, in large part, why I am here today endeavoring to keep creationists and their fellow travelers honest.

I assume what "rubs you the wrong way" is the clear knowledge that I will, in the end, reduce you to, "I don't care, that's what I believe." But, from what I''ve read here, there are others in the conversation that are far more dangerous to your faith than I am.
Let's not pretend that there is equal evidence is the books flogging creationism and those detailing evolution.
For such a rock star scientist as yourself, it is odd you slum it in forums like this! Couldn't you be solving some world problem?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
What does "accidental" mean that is not also covered by undesigned and uncreated?

And what is illogical here? Life is here. There are only naturalistic (abiogenesis and evolution) and supernaturalistic possibilities to account for it. How is positing the existence of a god more logical than an explanation that doesn't require one?

When have you (or anyone else) observed even simple digital information originate by itself? It is more logical to say that highly complex information, such as that contained in DNA, has its origins with an Intelligent Source, as opposed to undirected chance. It's really "undeniable", as Douglas Axe would say.
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
The
I met some people in a religious sect that taught their children that Santa Clause was Satan.
It is called indoctrination.
Our pastor said it and we believe it!
There are some loony believers but not all are that way! Santa is not Satan, but Christmas sure isn't Christian, and the holiday belongs to Satan! His way of mocking God and his son! Jesus didn't like excessive attention, his birth was a quiet, modest experience, he was born in a stable! He wouldn't have even celebrated his own birth as it was a pagan custom to do this! Nowhere in the Bible does it even say when he was born! Then centuries later people took the day of the sun god, gave it Christian meaning and said it was the day Christ was born! Why would Jesus feel honored that people celebrated his birthday on the day of the sun god? Jesus was opposed to worship of the sun! And if the day is about Jesus, why all the attention to Santa? If Jesus is opposed to drunkenness, greed and gluttony, how does it bring him honor to drink too much egg nog, eat too many cookies, and go into debt, buying stuff that other people will just return to the store anyway?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I have not seen speciation turn one creature into another and neither has any scientist. Speciation simply creates variety within a species.

I have. Personally. And I'm not even a biologist!

Nope. Speciation means speciation. Are you trying to create your create your "own special words"?

It is clear to me, that Deeje doesn't understand speciation, as used by biologists, and that she will continue to misunderstand it, because she refused to learn and understand what it is.

Other members have already explained her to what speciation really is, but she doesn't want to know and she's far to arrogant to learn from her mistakes.

She think she know biology better than everyone else. She think the Jehovah's Witnesses know biology better than everyone else.

That's wilful ignorance at its very best.
 

Jenny Collins

Active Member
Best of luck for your recovery from surgery. :balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon::balloon:
We can stick to astronomy and cosmology if you like. In which I would at least want a promise from you that you would read Post 408 of this thread where I last provided an extensive reply about issues you raised pertaining to cosmology, laws of physics, expansion of space and the Big Bang.

I have read creationists books as well, like Darwin's doubt. Its unclear how you can get a good idea of any scientific theory by debating with folks on the internet. Why should I not conclude that you are arguing from ignorance? Can you at least link a website curated by evolutionary scientists from which you have gotten your knowledge about evolution?
I am not saying that just because I read Philip Plait's book that I am qualified to talk about astronomy! There was something on TV a decade ago, claiming that we never went to the moon! He wrote a book to respond to that, so I read it! He also defended evolution, which I don't agree with! One thing I noticed is that he couldn't spell the word infundibulum! He told some story about making an egg stand up, and he used that word which I recognized from studying medical terminology! He couldn't spell it and it got by the proofreaders, or whatever checks they have now! Of course, that doesn't dismiss his opinions, but it shows how even the intellectually elite have their weaknesses! Could have been a typo, I suppose! I make enough of them and right now am using exclamation points instead of periods, because there is something wrong with my computer!
 
Last edited:

Jenny Collins

Active Member
I am not saying that just because I read Philip Plait's book that I am qualified to talk about astronomy! There was something on TV a decade ago, claiming that we never went to the moon! He wrote a book to respond to that, so I read it! He also defended evolution, which I don't agree with! One thing I noticed is that he couldn't spell the word infundibulum! He told some story about making an egg stand up, and he used that word which I recognized from studying medical terminology! He couldn't spell it and it got by the proofreaders, or whatever checks they have now! Of course, that doesn't dismiss his opinions, but it shows how even the intellectually elite have their weaknesses! Could have been a typo, I suppose! I make enough of them and right now am using exclamation points instead of periods, because there is something wrong with my computer!
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
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%.
an.spp.gif

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
Sorry, but this in no way explains the extremely diverse structure in living and extinct organisms! That was one of my main points in mentioning macromutations.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
It is difficult to respond to aggressive combative tactics of YEC extremists. I may give it some thought and come back.

Comments:

(1) The Discovery Institute is at the forefront of an attempt to give a scientific explanation for Creationism focusing heavily on 'irreducible complexity.' The problem remains that the Discovery Institute has failed to provide falsifiable hypothesis that demonstrate 'irreducible complexty,' young earth, and the Creationist Theology in any aspect. Yes there are a few scientist in involved her, but very few, and they are the ones that have failed to provide the hypothesis.

(2) I have been a professional geologist for more than forty years specializing in soil science, geomorphology, and geochemistry. The biggest problem from my professional perspective the argument for a young earth. The stratigraphy of the earth has clearly falsified an earth billions of years old, with no evidence of a global nor regional flood that would fit the claim of the Biblical flood.
I'm not a YEC, just so you know.
And I apologize for sounding aggressive. (I only wanted to support Deere, a friend of mine. Your attitude seemed sorta petulant toward her.)
 
Top