Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Jenny Collins]

But that doesn't mean you should trust the words of an expert over those of a layman. In either case, the people who are in the right are those whose words more accurately reflect the facts - and it simply stands to reason that those who have demonstrated years of study on a particular subject ill have a more reliable knowledge of, and exposure to, said facts.

If you were to ask two people how to bake a particular kind of cake and both give very different advice, whose advice do you think should have more weight? The advice that comes from somebody who has never baked a cake before, or the other person who runs a successful bakery and is an award-winning cake maker?

"It stands to reason that the ones who have invested years in an idea are right" loose paraphrase of your words! Not always! There are examples of long held opinions that have turned out to be wrong! For 40 some years, Piltdown man was believed to be a transitional link! And many more examples than that! And you leave out the possibility that the Bible is correct and God exists! The Bible says that Satan is in control of the world and misleading people! If he controls and misleads the world, that means MOST people are wrong! If you don't believe in God, of course you won't accept this! If you do, it can be argued that you don't need to be proficient in science to recognize that scientists are not to be believed just because they are in the majority!

As I already said, masses do and have, gone along with mainstream thought and been wrong! Here in America, most people are religious! Would the atheists here say that religion must be true? In Nazi, Germany, most went along with Hitler! Were they right?

 

[Jenny Collins]

Because I would never go to an auto mechanic to fix my plumbing.

From you specifically, no, as I have read the studies and have been exposed to the evidence and by people with actual backgrounds in the relevant fields of science that lend evidence to support the theory of evolution.

I actually do have a footing towards having credentials, and am close to having more than just a footing. Things such as pro-social behaviors in social animals, similarities in behaviors between humans and chimpanzees, and even non-verbal signals found throughout the animal kingdom (such as an animal, or even reptile or fish, puffing up and making themselves appear larger to look more threatening and intimidating) bring up observations and questions that are answered and predicted by the theory of evolution.

There is no such thing as an "evolution believer." No more than there is a "believer in mental illness" or a "germ believer" or "gravity believer."

You haven't been doing this.

Dawkin's own personal opinions reflect his own personal opinions, not the findings or functionings of science.

That is not how science works. There is a "side" for a flat Earth, but the Earth is not flat and will not flatten itself because people believe it is, nor will the facts and evidence ever support such a position. Science works by making predictions, recording systematic observations, replicating experiments and results (or finding different results), and falsifiability of a hypothesis and theory is a must. Evolution can be proven wrong, but what we learn only adds to support evolution. About the only way evolution is ever going to be proven wrong is if we find fossils that are very geochronologically out of place and we discover a mechanism beyond random mutations that drive DNA replication.

You quote me when I said that I am here to point out truisms and you respond: "You haven't been doing this" That is YOUR opinion and your denial of it proves nothing

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"I would never go to an auto mechanic to fix my plumbing" Well I would, and let me explain: The auto mechanic could also know something about plumbing!

Perhaps. But chances are good the auto mechanic is not going to know the PSI ratings of different plumping fixtures and pipes. Just as a plumber would most likely be at a loss as to how to find out what is wrong with my car.

My ex husband is a local historian of sorts! He did not get schooling for it but knows a lot!

"Of sorts" is usually what people say when referring to someone who thinks they are more knowledgeable and skillful than they actually are. Even with Dame Jane Goodall, she didn't have the usual background, but she went and did it and proved herself.

I am an artist however I didn't get schooling beyond high school for it!

Anyone can be/call themselves an artist, no schooling, background, or experience necessary.

I have a family with a rare syndrome and I know more about it than some doctors because I have researched it!

That is a case where you probably would know more. I know more about Asperger's than most of the therapists I have been to, but that is not an area they study or focus on. But that doesn't put me "ahead" in knowledge of clinical psychology.

It is a common mistake that only credentialed people have anything to offer about a subject!

I never claimed such. However, when someone does have a background, experience, education, and access to resources (such as journal databases), they can add far more than what someone who has self-studied the same subject can. I have read many books and articles about Einstein's theories of relativity, but I would be a fool to think I am "on par," or even anywhere close, with the physicists who study such things. But, at the same time, it's likely I am "way out ahead" of these same physicists in the realm of psychology.

You said you have "read the studies and been exposed to the evidence" I doubt if you have read ALL studies on the subject!

I did not claim to have read them all. But I have read a substantial amount, both for and against.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"There are similarities between apes and humans and fish blow up so this shows evolution" There are similarities in all nature! Spiders have eyes, people have eyes! Parrots can talk, people can talk! Bananas share DNA with us! Pandas look similar in ways to raccoons! Platypus and ducks have bills! This is homologous structures and this does not prove evolution!

It doesn't "prove" evolution because the concept of "proof" doesn't exist with regards to scientific theories. What it does do is add significant weight to the notion that all life shares common ancestry, since there is no other mechanism that would sufficiently explains the similarity we observe while being consistant with the evidence.

It lends weight to the argument that there is a God that knows what he is doing and can use the same features in different animals!

That make no sense. A literal, all-powerful God could design creatures any way that it wants. The fact remains that the similarity is better explained by evolution than by magic.

And there are more dissimilarites of ape and human than similarities!

This also makes no sense. It's obvious that we share a vast number of traits.

The experiments of teaching sign language to apes has actually shown how vast a gulf there is between ape and human!

All it shows is that apes don't have the same capacity for language as humans.

A couple apes can use signs to say things like "dirty toilet devil" (Koko said this) and name a cat "All Ball" meanwhile children can learn several languages, if exposed to them from early on!

Again, so what? Pointing out the differences and ignoring the obvious similarities is just blatantly dishonest. It only demonstrates that our capacity for language is merely a short evolutionary step from modern apes. Don't forget that, as well as having developed brains capable of processing language, we also had over 100,000 years in which to utilise this development that create languages that pervade our culture.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Because I would never go to an auto mechanic to fix my plumbing.

From you specifically, no, as I have read the studies and have been exposed to the evidence and by people with actual backgrounds in the relevant fields of science that lend evidence to support the theory of evolution.

I actually do have a footing towards having credentials, and am close to having more than just a footing. Things such as pro-social behaviors in social animals, similarities in behaviors between humans and chimpanzees, and even non-verbal signals found throughout the animal kingdom (such as an animal, or even reptile or fish, puffing up and making themselves appear larger to look more threatening and intimidating) bring up observations and questions that are answered and predicted by the theory of evolution.

There is no such thing as an "evolution believer." No more than there is a "believer in mental illness" or a "germ believer" or "gravity believer."

You haven't been doing this.

Dawkin's own personal opinions reflect his own personal opinions, not the findings or functionings of science.

That is not how science works. There is a "side" for a flat Earth, but the Earth is not flat and will not flatten itself because people believe it is, nor will the facts and evidence ever support such a position. Science works by making predictions, recording systematic observations, replicating experiments and results (or finding different results), and falsifiability of a hypothesis and theory is a must. Evolution can be proven wrong, but what we learn only adds to support evolution. About the only way evolution is ever going to be proven wrong is if we find fossils that are very geochronologically out of place and we discover a mechanism beyond random mutations that drive DNA replication.

Yes, the earth is round and at a time when most thought it was flat, the Bible referred to the "circle of the earth" The Hebrew word chug can also be rendered sphere or globe according to some reference works, for those who are spoon fed the idea that it can only mean circle, who are you to argue with reference books!

Your example of the earth being round is an example of something that can be proven! We have pictures! Macroevolution can't be proven!

As you said "Science works through demonstration, yada, yada" Yes! And it DOESN'T work when things CAN'T be demonstrated! Macroevolution can't be demonstrated!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Perhaps. But chances are good the auto mechanic is not going to know the PSI ratings of different plumping fixtures and pipes. Just as a plumber would most likely be at a loss as to how to find out what is wrong with my car.

"Of sorts" is usually what people say when referring to someone who thinks they are more knowledgeable and skillful than they actually are. Even with Dame Jane Goodall, she didn't have the usual background, but she went and did it and proved herself.

Anyone can be/call themselves an artist, no schooling, background, or experience necessary.

That is a case where you probably would know more. I know more about Asperger's than most of the therapists I have been to, but that is not an area they study or focus on. But that doesn't put me "ahead" in knowledge of clinical psychology.

I never claimed such. However, when someone does have a background, experience, education, and access to resources (such as journal databases), they can add far more than what someone who has self-studied the same subject can. I have read many books and articles about Einstein's theories of relativity, but I would be a fool to think I am "on par," or even anywhere close, with the physicists who study such things. But, at the same time, it's likely I am "way out ahead" of these same physicists in the realm of psychology.

I did not claim to have read them all. But I have read a substantial amount, both for and against.

"Of sorts" you claim this means a wannabe! I used in in relation to my ex husband who I happen to know! You don't know him! Local history is his hobby and he immerses himself in it! He is not a wannabe

 

[Jenny Collins]

But that doesn't mean you should trust the words of an expert over those of a layman. In either case, the people who are in the right are those whose words more accurately reflect the facts - and it simply stands to reason that those who have demonstrated years of study on a particular subject ill have a more reliable knowledge of, and exposure to, said facts.

If you were to ask two people how to bake a particular kind of cake and both give very different advice, whose advice do you think should have more weight? The advice that comes from somebody who has never baked a cake before, or the other person who runs a successful bakery and is an award-winning cake maker?

Who would I believe, someone who has never baked a cake or an award winning baker? The award winning baker of course? That is why I believe the award winning scientist Frantisek Vyskocil that evolution is false! And as far as the person who has never baked a cake? I might believe them if they directed me to a bakery that they were pleased with! Perhaps they compared bake shops and talked to the bakers! They sampled products, and asked the bakers what ingredients they used, how long they baked them, etc? Then they would have the right to choose which bakery was the best and recommend it to others

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"It stands to reason that the ones who have invested years in an idea are right" loose paraphrase of your words!

No, that' not paraphrasing. It's an outright lie. I never said that they "are right", I said that they have more exposure to the facts.

Not always! There are examples of long held opinions that have turned out to be wrong! For 40 some years, Piltdown man was believed to be a transitional link!

And who were the people who refuted it? Were they laymen with no expertise or knowledge of biology or paleontology? No. They were experts in the field. Pointing out that "sometimes experts have it wrong" doesn't suddenly mean the words of non-experts are more valid.

And many more examples than that! And you leave out the possibility that the Bible is correct and God exists!

I didn't mention anything about the Bible or God, and nothing I said had anything to do with it.

The Bible says that Satan is in control of the world and misleading people! If he controls and misleads the world, that means MOST people are wrong!

And what if the Bible is wrong?

If you don't believe in God, of course you won't accept this! If you do, it can be argued that you don't need to be proficient in science to recognize that scientists are not to be believed just because they are in the majority!

It's not about having a majority, it's about having expertise. I made that point very clear.

As I already said, masses do and have, gone along with mainstream thought and been wrong!

Again, it's not about what is "mainstream". It's about expertise.

Here in America, most people are religious!

So do you therefore believe they must be wrong?

Would the atheists here say that religion must be true?

No, because neither I nor any other atheist on here has said that the majority opinion must be right. That's a lie.

In Nazi, Germany, most went along with Hitler! Were they right?

So you're saying religious people are like Nazis?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Who would I believe, someone who has never baked a cake or an award winning baker? The award winning baker of course?

So you admit that your argument is refuted?

That is why I believe the award winning scientist Frantisek Vyskocil that evolution is false!

And why trust him over the millions of scientists who accept evolutionary theory? What makes his words more reliable than any single one of theirs? For example, Kenneth Miller is not only a highly respected scientist, but the former head of the Human Genome project AND a practising Roman Catholic. He tours America giving talks about evolutionary theory and refuting the claims of creationists. Why should I ignore his view and side with Dr. Vyskocil?

And as far as the person who has never baked a cake? I might believe them if they directed me to a bakery that they were pleased with! Perhaps they compared bake shops and talked to the bakers! All of the bakers were trained, but they sampled products, and asked the bakers what ingredients they used, how long they baked them, etc? Then I would have the right to choose which bakery was the best and recommend it to others

Inserting stuff into an analogy demonstrates a failure to understand the point of an analogy.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Perhaps. But chances are good the auto mechanic is not going to know the PSI ratings of different plumping fixtures and pipes. Just as a plumber would most likely be at a loss as to how to find out what is wrong with my car.

"Of sorts" is usually what people say when referring to someone who thinks they are more knowledgeable and skillful than they actually are. Even with Dame Jane Goodall, she didn't have the usual background, but she went and did it and proved herself.

Anyone can be/call themselves an artist, no schooling, background, or experience necessary.

That is a case where you probably would know more. I know more about Asperger's than most of the therapists I have been to, but that is not an area they study or focus on. But that doesn't put me "ahead" in knowledge of clinical psychology.

I never claimed such. However, when someone does have a background, experience, education, and access to resources (such as journal databases), they can add far more than what someone who has self-studied the same subject can. I have read many books and articles about Einstein's theories of relativity, but I would be a fool to think I am "on par," or even anywhere close, with the physicists who study such things. But, at the same time, it's likely I am "way out ahead" of these same physicists in the realm of psychology.

I did not claim to have read them all. But I have read a substantial amount, both for and against.

"Anyone can call themselves an artist, blah, blah, blah" I entered my artwork in a contest in eighth grade and won third place! In grade school, I was chosen to do artistic work on a bulletin board because of my skill! When I showed my art to school mates, it was so good they denied that it was my work! I brought my art to work, and a coworker insisted that I must have traced it, because it was so accurate! Once again, you are belittling claims that I have made, based on nothing, since you haven't seen my artwork; Just as when you called my ex husband a history wannabe (in so many words) without knowing him!

 

[Jenny Collins]

"Anyone can call themselves an artist, blah, blah, blah" I entered my artwork in a contest in eighth grade and won third place! In grade school, I was chosen to do artistic work on a bulletin board because of my skill! When I showed my art to school mates, it was so good they denied that it was my work! I brought my art to work, and a coworker insisted that I must have traced it, because it was so accurate! Once again, you are belittling claims that I have made, based on nothing, since you haven't seen my artwork; Just as when you called my ex husband a history wannabe (in so many words) without knowing him!

You miss the point about being more familiar (in some ways) about the syndrome in my family, than doctors! My point wasn't that I know more about the medical field! It means that even laymen can know some things that experts don't, and some laymen may actually know a lot that the experts don't know! Different people, different degrees!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Anyone can call themselves an artist, blah, blah, blah" I entered my artwork in a contest in eighth grade and won third place! In grade school, I was chosen to do artistic work on a bulletin board because of my skill! When I showed my art to school mates, it was so good they denied that it was my work! I brought my art to work, and a coworker insisted that I must have traced it, because it was so accurate! Once again, you are belittling claims that I have made, based on nothing, since you haven't seen my artwork; Just as when you called my ex husband a history wannabe (in so many words) without knowing him!

It's very telling that, out of all of the perfectly reasonable arguments made in that post, you chose to focus on one sentence that is almost entirely innocuous and interpret it as some kind of personal insult which it was obviously never intended to be.

I this debate honestly about the facts to you? Or is it about your ego?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So why then do so many creationists persist in this falsehood?

Because simple people need to make things simple. And, anyone who holds such a backwards view as (literal) "creationism," in this day and age, has to be rather simple. Additionally, for such folk, whether something is true or false is incidental. Veracity isn't important in and of itself and is always trumped by the pre-assumed belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

You mention "religious agenda" Everyone, including you, has an agenda! You are promoting your own beliefs and are influenced by your own bias! As far as the person having a "religious bias" you use the word religion like it is a bad word! "Religious bias rather than science" you say!

By the way, do you think that award winning scientists like Frantisek Vyskocil wouldn't have an answer for you when you say things like "studies of evolution biology have solved all of these problems"? Respected scientists who have defected from the cult of evolution, have certainly considered what you are proposing and have still abandoned this conjecture!

Please document these 'Respected scientists.' Out of tens of thousands of scientists I know of less than ten who reject evolution and they are also evangelical Christians. At best I read of only one who claims not to be religious. There are a few 'engineers,' who are not scientists who are evangelical Christians rejecting evolution.

It is not a coincidence that 99%+ of all those who reject evolution do so from an fundamentalist Christian or Islamic perspective.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You miss the point about being more familiar (in some ways) about the syndrome in my family, than doctors! My point wasn't that I know more about the medical field! It means that even laymen can know some things that experts don't, and some laymen may actually know a lot that the experts don't know! Different people, different degrees!

Sure they can. But that doesn't mean that expertise should be ignored or dismissed as trivial. You probably do know more about your syndrome than most laymen. You probably even know more about it than most Doctors. But would you say you know more about it than a Doctor who specializes in study and treatment of that syndrome?

If your answer is no, then you should understand that your argument is vacuous.

 

[Jenny Collins]

W

So you admit that your argument is refuted?


And why trust him over the millions of scientists who accept evolutionary theory? What makes his words more reliable than any single one of theirs? For example, Kenneth Miller is not only a highly respected scientist, but the former head of the Human Genome project AND a practising Roman Catholic. He tours America giving talks about evolutionary theory and refuting the claims of creationists. Why should I ignore his view and side with Dr. Vyskocil?


Inserting stuff into an analogy demonstrates a failure to understand the point of an analogy.

Why do I trust Vyskocil over the millions of scientists who don't agree? I don't only trust him, he is the scientist I am most familiar with him so bring his name up a lot! There are others too! As far as the "millions" who believe in evolution, why don't I trust them? That is an appeal to majority fallacy! Ad populum! If I thought that way, I would have to believe in the phlogiston theory of a century or two ago! I don't believe in evolution, because I DO believe in the Bible and God! I have proven that to myself! Secondly, evolution and the Bible don't gibe! Thirdly, I have heard arguments for and against evolution, and those opposed make more sense to me, even if they are a minority! I do not go along with the crowd, just because they are the crowd

 

[Jenny Collins]

So you admit that your argument is refuted?


And why trust him over the millions of scientists who accept evolutionary theory? What makes his words more reliable than any single one of theirs? For example, Kenneth Miller is not only a highly respected scientist, but the former head of the Human Genome project AND a practising Roman Catholic. He tours America giving talks about evolutionary theory and refuting the claims of creationists. Why should I ignore his view and side with Dr. Vyskocil?


Inserting stuff into an analogy demonstrates a failure to understand the point of an analogy.

Don't know what you meant, "So you admit your argument is refuted" You took an isolated thing that I said and that made that claim! Don't understand what you are referring to, but I don't admit that I am wrong if that is what you mean

Why should you ignore Kenneth Miller who is a Catholic and a scientist, you ask? Why accept Vyskocil above him? You can do whatever you want just as I can! We all have brains, we all have life experience, we all form conclusions based on observations in life! We all settle on own world view! Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong! It is up to us to weigh our processes and motives in coming to conclusions, and ultimately if we are wrong, we will face the consequences for that!

I am not telling you who or who not to believe! I can only decide for myself, and when asked my reasons I can give them

 

[Thumper]

I am not saying that science hasn't helped you! I am not saying that microevolution doesn't exist! ... It may have been evolutionary biologists that discovered something that helped you, but they were not studying something that doesn't exist-they weren't studying macroevolution!

No, they were studying biology. You have never provided any evidence that there is a barrier to stop microevolution from proceeding into macroevolution.

 

[Thumper]

"Anyone can call themselves an artist, blah, blah, blah" I entered my artwork in a contest in eighth grade and won third place! In grade school, I was chosen to do artistic work on a bulletin board because of my skill! When I showed my art to school mates, it was so good they denied that it was my work! I brought my art to work, and a coworker insisted that I must have traced it, because it was so accurate! Once again, you are belittling claims that I have made, based on nothing, since you haven't seen my artwork; Just as when you called my ex husband a history wannabe (in so many words) without knowing him!

"And I always make sure to point out that when people on the internet make claims as you just did, ... that caution is is order! You could be making stuff up to add weight to your argument! I am not claiming you are, it is just that there is no proof! The same as the people here who claim to be scientists! ... I just don't know that for a fact!" ~ Jenny Collins

 

[Jenny Collins]

Sure they can. But that doesn't mean that expertise should be ignored or dismissed as trivial. You probably do know more about your syndrome than most laymen. You probably even know more about it than most Doctors. But would you say you know more about it than a Doctor who specializes in study and treatment of that syndrome?

If your answer is no, then you should understand that your argument is vacuous.

No my argument is not vacuous because it is an argument that I did not make! Strawman! You find fault with a claim that did not come from me! This is what I said: I said I know SOME details that SOME doctors don't know! I did not say I knew more about the subject than those doctors, although I may know more than some general practitioners! However my sister who has the syndrome (the reason that I haven't named it is because I am unsure of spelling, maybe Peutz Jeghers) might know more than any the ones who have some knowledge of it! She mentioned it to her psychiatrist, who was also a brain surgeon at one time, and he had never heard of it!

My point was that laymen can know a LOT more about some subjects than doctors, or they can know SOME things that the doctors don't know! Nothing vacuous about what I said