Why is the Right Wing Anti-Science?

[Truth in love]

No, those aren't opinions. They're scientific facts.

All of your points demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of how evolution operates and what it predicts.
You need a crash course in evolution, hence my link.

Sorry but I don't have hours too poor over very opinionated peaces looking for something that might address a point I maid. Do you have a link to something that acutely address my points without a crazy time commitment?

 

[Truth in love]

That's not what I said at all.
Please try addressing what I said.
You are rejecting the evidence that many civilizations in existence at the time the flood was supposed to have taken place, never mention it at all. It's as though it never happened.

You said "None of the other civilizations that were in existence at the time mention anything about this flood. Weird, eh?

It is a fairy tale."

There are many writings about such a flood from the same general era of history. So its almost like your ignoring evidence that you don't like.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@Truth in love: If, as I assume, your misunderstanding goes deeper and you prefer learning in dialogue, I have an open invitation to any creationist at Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

Excellent!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah.

BTW there is a God who created the world. Now you can be better informed too.

When you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim, then I will accept it.
Not before then.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry but I don't have hours too poor over very opinionated peaces looking for something that might address a point I maid. Do you have a link to something that acutely address my points without a crazy time commitment?

What I linked you to was a primer for helping understand what evolution is, and how it works, according to the available evidence.
If you don't have time to learn about how it actually works, then you really shouldn't be talking about it. That is, unless you want to be called out for your errors, which you will be.

You didn't make any points against evolution. You made points against a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Which is why I'm trying to point you in the direction of understanding how it works, so you don't continue to make the same errors.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You said "None of the other civilizations that were in existence at the time mention anything about this flood. Weird, eh?

It is a fairy tale."

There are many writings about such a flood from the same general era of history. So its almost like your ignoring evidence that you don't like.

Yet none of them experienced this supposed flood at the time it supposedly happened (according to the Bible). Their civilizations were thriving at the time the Noahic flood was supposed to have happened.
That's the point.

 

[Heyo]

There are many writings about such a flood from the same general era of history. So its almost like your ignoring evidence that you don't like.

I know about some of those myths but afaik they are not dated, do you have examples?

And we know of civilisations, e.g. Egypt, which have historical records from the same time the flood allegedly has happened. That is a clear sign that there was no global flood 4000 years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well like I said they said about Lucy. There is one find I read about several years ago. That is the one I was referring to.

Well that is rather weak. Even one find does count as evidence, but it may not be strong evidence.

As you demonstrated with your failure, though you still do not understand it, creationists do not have any scientific evidence since they are afraid to test their beliefs properly on their own merits. Here is an example of a test of evolution. One that it could have conceivably failed. One difference between humans and other great apes is the number of chromosomes. We have 46 and they have 48. Chromosomes come in pairs (most of the time). As a result geneticists often go by the number of chromosome pairs. We have 23 the other great apes have 24. How can this be if we share a common ancestor. It is also known that at times in an animal chromosomes can be split or joined. The genus that I know of with the highest variation is that of the equids (horses). They range from 32 to 66 more than a factor of two and yet many of them can interbreed, though usually the offspring are sterile. One of the early features of chromosomes discovered when they were first starting to sequence DNA were features called telomeres and centromeres. Chromosomes have repeating sequences that are observable called telomeres at the ends of the chromosome. They appear to do little if no work in producing traits but their existence protects the rest of the DNA strand. And in roughly the center of the chromosome there is a sequence of DNA that shows that called the centromere. The test, if we are related to the other great apes there either had to be one fusion that led to us, or three different splits that led to the other great apes. The far more likely case would be of one single fusion. A rather rare event has to happen only once instead of being repeated three times in the same way. the odds against that would be very large.

So if two of our chromosome pairs joined there should be evidence of it within them. And as our ability to sequence DNA improved that is exactly what we found. In our Chromosome 2 there are telomeres in the middle of the gene marking the join and an old no longer functional centromere. The theory made a prediction, and that prediction could have gone either way at the time it was made, and it went in the direction of supporting evolution. This sort of testing has happened countless times. Not just with man's line of evolution, but with all lines of evolution. Occasionally when a rather small difference is tested, it can swing either way, but for major tests all of them have supported the theory of evolution. It is why about 99% of scientists now accept evolution. In the sciences creationists are the lunatic fringe that can never support their beliefs properly. It is why there is no respect for creationists in the sciences.

Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said "None of the other civilizations that were in existence at the time mention anything about this flood. Weird, eh?

It is a fairy tale."

There are many writings about such a flood from the same general era of history. So its almost like your ignoring evidence that you don't like.

No, most, but not all, civilizations are on navigable water ways that flood at times. Guess what that leads to? Myths. There are flood myths among many, but not all early civilizations, but they are of different times. They also vary quite a bit beside the obvious commonality of a giant flood. If they all told the same story or roughly the same time then you might have something but there is quite a bit of variation. And some early civilizations do not have a flood myth at all, or one that was so different that it could not be seen as the same myth. For example in nearby Egypt there was no Noah's Ark type flood. The closest that they have was a mass genocide by a god that caused a flood of blood. In other words it turned the river red. Does that sound at all like Noah's flood?

Egypt. The Egyptian flood myth begins with the sun god Ra, who feared that people were going to overthrow him. He sent the goddess Hathor, who was his eye, to punish the people. But she killed so many that their blood, flowing into the Nile River and the ocean, caused a flood. Hathor greedily drank the bloody water. Feeling that things had gone too far, Ra ordered slaves to make a lake of beer, dyed red to look like blood. Hathor drank the beer, became very drunk, and failed to finish the task of wiping out humanity. The survivors of her bloodbath started the human race anew.

By the way, that is no matter how you look at it extremely weak evidence for a flood. People make up stories all of the time. The physical evidence not only tells us that there was no flood, three is not a single sign of it. Instead it refutes all of the beliefs of Flood believers.

 

[metis]

When will some here at RF finally realize that the Bible is not a science text nor a history text. It deals with Judeo-Christian faith issues written by those who wouldn't have any clue what happened before human writing began.

 

[Truth in love]

@Truth in love: If, as I assume, your misunderstanding goes deeper and you prefer learning in dialogue, I have an open invitation to any creationist at Why the Theory of Evolution is True. Part 1: What is Science?

I'll give it some thought, but to sate no one will take on the points I mentioned. I'm been insulted, accused of lying, many condescending remakes made to me, but the points are not addressed (well in anymore more direct fashion that like "Read the Bible and you'll get all your answers" level of not helpful).

 

[Truth in love]

When you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim, then I will accept it.
Not before then.

Well I can't prove it any more than I can prove the color of shoes I'm wearing. That does not mean that it is not true.

 

[Truth in love]

What I linked you to was a primer for helping understand what evolution is, and how it works, according to the available evidence.
If you don't have time to learn about how it actually works, then you really shouldn't be talking about it. That is, unless you want to be called out for your errors, which you will be.

You didn't make any points against evolution. You made points against a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Which is why I'm trying to point you in the direction of understanding how it works, so you don't continue to make the same errors.

Okay I don't know if you willfully missed understood what I said or not. But I'm tired of the baseless accusation that I don't understand evolution. I've studied it. I don't buy many of the conclusions. This is very different from not understanding it.

 

[Truth in love]

When will some here at RF finally realize that the Bible is not a science text nor a history text. It deals with Judeo-Christian faith issues written by those who wouldn't have any clue what happened before human writing began.

WOW that's very anti Biblical view. I guess that explains a lot of the objections to have to my believing what the Bible says.

 

[Truth in love]

I know about some of those myths but afaik they are not dated, do you have examples?

And we know of civilisations, e.g. Egypt, which have historical records from the same time the flood allegedly has happened. That is a clear sign that there was no global flood 4000 years ago.

We don't have many exact dates. (Heck the Shroud of Turin has dating estimates that differ widely). That a civilization was around near the time of the flood does not equal evidence of there not being a flood.

But as with many things posting articles to the evidence that has been found out be pointless as it seems you mind is well made up. I will however stand by what I said.

 

[Secret Chief]

WOW that's very anti Biblical view.

It's not anti anything. If one wants to buy a copy of the Bible in a bookshop, will it be in the science section? No. Will it be in the history section? No. Where will it be? In the religion section.
That's all that is being said by @metis I believe.

 

[Heyo]

We don't have many exact dates. (Heck the Shroud of Turin has dating estimates that differ widely). That a civilization was around near the time of the flood does not equal evidence of there not being a flood.

When that civilisation has written records throughout that time and monuments build all trough that time that is very strong evidence against a global flood at that time

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well I can't prove it any more than I can prove the color of shoes I'm wearing. That does not mean that it is not true.

It doesn't mean it is true either.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Also, I could prove the colour of the shoes I'm wearing. Why can't you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Okay I don't know if you willfully missed understood what I said or not. But I'm tired of the baseless accusation that I don't understand evolution. I've studied it. I don't buy many of the conclusions. This is very different from not understanding it.

It's not a baseless accusation, that's my point. The stuff you type and share about evolution displays a complete misunderstanding of how it operates. You have demonstrated through your posts that you do not understand the basics of evolution. Which is probably why you don't accept it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We don't have many exact dates. (Heck the Shroud of Turin has dating estimates that differ widely). That a civilization was around near the time of the flood does not equal evidence of there not being a flood.

It does if they didn't also experience a flood at the same time that the global flood is supposed to have occurred. If those civilizations weren't also wiped out (which they weren't) and instead just carried on flourishing then yes, that equals evidence that no such global flood occurred at the time it is said to have occurred.

But as with many things posting articles to the evidence that has been found out be pointless as it seems you mind is well made up. I will however stand by what I said.