The theory of evolution

[mickleb]

Petty? Please look at your own communication… wow

 

Please, identify what is "petty" about my communication. Don't take offense where none was meant...wow.

 

Ah so then your belief isTalkorigins said it, you believe it, that settles it. Now I get it.

 

I see where your "open mindedness" comes from.

 

And to the bolded:laugh::laugh: and seriously:laugh: That's priceless!:laugh: I do love to laugh.

 

You mean how the evolutionist STOLE the ICTHUS fish and put legs on it and calls it Darwinism?

 

You mean THOSE original ideas? Okay, got it.

 

What is especially irritating, pureinheart, is that you have highlighted many of maid of rohan's posts as being 'petty' but have completely ignored ones from truthbetold, like the one above.

 

Everything about that post is condescending (plus a few other choice words I could use), and that's why mor responded with that word.

 

I'll hold my hands up, many of my comments about religion are often, at least, tongue-in-cheek. But I find it hard that you don't see evidence of anything petty in tbt's, yet lots in mor's. And, if I were to be petty, I'd point out that such confirmation bias seems rife amongst most of those who believe in God on here.

[SoleMate]

We all have a lot of energy towards discussion of this topic but I don't ever see anyone getting convinced to change their minds.

 

Science is complex. It requires diligent study, reasoning, questioning, observation, analysis, and synthesis to develop and even to understand. I don't expect everyone to be able to understand science from the perspective of a skilled scientist. But I would like to see a majority of the population at the "intelligent layperson" level, which would enable them to:

 

1) Write a paragraph explaining the differences between a water molecule and a strand of DNA

 

2) Estimate the number of atoms in a crystal of salt in a salt shaker

 

3) Write a 1 page essay on how plants develop and reproduce and where they get their energy

 

4) Estimate the probability of at least 1 person living within 500 m of their home having the same birthday (month and day, not year) as themselves

 

5) Estimate the trajectory of a projectile launched at an angle with a certain speed

 

6) Draw a force diagram showing the force vectors acting on two cars colliding

 

7) Write a 1 page essay examining whether and to what extent traits are inherited by a child organism from its parent. Use examples

 

8) Accurately describe current mainstream understanding of inheritance of traits

 

9) Describe the arrangements of atoms in complex crystals and use math to estimate the probability of this occurring by chance....

.....in a single tiny crystal

.....in every crystal that currently exists in the universe

 

10) List all assumptions made and relied on in the answer to #9

 

Unfortunately, the knowledge level of many is not up to the above tasks. Without the ability to perform the basic reasoning asked for above, it is not very productive to talk about science in detail. If someone can't explain why the incredible symmetry of crystals does not require a supernatural deity to produce it (simple problem in inorganic chemistry), then the more challenging and complex topic of origin of species will be completely mysterious.

[truthbetold]

What is especially irritating, pureinheart, is that you have highlighted many of maid of rohan's posts as being 'petty' but have completely ignored ones from truthbetold, like the one above.

 

Everything about that post is condescending (plus a few other choice words I could use), and that's why mor responded with that word.

 

I'll hold my hands up, many of my comments about religion are often, at least, tongue-in-cheek. But I find it hard that you don't see evidence of anything petty in tbt's, yet lots in mor's. And, if I were to be petty, I'd point out that such confirmation bias seems rife amongst most of those who believe in God on here.

 

Because it was in response to the "stupidity" of having a discussion with someone who is for Creationism. Condescending? So call someone "stupid" isn't condescending? But speaking the truth of evolutionists "stealing" an idea is? Interesting.

 

The ICHTHUS is for the Greek: ΙΧΘΥΣ

 

Meaning Christ, God's Son Savior. The "fish" started in around 60's AD when Christians were persecuted for speaking out. When did the darwinist "take" the idea? 1983. It's not cute the put legs on a fish, it's stupid and unoriginal. Everything the evolutionists claims they are not. So perhaps they should show it with an original idea of their own. Then again the word "atheist" means "no God" so it's interesting you have to identify something in order to express disbelief in it.

 

Christians actually started the first Universities. In medieval times they taught arts, law, medicine and theology. Christendom and higher education went hand in hand. Still does in some places. But it started here:

 

Universities of Paris

 

I think the problem is MOR is strongly inferring that seeking "truth" and being a Christian don't mix in her eyes. We've repeatedly explained why we believe as we do, and it's dismissed. That's why I referenced the above. We look around and in addition to seeking the truth and being educated, we see the diversity around us and know it couldn't be lightening hit a pond and simple life evolved.

 

The French Renaissance started a tiny movement towards atheism, which by the Revolution there was a strong force to De-Christianize France. The atheist will say that's because they became more enlightened and aren't stuck in the past. Christians don't see it as enlightened at all. In fact quite the opposite of digging in the past for things that still aren't adding up.

 

Regarding your confirmation bias, you mean how you came to MOR's defense? Or how the atheists have banned together and are dismissive to any Christian point of view? Of course there's going to be "sides" that's the way of the world.

 

Christians were warned that there would be unbelievers so it doesn't surprise us in the least that here you are.

[truthbetold]

Truthbetold, there is plenty of proof. Mountains of it. All you have to do is look.

 

talkorigins.org is a grand place to start.

 

Failing to understand how something came to be and claiming therefore it must be false is a logical fallacy. Another argument from ignorance. Even so, what you are talking about isn't even evolution. It's abiogenesis, a completely separate field of study, and not remotely linked to evolution which is the explanation for the diversity of life.

 

Yes, it is bunk to call evolution "just a theory." Even you, in your own post, identified what a theory means in science. Do you test the theory of gravity on the tops of roofs by any chance? After all, it's just a theory. (Hint: don't try it).

 

Who ever said anything about randomly? It seems creationists adore throwing that word around to discredit something they clearly do not understand. Sure, we aren't entirely certain how that first cell came into being, but we do know that the building blocks for life can occur naturally. Science isn't even at its peak yet, and there's lots to yet that we need to understand. Not having an answer yet does not mean you ought to fill in the gaps with "God."

 

Also, why don't creationists spend some time gathering evidence for their own little ideas instead of trying to debunk evolution? You know, even if evolution was debunked tomorrow, it still would not prove creation, right?

 

How many times will you say we don't "understand" something just because we don't see it the same way? The fact that you can't explain how that first cell came about is huge. Huge in the way that evolutionists are are too stubborn to admit. You are all about the similarities of DNA yet where I point out (scientifically I might add) it doesn't "add up". It's rebuffed. I'm told it's not abiogensis, I'm well aware the difference between that and evolution but you haven't bothered to try to explain the position of how a 4% difference which is millions of nucleotides could have just fallen together in the precise way? (since you are offended by the term "random")

 

 

 

Creationism isn't a theory, KathyM. It's barely even a hypothesis.

 

We don't try and disprove creationism. There's nothing to disprove. No evidence to refute-if there was, creationists would be all over that rather than trying to debunk evolution. Why don't Creationists try and prove creationism? Or, you know, gather some actual evidence at the least.

 

No, I can't disprove god. I can't disprove vampires, trolls, pixies, mermaids, faeries, either, but I see no reason to believe in them. Presumably, most people care about what is true, and not just what "makes sense to us." What "makes sense to us," is very simply not a very reliable pathway to truth.

 

Lumping God in with what you did is indeed petty. Not to mention apples and oranges. Jesus has a documented history of existing including the miracles he did. Interesting is how in the Roman history someone who also didn't want to believe first said he went to Egypt to learn sorcery to perform miracles, then said well it was nothing more than parlour tricks, to finally it didn't happen! All in the same text! You ask for things to substantiate claims. I provide them and you dismiss historical facts as recorded in history, not just the Bible.

 

KathyM, I've already identified what a theory means in science. Calling evolution "just a theory" shows how uneducated you are about 1) science and 2) evolution. Which is why I've never understood why those who clearly have no grasp of science even bother to enter into these debates. It seems pointless.

 

It's not about not being open to hearing it. If you want others to believe, you have to provide them with a reason why they should. You can't just preach the gospel, and then blame the other person for not immediately accepting it. That's one of the issues. If believers were happy to keep their beliefs to themselves, few people would have issues with it. They don't do that though. They preach about beliefs that even they know they can't demonstrate as truth, and then say the other person is simply not open minded when they don't accept it as truth.

 

Again, you keep making arguments from ignorance, which are logical fallacies. Just because you don't understand how something came to be does not mean that you can just insert "God" into every gap. First, you'd have to have evidence of the god's existence and then determine what qualities should a being has, and if he is capable of x/y/z before you could even start identifying it as a cause. Since you don't have that evidence, all you have is faith which is a pretty poor way to truth, but if all you have is faith, so be it.

 

What makes sense to you is not a reliable pathway to truth. Do you care about what is true? I personally do care about what is true, and I want as many, if not all, beliefs I hold to be true, and I don't personally consider using faith a reliable means to finding that out. JMHO.

 

Your whole post to Kathy is dripping in disdain, I'm not going to bother to dissect it piece by piece, but it's more of your same "uneducated, illogical, fallacies, dismissive theme you carry.

 

You say Creationism is fallacy and we're stupid for having faith in God. It is equally perplexing to us in knowing how evolution started. Darwin is at the London zoo and sees Jenny the Orangutan and because of "similarities" goes on this quest. Because what? She has hands with 4 digits and a thumb? And then what? She has a tantrum like a child.

 

Of Men and Apes

 

So the quest goes. Let's "build" Piltman....fail. Nebraska Man....fail. the evolution chart....fail. What did all of these have in common? They were trying to "make" that ape theory work. So now it's the DNA looking only at what's similar, again disregard the 4% that's huge that isn't, I guess your professors have taught you well to dodge and deflect the truth. How about the fact that the eye isn't the same? Chimps can see red not other colors. How about an octopus eye that is in some ways superior to the human eye as there's no blind spot, but there are no cones, so they can't see color.But their sight is superior for their environment. Does the evolutionist bother to address this concerns? How can eyes just evolve of so many different types amongst the species? I guess that's not a valid question to you.

 

I will post a follow up question that does address how Creationists can have a strong case for creation. I hope you will consider it.

 

BTW the law of gravity is a law. Not just a theory. Just like biogensis, and like thermodynamics. The world is very much winding down. Not evolving into better, that's obvious in every aspect of life.

[SoleMate]

It is ... perplexing to us in knowing how evolution started. Darwin is at the London zoo and sees Jenny the Orangutan and because of "similarities" goes on this quest. Because what? She has hands with 4 digits and a thumb? And then what? She has a tantrum like a child.

 

Have you tried reading a solid college-level biology textbook? Or one of the many books that explains evolution?

 

So the quest goes. Let's "build" Piltman....fail. Nebraska Man....fail. the evolution chart....fail. What did all of these have in common? They were trying to "make" that ape theory work. So now it's the DNA looking only at what's similar, again disregard the 4% that's huge that isn't, I guess your professors have taught you well to dodge and deflect the truth.

 

What specifically are you referring to when you say "the 4% has been disregarded"? Are you referring to an individual post on the Internet, or are you referring to a specific claim or postulate? Reference please.

 

How about the fact that the eye isn't the same? Chimps can see red not other colors. How about an octopus eye that is in some ways superior to the human eye as there's no blind spot, but there are no cones, so they can't see color.But their sight is superior for their environment. Does the evolutionist bother to address this concerns? How can eyes just evolve of so many different types amongst the species? I guess that's not a valid question to you.

On the contrary, observing and studying different eye structures among different phyla and classes is a major interest of a modern biologist. http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/cephschool/CephalopodVision.pdf Quoting, "It is known that nearly all living things including plants show some form of photosensitivity. How did this come to be? Firstly, most life, with the exception of some deep sea vent creatures, is affected by light emitted from the sun, whether they require it for survival or are sensitive to it and must hide from it. All such organisms need to possess some sort of organ that allows an organism to know light, and possibly from which direction the light is coming...." Let's all read that article, and then come back here and discuss it specifically.

[SoleMate]

....you haven't bothered to try to explain the position of how a 4% difference which is millions of nucleotides could have just fallen together in the precise way?

 

That's a lot of typing, just to refute a vague statement of your own creation. How about you find a standard biology textbook that mentions evolution (i.e. all of them), and call out the page or paragraph or even single sentence that to you seems absolutely wrong or unbelievable. Go ahead and attack it as specifically as you can, and we will explain it to you.

[truthbetold]

Have you tried reading a solid college-level biology textbook? Or one of the many books that explains evolution?

 

 

 

What specifically are you referring to when you say "the 4% has been disregarded"? Are you referring to an individual post on the Internet, or are you referring to a specific claim or postulate? Reference please.

 

 

On the contrary, observing and studying different eye structures among different phyla and classes is a major interest of a modern biologist. http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/cephschool/CephalopodVision.pdf Quoting, "It is known that nearly all living things including plants show some form of photosensitivity. How did this come to be? Firstly, most life, with the exception of some deep sea vent creatures, is affected by light emitted from the sun, whether they require it for survival or are sensitive to it and must hide from it. All such organisms need to possess some sort of organ that allows an organism to know light, and possibly from which direction the light is coming...." Let's all read that article, and then come back here and discuss it specifically.

 

If you go back several pages I have a rather lengthy post on how it's mathematically impossible, it was largely dismissed. The 4% refers to that. Are you familiar with the Junk DNA that is now no longer "junk".

 

And way to insult. Yes I majored in health so the sciences were requisite studies. I understand what evolution is saying, I disagree with it as do thousands of others. People who formally stood on evolutionists side and realized that we you can down to it, the things that are unexplained are pretty big.

 

Thanks, but after your retort of my limited education I don't have time to read your article. MOR seems to think there is not a valid argument for creationism and how evolutionist are always right. So that's my focus right now. As explained it my longer post. My interest lies in helping people in the here and now. I study epidemiology and pathophysiology. Not evolution.

 

I was goaded back into the discussion by MOR read back to see proof of that. I respectfully asked to drop it and move on as we don't share a similar view and neither are going to change. I was told I was uneducated and not open minded. I am very open minded just not so much that I lost my brains. You see things differently, that's your choice, but I'm a little weary of being called stupid because I don't agree with your conclusions. I understand things on a molecular level, I understand how the body works. It's impossible in my mind (and many others) for it to have just evolved out of no where with no purpose or plan. It defies logic.

[Koopa]

I remember in the Evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham there was a question for both debaters that was basically saying what would change your mind.

 

Bill Nye basically said evidence would change his mind

 

Ken Ham said nothing would change his mind

 

See that's why this debate is pointless, evolutionist have a logical mind that is open to suggestion and willing to admit when they are wrong because they seek answers and truth while creationist are blindly faithful close minded individuals.

[truthbetold]

Okay, MOR here is a valid case for Creationism. Let's drop the whole human/ape thing if we may. Because evolution is evolution right? It should apply down the line. Let's look at birds.

 

Birds came from dinosaurs right? But wait, scientists are now retracting that widely held belief.

 

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs

 

and here's the secular article if the answers in Genesis offends:

 

New study, suggests birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs

 

So it took until 2009 to catch up with what the Creationists are saying all along. But apparently some are still being taught they did evolve.

 

Here's my case. The woodpecker. Besides being fabulous with it's red head and the variety with the black and white stripes. They're brilliantly designed:

 

The woodpecker's beak is unlike that of other birds. It is designed to hammer its way into the hardest of trees. If the woodpecker evolved, how would it develop its thick, tough beak? If it evolved wouldn't it have first needed to realize the need for a stronger beak? So did the bird who eats insects from wood shatter his beak first? It wouldn't have been able to eat so it would have become extinct. Not only does the woodpecker have a strong beak, it also has a special cartilage between its head and beak to absorb some of the shock from the continuous drumming. Woodpeckers go home at night without a headache.

 

To help with the absorption of the constant pounding, the woodpecker has uniquely resilient tail feathers. It uses its tail feathers and feet to form a tripod effect as it clings to the tree. Even its feet are specially designed to enable it to move up, down, and around, vertical tree trunks. The feet of the woodpecker have two toes in front and two toes in back. Most other birds have three toes in front and one in back. (how do you explain this difference?)

 

This two-plus-two toe pattern....along with stiff yet elastic tail feathers, allows a woodpecker to grasp a tree firmly and balance itself on a vertical surface. When the woodpecker braces itself to chisel a hole, the tail feathers bend and spread, buttressing the bird against the rough tree surface. In this way feet and tail form an effective tripod to stabilize the blows of hammering into wood.

 

Suppose that somehow a bird, knowing there was lunch in those trees, developed the strong beak, the shock absorber cartilage between the beak and the skull, the ability to move its head faster than you can tap fingers, the "two-plus-two" feet and the super stiff yet elastic tail feathers. This bird still has a major problem. It will starve to death. How could it drag its lunch out of the little insect tunnels in the tree? Have you ever attempted to drag an insect larva out of a tunnel? Because that's what they do.

 

The woodpecker has a tongue that is several times longer than the average bird's tongue. Lester and Bohlin comment:

 

"...the tongue of a woodpecker is in a class by itself. When chiseling into a tree, the woodpecker will occasionally come across insect tunnels. Its tongue is long and slender and is used to probe these tunnels for insects. The tip is like a spearhead with a number of barbs or hairs pointing rearward. This facilitates securing the insect while transporting it to the beak. A sticky gluelike substance coats the tongue to aid in this process as well."

 

What a fascinating creation! Not only does the woodpecker have little barbs on the tip of its tongue, it is also a mini glue factory. And the glue sticks securely to insects but does not stick to the beak of the woodpecker.

 

But this is not all. Most birds have a tongue and a beak about the same length. The tongue of the woodpecker can be stretched far beyond the tip of the woodpecker's beak as it searches the larval tunnels for food. The animal kingdom displays no other tongues quite like that of the woodpecker. The tongue of some woodpeckers does not come from its throat up into its mouth like other creatures. The European Green woodpecker's tongue goes down the throat, out the back of the neck...around the back of the skull beneath the skin, and over the top between the eyes, terminating usually just below the eye socket. In some woodpeckers the tongue exits the skull between the eyes and enters the beak through one of the nostrils! How would this evolve? And from what ancestor did the woodpecker inherit its special beak, feet, tail feathers, shock absorbing cartilage, thicker skull and unique tongue?

 

More specifics of the shock absorbing quality that marvel Scientists:

 

Weird and wonderful woodpecker

 

Also you refuse to address the sterility problem. Even if there was a common ancestor, by what means could it reproduce? To break off? The chromosome number is off. You know that math problem of the fixity of the species? For that reason it's rare for cross mating let alone be successful.

 

A horse and a donkey produce a mule, it's "similar enough" like your common ancestor yet the mule is sterile. Nature many times aborts what isn't viable. That's proven, the theory is not and they admit it. It's being taught yes, but if it's so uniformly held in the Science world, then why are there so many Scientists that abandon it after they study even more? They realize it doesn't add up. You can apply certain facts like similar DNA but then other facts refute it. They look at the whole picture of possibilities. Not just what fits with the evolutionary theory.

 

Your claim that it's proof and everyone knows it and it's a fact, and better than fact "theory" and simply criticize anyone who doesn't agree and accuse them that they can't understand a definition or Science and call them uneducated is your recurring mantra. Believe it, good for you. But your attempts of touting it as truth is failing. To deny that there are thousands of other Scientists with Biology degrees that have also agreed evolution is a false teaching, is not based in reality. You and others dance around that though.

[mickleb]

truthbetold, my post was addressed to pureinheart.

 

This is the only post on this thread (and possibly forum) that I will address to you. Don't ask me for my reasons why as I can't explain them politely, but as you might say, it's not due to lack of open-mindedness, more a lack of time. My apologies. Adieu.

[truthbetold]

That's a lot of typing, just to refute a vague statement of your own creation. How about you find a standard biology textbook that mentions evolution (i.e. all of them), and call out the page or paragraph or even single sentence that to you seems absolutely wrong or unbelievable. Go ahead and attack it as specifically as you can, and we will explain it to you.

 

Vague statement? It's common sense the 4% difference (96% similar DNA if you want it spelled out) The common sense point is there's a lot of variables within that 4% mismatch. The common sense point is how can you arrive that a complex cell let alone a human being or an ape just arrived on the scene, totally intact Or better yet evolved over time with more complex systems.

 

I will say again, you mustn't have a good grip on the human body and what the cells do, and have since the beginning for the organs to function. The molecular chains, the exact science of it. It's that "big picture" that doesn't make sense. That evolutionists are just trying to force feed this similarity while simultaneously saying the cell is complex and can't do date get life to form outside of a test tube. (and that with a lot of manipulation)

 

The skeptics list is toward the bottom within the link.

 

False Science of Evolution

Many Scientists are with us

The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works. Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory. They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

 

Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote in the August 29, 2005 edition of The Scientist: "I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosomes; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss." --Philip S. Skell. August 29, 2005. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? The Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 16, p. 10.

 

• Philip S. Skell was Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus at Penn State University. He is sometimes called "the father of carbene chemistry" in organic chemistry, and is widely known for the "Skell Rule", which was first applied to carbenes - the "fleeting species" of carbon. The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. He said that during World War II "I was personally associated with an antibiotics research group, engaged in the full range of activities, from finding organisms which inhibited bacterial growth to the isolation and proof of structure of the antibiotics they produced." Professor Skell died Nov. 21, 2010.
  

Ernst Chain (1906-1979) and two others were awarded the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. Chain identified the structure of penicillin, and isolated the active substance. He is considered to be one of the founders of the field of antibiotics. Concerning Darwin's theory of evolution, Chain found it to be "a very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy that "it can hardly be called a theory."A He saw the reliance on chance mutations as a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."B He wrote: "These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."B Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism.A He was born in Berlin, Germany, and obtained his Ph.D. in biochemistry and physiology there. He worked as a research scientist at Cambridge (also studying for a Ph.D. there), at Oxford University until 1948, and then as a professor and researcher at several other universities. In 1938, Chain came across Alexander Fleming's 1929 paper on penicillin, and showed it to his colleague Howard Florey. In their research, Chain isolated and purified penicillin. --Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. April 2008. Ernst Chain: Antibiotics Pioneer. Acts&Facts, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 10-12.

A. Clark, R.W. 1985. The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond. New York: St. Martin's Press, p. 147.

B. Chain, E. 1970. Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society (Robert Waley Cohen memorial lecture). London: The Council of Christians and Jews, p. 25.

"My experiences with science led me to God.]To be forced to believe only one conclusion --that everything in the universe happened by chance -- would violate the very objectivity of science itself.Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer... They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?" -Wernher von Braun 1912 - 1977

 

If you don't want to admit many who go against evolution are just as educated and sometimes more educated, then that's your choice. To say because something is taught and in textbooks there fore it must be true, is naive at best and arrogant at worst. The original evolutionary chart was dead wrong and it was taught as fact in every textbook.

 

I don't need to find any passages in any textbooks. You have your beliefs and I have mine (scientifically supported, not just blind faith) and never the twain shall meet.

 

I was respectful from the beginning, but I and others repeatedly got harassed in the process, it's absolutely futile at this point. I totally respect the opinion others hold and their right to that. The same obviously didn't hold true for us. But stop with the "close minded" rhetoric it's old. I supported by belief with not only my faith, but my knowledge in the complexity of living things. You don't agree, c'est la vie.

 

btw I apologize for my above typo "we you can down to it" was supposed to be when you came down... or when you can come down... It's a shame you can't freely edit, before the English police come to disqualify something because of typos.

 

You've done exactly what the link says, ridicule those that don't agree as simpletons. Evolutionists are the ones violating Science only open to those ideas that support your view.

[KathyM]

KathyM, I've already identified what a theory means in science. Calling evolution "just a theory" shows how uneducated you are about 1) science and 2) evolution. Which is why I've never understood why those who clearly have no grasp of science even bother to enter into these debates. It seems pointless.

I didn't say evolution was just a theory, I simply said it was a theory. Creationism is also a theory. There are two kinds of theories, both scientific and unscientific. They are still theories. You atheists keep asking for scientific proof of God's existence, and we keep telling you that there is none. There are other forms of evidence that are very convincing. Testimonies of those who knew Christ and witnessed His miracles, testimonies of people in today's world who have witnessed/experienced miracles in their own lives that lead them to believe in God. Testimonies are valid in determining the truth, just as the testimonies presented in a court of law would be considered valid in pointing to the truth. In a court of law, juries decide what makes the most sense based on the evidence and testimonies presented. Testimonies are valid forms of evidence to consider.

 

It's not about not being open to hearing it. If you want others to believe, you have to provide them with a reason why they should.

I have provided a reason why I personally believe. I've given my testimony. Some will believe it who know I am an honest person. Some will choose not to believe it for whatever reason.

You can't just preach the gospel, and then blame the other person for not immediately accepting it.

I'm not "blaming" you for not accepting it. I'm merely giving my testimony since I believe others on this site may be open to hearing it, but I realize that you are not open to hearing it, so there's really no point in debating with you further. You are asking for scientific proof of God's existence, and I keep telling you that there is no scientific proof. There are testimonies of others. There is historical evidence of Jesus' life on earth. There are probabilities calculated by mathematicians showing that the likelihood of the world existing without creative design is extremely unlikely to an astronomical degree.

That's one of the issues. If believers were happy to keep their beliefs to themselves, few people would have issues with it. They don't do that though. They preach about beliefs that even they know they can't demonstrate as truth, and then say the other person is simply not open minded when they don't accept it as truth.

Many people are open to hearing the gospel. You, apparently, are not, so there is no point in debating further with you. Other people are open to believing the testimony of others. Apparently, to you, testimony has no validity, and people's accounts of their experience of God are worthless to you because you require scientific proof of God's existence. Would you be this way if you had to serve on a jury? Would you not be willing to consider or accept anyone's personal testimony as to what they experienced/witnessed? In a court of law, testimony is one of the most important factors that is often given a lot of weight when considering what the probable truth is in the case. I guess that would not be good enough for you. For most people, it is.

Again, you keep making arguments from ignorance, which are logical fallacies. Just because you don't understand how something came to be does not mean that you can just insert "God" into every gap. First, you'd have to have evidence of the god's existence and then determine what qualities should a being has, and if he is capable of x/y/z before you could even start identifying it as a cause. Since you don't have that evidence, all you have is faith which is a pretty poor way to truth, but if all you have is faith, so be it.

I have much more than just faith, I have testimonies, I have probabilities, I have historical evidence, I have my own experiences that lead me to believe in God's existence. That is enough for me. You are trying to tell me what I need in order to believe. I'm telling you I don't need scientific evidence in order to believe. The evidence I have is more than enough for me. I suspect that no amount of evidence, scientific or otherwise, would be enough for you to believe in God.

What makes sense to you is not a reliable pathway to truth.

In your opinion.

Do you care about what is true? I personally do care about what is true, and I want as many, if not all, beliefs I hold to be true, and I don't personally consider using faith a reliable means to finding that out. JMHO.

I believe I do know the truth, and that I have very good reason to believe it is the truth. And my conclusions are based on more than just faith. Have a nice day.

[JamesM]

 

Bill Nye basically said evidence would change his mind

 

 

See that's why this debate is pointless, evolutionist have a logical mind that is open to suggestion and willing to admit when they are wrong because they seek answers and truth while creationist are blindly faithful close minded individuals.

 

I disagree. Bill Nye has the same evidence that Ken Ham has.

 

It is not the evidence that is the problem. The evidence is there for all of us to see. It is simply how we interpret it that makes the difference.

 

Both are as close minded to the other view.

 

The issue is that one starts with the worldview that there is a God who created the world. The other starts with the worldview that this all started by accident with no intelligence behind it.

[pureinheart]

Please, identify what is "petty" about my communication. Don't take offense where none was meant...wow.

 

What is especially irritating, pureinheart, is that you have highlighted many of maid of rohan's posts as being 'petty' but have completely ignored ones from truthbetold, like the one above.

 

Everything about that post is condescending (plus a few other choice words I could use), and that's why mor responded with that word.

 

I'll hold my hands up, many of my comments about religion are often, at least, tongue-in-cheek. But I find it hard that you don't see evidence of anything petty in tbt's, yet lots in mor's. And, if I were to be petty, I'd point out that such confirmation bias seems rife amongst most of those who believe in God on here.

 

Exchanges between opposing views can become "interesting" (check out political:laugh:) ) Hey people say stuff, I do it. I call it provocation or cause and effect and it doesn't take a series of posts in my case, sometimes it just takes one:o I just thought it was interesting after the series of comments that MOR used the term petty towards TBT caused me to realize that possibly MOR doesn't see his/her own posting style.

[pureinheart]

I remember in the Evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham there was a question for both debaters that was basically saying what would change your mind.

 

Bill Nye basically said evidence would change his mind

 

Ken Ham said nothing would change his mind

 

See that's why this debate is pointless, evolutionist have a logical mind that is open to suggestion and willing to admit when they are wrong because they seek answers and truth while creationist are blindly faithful close minded individuals.

 

I see this line of thinking with some evolutionists:

 

Evolutionists are-

 

logical

open to suggestion

truth seekers

humble

 

Creationists are-

 

blindly faithful

close minded …the exact opposite of the list of what evolutionists are

 

 

Funny, because most creationists I know don't think there is something wrong with the evolutionist, it's a difference of how we view (sometimes so-called facts) the evidence presented. They both take a certain amount of faith IMO.

[mickleb]

Exchanges between opposing views can become "interesting" (check out political:laugh:) ) Hey people say stuff, I do it. I call it provocation or cause and effect and it doesn't take a series of posts in my case, sometimes it just takes one:o I just thought it was interesting after the series of comments that MOR used the term petty towards TBT caused me to realize that possibly MOR doesn't see his/her own posting style.

 

Considering the post mor was responding to, I found the comment fair enough. Could you point out what you found petty about mor's posts?

[Koopa]

The Scientific method: Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?

 

The Creationist method: Here is the conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?

[JamesM]

The Scientific method: Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?

 

The Creationist method: Here is the conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?

 

Actually, that is what you would like to believe.

 

Here is reality....

The Scientific method: Here are the facts, what NATURAL conclusions can we draw from them?

The Creationist method: Here are the facts, what NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL conclusions can we draw from them?

 

Fact is...the scientific method already assumes that there is no creator or intelligence possible. It must exclude any supernatural explanations. That is how the worldview I described (no Intelligence behind everything) is used to interpret the evidence.

 

So, Mr. Nye looks at the same evidence but says there is no way that it occurred with any supernatural or intelligent help, because by definition, he is excluded from looking at any supernatural explanation. He then scorns Mr. Ham for being close-minded...because Mr Ham includes the probability of a Creator when he looks at the same evidence. Mr. Nye then has the audacity to say that he would believe in a supernatural being if there were evidence.

 

But how could he when his interpretations will always exclude a supernatural explanation? He can't. His hands are as tied as he says Mr. Ham's are.

[truthbetold]

I see this line of thinking with some evolutionists:

 

Evolutionists are-

 

logical

open to suggestion

truth seekers

humble

 

Creationists are-

 

blindly faithful

close minded …the exact opposite of the list of what evolutionists are

 

 

Funny, because most creationists I know don't think there is something wrong with the evolutionist, it's a difference of how we view (sometimes so-called facts) the evidence presented. They both take a certain amount of faith IMO.

 

I see that too! (I know it would be said of course we are in agreement!) I think that's interesting about the blind spot they have too. It does take just as much "faith" to believe what they do. Even in the face of massive dissent from highly educated biologists, they still insist a bias on our part and yet can't see theirs.

 

If anything, I see the creationist position so much clearer, especially with the math which is always true. It's the one constant and any good Scientist realizes this, it must be taken into consideration in this theory. And that doesn't add up, is just a valid point to the whole picture. The complexity of DNA, the fixity of chromosomes, the amount of mutations that would have had to take place within a fixed period of time, all defy math and logic.

 

Eh, the sides don't surprise me. It seems there are always sides or camps on forums, those that agree and those that don't, and allies are formed on either side.

 

I don't understand all the animosity though. If I just spoke my truth of my faith, I'm an airhead. If I back it up with scientific proof, I can't read a biology book, nor interpret their perception of facts. So you can't satisfy. It would have been nice to get a "well that was a reasoned response, but I don't agree" type thing, but I guess hoping for human kindness can't always be reached.

 

I do see because I wasn't really in the proper frame of mind to debate this today, I have a multitude of typos, which makes the affected sentences hard to follow. For that I profusely apologize to the English police that patrol the forums.

 

I wish all well on their quest for knowledge, never stop learning, it's one of our greatest gifts, no matter the "side" because the truth will set you free.

[Fugu]

Fact is...the scientific method already assumes that there is no creator or intelligence possible. It must exclude any supernatural explanations. That is how the worldview I described (no Intelligence behind everything) is used to interpret the evidence.

 

It observes phenomena and it assumes that there are no supernatural explanations for that phenomena because it is making a purely scientific claim - something that people can generally agree upon as 'fact'. Individuals still have the ability to make their own judgments about the origins of the laws that govern science, as long as it's done independent of the scientific context. A scientist can still believe in God and simultaneously make purely scientific observations and writing it up in scientific jargon for the purposes of publication. We can extend that to other facets of our reality as well. We're free to believe that God, not germs, is responsible for inflicting disease and proceed to drink out of a toilet bowl. George W. Bush was free to conclude that Osama Bin Laden was compelled by God to bring down the twin towers, and he could have been content to just let God decide our fate thereafter. In a world of secular consequences, however, that doesn't quite work out so well, you see. We need to live in the world in which we make observations that we can all universally agree upon as "fact", and then live (and die) with those facts accordingly.

 

The problem with Creationists is that, just like the anti-global warming brigade, they tend to cherry pick the science they want to believe in. Sorry, but science isn't a retail product sold at Wal-Mart. You either accept scientific method, or you don't.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Fugu

[pureinheart]

Considering the post mor was responding to, I found the comment fair enough. Could you point out what you found petty about mor's posts?

 

Actually I found MOR's comments to be very condescending, if you prefer I can re-quote and point out each condescending statement.

[mickleb]

Actually I found MOR's comments to be very condescending, if you prefer I can re-quote and point out each condescending statement.

 

Okay. So the word condescending gives more clarification than the word petty. But yes, if you could. I have re-read the three posts you quoted and don't see anything unacceptable.

[mickleb]

Actually, that is what you would like to believe.

 

Here is reality....

The Scientific method: Here are the facts, what NATURAL conclusions can we draw from them?

The Creationist method: Here are the facts, what NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL conclusions can we draw from them?

 

Fact is...the scientific method already assumes that there is no creator or intelligence possible. It must exclude any supernatural explanations. That is how the worldview I described (no Intelligence behind everything) is used to interpret the evidence.

 

So, Mr. Nye looks at the same evidence but says there is no way that it occurred with any supernatural or intelligent help, because by definition, he is excluded from looking at any supernatural explanation. He then scorns Mr. Ham for being close-minded...because Mr Ham includes the probability of a Creator when he looks at the same evidence. Mr. Nye then has the audacity to say that he would believe in a supernatural being if there were evidence.

 

But how could he when his interpretations will always exclude a supernatural explanation? He can't. His hands are as tied as he says Mr. Ham's are.

 

 

What facts do creationists draw their conclusions from? And please don't say 'testimony' as scientific evidence overrules testimony in a court of law, so that was just a silly argument further back in the thread.

 

If there were evidence of a 'supernatural being', it would no longer be supernatural. In the same way that electricity ceased to be, a few hundred years ago.

 

Therefore, it is fair to say a creationist is not open-minded, as they dismiss the evidence that disproves what the Bible says about how the world was formed, but it is not fair to level the same accusation at scientists, as they would accept what could be proved. Even if it were some guy or gal up in some heaven willing everything that happens on Earth into being.

[JamesM]

It observes phenomena and it assumes that there are no supernatural explanations for that phenomena because it is making a purely scientific claim - something that people can generally agree upon as 'fact'.

 

Very true. We agree on these points. However, as you know there are limitations with that sort of method. Eliminating all supernatural explanations means that what may be true is ignored and only natural explanations are accepted when they may be weak at best. Assuming there is no intelligence because such intelligence must be natural eliminates a very real answer.

 

And despite what may seem "purely scientific" judgment, biases always enter into interpretations including one's worldview. Since we are discussing origins and evolution much of what is in the past, interpretations must be made on the evidence since not much can be tested.

 

The problem with Creationists is that, just like the anti-global warming brigade, they tend to cherry pick the science they want to believe in.

 

Not really (and an example of an unfounded and snarky remark referred to ny pureheart above ). What Creationists have issues with are not the facts but the interpretation of the facts, or rather the theories that have been formulated to explain the facts.

 

And no, global warming hasn't been proven either, although I tend to believe the truth of it...although I think the reasons for it are not all human.

 

Sorry, but science isn't a retail product sold at Wal-Mart.

 

Actually, there are many products sold at Wal Mart that are science tools and kits used by budding scientists to learn more about science.

 

 

You either accept scientific method, or you don't.

 

Agree. I doubt you will find many scientists who do not accept it as a tool to be used when applicable. However, just because I accept something does not mean I can apply it to a situation where it is not applicable. And it is not that the SM does not have an accurate representation of the world, but it is how the scientists use it with their biases and personal preferences causing it to fail in certain situations. Since one of the main points of the SM is the performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters, we can see how this is not a good way to look at the past.

[JamesM]

What facts do creationists draw their conclusions from?

 

Rather what evidences do the creationist/intelligent design scientists, and other theist scientists use to draw conclusions? For the most part the same ones that the evolutionist and non theist scientists use.

 

And please don't say 'testimony' as scientific evidence overrules testimony in a court of law, so that was just a silly argument further back in the thread.

 

Okay. However, I won't limit your arguments if you don't try to define mine.

 

If there were evidence of a 'supernatural being', it would no longer be supernatural.

 

Depends on what you define as evidence or how you interpret the evidence before you. If you ignore the design all around you, then you ignore evidence. If this all happened as reactions to nature or by accident, then you ignore the marvels that defy that logic.

 

But a Supernatural Being would defy our limitations of natural logic and observations using a method that only includes or allows natural explanations. We agree on that. That does not rule such a Being out though.

 

Therefore, it is fair to say a creationist is not open-minded, as they dismiss the evidence that disproves what the Bible says about how the world was formed, but it is not fair to level the same accusation at scientists, as they would accept what could be proved.

 

No, that would not be a fair saying at all. Just as an evolutionary scientist will look at the evidence from the worldview: "How does this explain my theory?" so does a theist scientist look at the evidence fitting it into his more complete worldview that includes the belief of the supernatural behind the origins and design of the nature all around him.

 

Someone who believes that God created the world (but may not know how God created) is as open minded (or close minded) as someone who says everything happened naturally with no God.

 

A non-theist scientist will only accept what can be proved naturally, so he or she is actually more close minded. He or she eliminates the very real possibility of anything else. The theist scientists will include the strong belief that this all began by the hand of an Intelligent Designer. This belief does not explain how or with what processes (hence, a Christian CAN believe in evolution to a degree as used to "create" all around us) God did everything.

 

One group only includes natural processes and limits their conclusions. The other group includes the real possibility of supernatural intervention and broadens their range of possible conclusions.

 

Even if it were some guy or gal up in some heaven willing everything that happens on Earth into being.

 

And then this begs the question...WHY should some Being so intelligent as to be able to create the world...and us (by whatever method) bow down to the level of His creation and show His existence when he provided evidences that are being ignored? How dare we show such defiance when we ignore everything around us and pretend that we can explain His existence away?