Science, CSI and the Evolution/Creationism Debate

[sbvera13]

As long as there is a God and as long as there is still a bible, even avter the stones has started singing, I will not accept the loss.

in short. NEVA

So you're admitting that you will not and cannot change your mind?

That is the very definition of close minded, a label I'm sure you'd love to apply to us.

 

[sbvera13]

Indeed!

You point out a glaring inconsistency that will, no doubt, be tap danced around.



That said, I truly believe that deep down inside, they know they're wrong and are fighting against their own logic and reason in the process. I know that if they are honest with themselves, (and I assume most have the capacity for self evaluation, learning and maturing), they will agree that they are allowing their faith and beliefs to trump logic and reason.

Some admit it. AV in particular states regularly that he doesn't care what the evidence shows, he will follow his faith. What they don't understand is why that is a bad thing. When we bring up examples to educated them (such as the OP) they merely sidetrack instead of addressing the point. This thread so far is a perfect example.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

There are at least three frauds in science.Scientists can and do record observations which never took place, they ignore those observations which dont fit the average, and "cooking" where only the data which fits the hypothesis is used and the rest is ignored. Just take a look at the countless finds in the past and the quick conclusions ToE believers come to only later its found to be far from the truth. Just like anything else they might find. For as is the case every time, its not what is found but whats done with whats found.
Now that you are all a little angry because your faith is slightly threatened here, let me tell you your response before you write it.
OK Tommy, tell us what particular observations we claim never took place. And what pray tell are the observations we ignore. Please elaborate Tommy. We have tiktaalik, and ERV. Every fossils is a transitional. We have a bird fossil thats was changing form a lizard that walked and was sproating wings and learning to fly. We have tested ALL this in the science lab, that makes it empirical. Evolution is a fact not a theory. Your a monkeys uncle no matter what you think. You use to be a fish. Not sure what you were between a fish and a monkey? But we will find the fossils.We have a tree made by unbiased, unassumed, unindoctrinated believers in ToE. Its there, check out a biology book if you dont believe us.
I think in one of the first posts I ever put up in these forms I stated "I have heard it all" like it states in Ecclesiastes 1:9 "there is nothing new under the sun."

 

[Thomas Anderson]

There are at least three frauds in science.Scientists can and do record observations which never took place, they ignore those observations which dont fit the average, and "cooking" where only the data which fits the hypothesis is used and the rest is ignored. Just take a look at the countless finds in the past and the quick conclusions ToE believers come to only later its found to be far from the truth. Just like anything else they might find. For as is the case every time, its not what is found but whats done with whats found.
Now that you are all a little angry because your faith is slightly threatened here, let me tell you your response before you write it.
OK Tommy, tell us what particular observations we claim never took place. And what pray tell are the observations we ignore. Please elaborate Tommy. We have tiktaalik, and ERV. Every fossils is a transitional. We have a bird fossil thats was changing form a lizard that walked and was sproating wings and learning to fly. We have tested ALL this in the science lab, that makes it empirical. Evolution is a fact not a theory. Your a monkeys uncle no matter what you think. You use to be a fish. Not sure what you were between a fish and a monkey? But we will find the fossils.We have a tree made by unbiased, unassumed, unindoctrinated believers in ToE. Its there, check out a biology book if you dont believe us.
I think in one of the first posts I ever put up in these forms I stated "I have heard it all" like it states in Ecclesiastes 1:9 "there is nothing new under the sun."

 

[Morcova]

And for the past three years here, I've begged science to use their tools to find evidence for the Creation and the Flood.

When I was five I begged science to find me a invisible pink unicorn.

But then I grew up.

 

[Cabal]

He's even told you where NOT to look, and how to find what you're looking for!

Get to it CSI --- most of your work has been done for you --- what's the problem?

Christian scientists did that in the 18th century, then they realised that the people telling them what they should find were using a "literalist" reading that didn't match reality. Thankfully, they had the intellectual honesty to accept what the evidence showed. The Church will catch up one day.

 

[Cabal]

As long as there is a God and as long as there is still a bible, even avter the stones has started singing, I will not accept the loss.

in short. NEVA

OK. Then why am I even trying. If people are blindy looking in the wrong direction, I cant blame them. My prairs will be with them, that is then the best I can do.

Irony!

Do you think it's really going to matter to these guys if they find the Ark or not?

It could even have NOAH WAS HERE written inside, and it would mean nothing.

And Dream3, I wouldn't necessarily listen to someone who has an irrationally pathological dislike for scientists (even those who are brothers in Christ) sway you that easily. People are perfectly willing to listen - there's just a certain inanity threshold you have to overcome first.

 

[sbvera13]

...let me tell you your response before you write it.
OK Tommy, tell us what particular observations we claim never took place. And what pray tell are the observations we ignore. Please elaborate Tommy.

I notice you didn't (elaborate, that is).

 

[Cabal]

There are at least three frauds in science.Scientists can and do record observations which never took place, they ignore those observations which dont fit the average, and "cooking" where only the data which fits the hypothesis is used and the rest is ignored.

Evidence please. Every example supporting evolution you have been given, you have blown off without putting forward any evidence for doing so. Why should we believe anything you have to say?

Just take a look at the countless finds in the past and the quick conclusions ToE believers come to only later its found to be far from the truth. Just like anything else they might find. For as is the case every time, its not what is found but whats done with whats found.

There have not been "countless" frauds in the past. And most of them have been debunked by other scientists.

Now that you are all a little angry because your faith is slightly threatened here, let me tell you your response before you write it.

This'll be good....

OK Tommy, tell us what particular observations we claim never took place. And what pray tell are the observations we ignore. Please elaborate Tommy.

Don't forget evidence! Evidence is good, otherwise this is just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And btw, I'm personally angry because you made a general statement that all scientists were liars (I am one, so I took this as being directed somewhat in my direction), and didn't raise a single point of evidence to back up that claim. You should be ashamed of yourself.

We have tiktaalik, and ERV.

Yes, we do. What evidence does creationism have? Post it. And while you're at it, post evidence why tiktaalik and ERV are wrong or don't support evolution.

Every fossils is a transitional. We have a bird fossil thats was changing form a lizard that walked and was sproating wings and learning to fly.

Yup, every fossil is a transitional - and we have plenty of fossil evidence. Where's your evidence?

We have tested ALL this in the science lab, that makes it empirical.

Well done, you've learned what empirical means. Do you have some empirical evidence to back up your claims yet?

Evolution is a fact not a theory.

It is a scientific theory, based on facts.

Your a monkeys uncle no matter what you think. You use to be a fish. Not sure what you were between a fish and a monkey? But we will find the fossils.We have a tree made by unbiased, unassumed, unindoctrinated believers in ToE. Its there, check out a biology book if you dont believe us.

I think in one of the first posts I ever put up in these forms I stated "I have heard it all" like it states in Ecclesiastes 1:9 "there is nothing new under the sun."

No, you have heard people correct your statements and are now attempting a pathetic parody in place of actual argument, and providing evidence for your claims. And you expect people to believe you? This kind of behaviour from fellow Christians is embarrassing, frankly.

 

[anagnostic]

...you have heard people correct your statements and are now attempting a pathetic parody in place of actual argument, and providing evidence for your claims. And you expect people to believe you? This kind of behaviour from fellow Christians is embarrassing, frankly.

I came here looking for some intellectual stimulation, and an opportunity to have some lively debate.

I am amazed that you bother to argue with people who are so uninformed about science and generally incapable of intelligent discussion.

Some of the Creationists posting here sound like they are about 15, and not top of the grade either.

Someone above claimed that people once thought the world was flat, because of 'philosophers'. Did he actually bother to find out if this is true? In fact, this was never a commonly held belief among educated people in the 'Modern Era' (at least there is no historical evidence for it).

Ironically, some texts in the Bible hint that a flat earth was accepted in the Bronze Age,

[SIZE=-1]"I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth." (Daniel 4: 7-8[/SIZE][SIZE=-1])[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
I can't post links yet, but you can search for [/SIZE]'The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers' and[SIZE=-1] 'The Myth of the Flat Earth'.
[/SIZE]

​

 

[uke2se]

It is a scientific theory, based on facts.

Sorry to correct you, but evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the theory that explains why and how evolution happens.

Evolution itself is an observable fact, just like gravity is an observable fact, or the computer I'm typing this on is an observable fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

I came here looking for some intellectual stimulation, and an opportunity to have some lively debate.

I am amazed that you bother to argue with people who are so uninformed about science and generally incapable of intelligent discussion.

Some of the Creationists posting here sound like they are about 15, and not top of the grade either.

Someone above claimed that people once thought the world was flat, because of 'philosophers'. Did he actually bother to find out if this is true? In fact, this was never a commonly held belief among educated people in the 'Modern Era' (at least there is no historical evidence for it).

Ironically, some texts in the Bible hint that a flat earth was accepted in the Bronze Age,

[SIZE=-1]"I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth." (Daniel 4: 7-8[/SIZE][SIZE=-1])[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
I can't post links yet, but you can search for [/SIZE]'The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers' and[SIZE=-1] 'The Myth of the Flat Earth'.
[/SIZE]

​

Anagnostic, please tell me you didn't mean this.

10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Are you guys so desperate to show the Bible in a poor light that you'll find a passage in It detailing someone's DREAM, and use that to say it was taught as science?

If you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, and used the Bible as your standard, we'd all be in trouble.

 

[Cabal]

Sorry to correct you, but evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the theory that explains why and how evolution happens.

Evolution itself is an observable fact, just like gravity is an observable fact, or the computer I'm typing this on is an observable fact.

My statement didn't imply otherwise. I certainly wasn't meaning theory=guess, hence my insertion of the word scientific.

 

[Cabal]

I came here looking for some intellectual stimulation, and an opportunity to have some lively debate.

I am amazed that you bother to argue with people who are so uninformed about science and generally incapable of intelligent discussion.

I don't really expect to convince anyone to abandon creationism, but I'm tired of being treated like a second-class believer because I use my head, and because I happen also to be a scientist, so statements like Thomas Anderson's really rub me up the wrong way.

This is why I tend to spend most of my time on this board taking on the Christians, largely because they're usually (a) creationist, which is bad enough in itself, but (b) they also seem to have convinced themselves that belief in one particular creation mechanism is practically as important as salvation - or at least that's how it comes across.

 

[uke2se]

My statement didn't imply otherwise. I certainly wasn't meaning theory=guess, hence my insertion of the word scientific.

You are correct, you statement didn't imply otherwise. However, in light of the number of misunderstandings and misrepresentations (accidental or otherwise) I've seen from some of the creationists on these boards, I felt it wise to point out the difference once again.

 

[Cabal]

You are correct, you statement didn't imply otherwise. However, in light of the number of misunderstandings and misrepresentations (accidental or otherwise) I've seen from some of the creationists on these boards, I felt it wise to point out the difference once again.

No worries. It's certainly been observed happening.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are correct, you statement didn't imply otherwise. However, in light of the number of misunderstandings and misrepresentations (accidental or otherwise) I've seen from some of the creationists on these boards, I felt it wise to point out the difference once again.

Even I believe in evolution --- to a point.

Limited Evolution or Microevolution or Adaptation, I suppose you could call it.

But when it comes to macroevolution, I draw the line.

I'm not a Homo sapien --- I have a sin nature.

And when I see someone sin against God by breaking one of the 10 Commandments, that to me is proof that macroevolution doesn't exist.

 

[uke2se]

Even I believe in evolution --- to a point.

Limited Evolution or Microevolution or Adaptation, I suppose you could call it.

But when it comes to macroevolution, I draw the line.

Ok, I've seen many creationists say this, and it's one of the stupidest arguments I've heard. You're essentially saying that you believe in evolution but you don't believe in evolution. Macro/micro it's the same thing.

What creationists mean with micro evolution is variations through mutations within a spieces. They have never been able to explain why said mutations abruplty stops when it would lead to what we call speciation, meaning that the mutations have gone on for so long, without the populations intermixing, that one population is too different from another population to breed fertile offspring.

Dividing the same process up into two parts is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. If you accept the processes that lead to what you call "micro" evolution, then you accept evolution, and there's no need for this debate. This semantic jumble has only occured because creationists are finding it ever harder to deny the reality of evolution. It's sickening.

I'm not a Homo sapien --- I have a sin nature.

Yes you are and no you don't. You may think you do, but that's probably a mild case of paranoia. You should see a pshychiatrist about it.

And when I see someone sin against God by breaking one of the 10 Commandments, that to me is proof that macroevolution doesn't exist.

How you come to this conclusion I will never understand. Breaking the ninth commandment is something creationists do every day. It's the very basis of their argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, I've seen many creationists say this, and it's one of the stupidest arguments I've heard. You're essentially saying that you believe in evolution but you don't believe in evolution. Macro/micro it's the same thing.

To a 30-year-old like you, it would be --- to a 55-year-old like me, it would not.

I grew up learning --- i.e. learning --- the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

And you'd better know the difference too, as it would be on a test.

The difference was simply this:

• micro = species to species
• macro = genus to genus

What creationists mean with micro evolution is variations through mutations within a spieces. They have never been able to explain why said mutations abruplty stops when it would lead to what we call speciation, meaning that the mutations have gone on for so long, without the populations intermixing, that one population is too different from another population to breed fertile offspring.

Oh, really?

I've never done that?

Wanna check my posting history to see if that's true?

Dividing the same process up into two parts is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

Keep that up --- I love it when people come on here and say that.

It shows what you think of science's heritage.

If you accept the processes that lead to what you call "micro" evolution, then you accept evolution, and there's no need for this debate. This semantic jumble has only occured because creationists are finding it ever harder to deny the reality of evolution. It's sickening.

No --- the distinction between the two prefixes was dropped when creationists consistently pwned evolutionists in debates by simply asking evolutionists to show evidence of genus-to-genus change.

They couldn't do it, so they quietly dropped the distinction and plutoed the prefixes.

You may think you do, but that's probably a mild case of paranoia. You should see a pshychiatrist about it.

I'm already sure what a psychiatrist would tell me.

I've asked three times here what a psychiatrist is trained to diagnose a person who sees Christian symbols in a Rorschach Test, and haven't gotten an answer.

How you come to this conclusion I will never understand. Breaking the ninth commandment is something creationists do every day. It's the very basis of their argument.

An ape swipes the banana out of another ape's hand --- a human swipes a banana out of another human's hand --- any difference?

 

[anagnostic]

Anagnostic, please tell me you didn't mean this.Are you guys so desperate to show the Bible in a poor light that you'll find a passage in It detailing someone's DREAM, and use that to say it was taught as science?

If you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, and used the Bible as your standard, we'd all be in trouble.

A little bit of paranoia here - it's called debate, and is best done with reason, not emotion.

(I notice your posts constantly sprinkled with a sneering tone towards 'evolutionists' - not something to draw respect from others. If you want to debate in a respectful way, that's fine. Otherwise, I would suggest avoiding posting).

Of course it wasn't 'taught as science', and I am not trying 'show the Bible in a poor light' - simply to juxtapose the quote with the earlier reference to 'philosophers' teaching a flat earth to the masses. The image portrayed by writer is of a flat earth. I don't expect a man living in the desert in the Bronze Age to necessarily know that the earth is spherical.

A quote from wikipedia:

Eratosthenes (276 BCE - 194 BCE) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BCE. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to ten percent.

Eratosthenes didn't 'believe' the earth was flat or spherical - he went and found out for himself.

(You can follow up on whether the Biblical scholars thought the earth was a sphere by searching this: Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth?)