How many dozens of Christians did creationism drive away this past hour?

[Loudmouth]

It's amazing how some people revere scientists as bastions of all that is good. Let's face it. Some are merely liars for hire; searching for grant money by creating phony crises which they need to investigate; like global warming. What, no warming? Okay, climate change. Remember the pending ice age? How did we miss that one? Science is a field of study. It has been corrupted by the influence of agenda driven research dollars. Always believe half of what you see and little of what you hear.

This is one of the common ways that creationists deal with the evidence. They assume that all of it is just made up, and refuse to address it.

 

[bhsmte]

That could be a generational thing. As theistic evolution becomes more common so too do christian scientists.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps scientists do deconvert from religion at a higher rate. If that were the case, I think it would be kind of sad. Science shouldn't be a reason that people deconvert from their religious beliefs. They can coexist. However, creationism and science can't coexist.

There appears to be a correlation between older scientists and less belief. Is this directly from being exposed to more science over time? I can't say that, but the correlation does exist, as does the correlation between higher levels of education and less belief.

In the end, if someone completely leaves the faith, there are likely several reasons as to why and some of which, are probably unique to them.

 

[Davian]

It comes down to how each view of the world in our cases most reliably explain and remain cohesive in the explanation of the reality we find ourselves in. With any worldview we have to look objectively within it to determine if it overall fits with reality.

You are not looking objectively. You are appealing to personal religious experiences and perception. You have not provided objective evidence for gods or design.

One piece of evidence that I have that you don't is God Himself.

Your claims notwithstanding, you don't seem to have any evidence of God either, outside of your imagination.

Again, is actual design more cohesive with the reality we find ourselves in or do we have to put it off as an illusion? If there is something we recognize as appearing to be designed then we know what design looks like and the universe looks that way. Now this "appearance" is not due to a visual pattern or a pattern of any type it is the tested measured parameters of the universe.

If you do not have testable criteria, it is opinion. Are you not familiar with the burden of evidence?

We know that intelligent beings give rise to intelligent beings and that is testable and it can be shown false if we can show intelligence arising from non-intelligent matter. On earth we only see intelligence begetting intelligence. It is more cohesive for our intelligence and reason being a product of an intelligent being rather than a process that is mindless, undirected and without any goals. Evolution alone does not explain intelligence arising from non-intelligent material. It does not explain how consciousness arising from mindless materials.

Argument from ignorance. Science doesn't explain it, therefore [insert religious beliefs]. In all these years, this is as far as you have progressed?

If you are more comfortable with a non-cohesive view of the world that is fine.

Do not misrepresent my position.

Just understand that if you feel our intelligence and reason are products of a mindless process there is no reason to believe that reason is actual.

The burden of evidence is on you to provide evidence to the contrary - beyond your personal religious experiences and perception.

What it shows is millions of people share common experience within the Christian worldview which reflects the reality we see in our universe.

Yet not one of you can show that your experience is not imagined.

I find it more satisfying to know that when I use my intelligence and reason it is accurate and actual intelligence and reason I am using rather that chemical reactions firing in the only way they can.

How would you know? Introspection is a poor method of the exploring the reality of how the brain works.

There is strong substantiation for the fine tuning in the genetic code and the universe as a whole.

Opinion.

The fact that atheists and other such as you who share a view that the world is Godless must deny reason, intelligence, and design.

I do not view the world as godless. I do not view the world as Bigfootless. I do not view the world as pixieless. I do not view the world as ghostless. Do not misrepresent my position.

1. You must assume that my knowing God is my imagination, yet you have no way to make that claim and show it is factual.

No, I make tentative conclusions based on you inability to demonstrate that gods are anything other than characters in books.

The burden is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. Are you new to this?

2. You use your presupposition that God doesn't exist to claim He doesn't exist.

I do not claim that gods to not exist. Do not misrepresent my position.

If you view the world by evolution then you do.

How so?

Are you claiming that the Jewish people and the nation of Israel is not those generations coming from the Biblical Jews?

Nice dodge.

In the future they will accept Christian as their Messiah.

Or what?

We have the original Hebrew test.

You are dodging again.

1. Chr. 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
2. Ps. 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
3. Ps. 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
4. Ps. 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
5. Is. 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

That the constants are constant is not the issue. I don't perceive the design. After testing and measurements it has come to show that fine tuning of those parameters allow life to exist on earth. We recognize what design "looks" like in that each parameter a great number of them must be as they are for life to exist and it appears it was planned that way. It show planning, direction and purpose.

That it "appears" that way - your words - does not make it so. The burden is on you to substantiate your claim; you have not done so.

You are not asserting your opinion as truth?

No.

It is self evident. Except by you and others that like to claim it is an illusion.

i do not claim it is an illusion. The burden is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. You don't get this burden of evidence concept, do you?

We discuss these things with people like you who deny reality.

What, exactly, have I denied, that you are able to provide objective evidence for, in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

You have a rude awakening coming.

You have provided no reasons for concern.

There are many things in life that can't be shown conclusively.

I am not asking for gods/design to be shown conclusively. I am asking for objective evidence, in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, that might show that gods are not simply characters in books. Got anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

Some are merely liars for hire; searching for grant money by creating phony crises which they need to investigate; like global warming.

Not to mention Y2K.

 

[bhsmte]

You are not looking objectively. You are appealing to personal religious experiences and perception. You have not provided objective evidence for gods or design.


Your claims notwithstanding, you don't seem to have any evidence of God either, outside of your imagination.


If you do not have testable criteria, it is opinion. Are you not familiar with the burden of evidence?


Argument from ignorance. Science doesn't explain it, therefore [insert religious beliefs]. In all these years, this is as far as you have progressed?


Do not misrepresent my position.


The burden of evidence is on you to provide evidence to the contrary - beyond your personal religious experiences and perception.


Yet not one of you can show that your experience is not imagined.


How would you know? Introspection is a poor method of the exploring the reality of how the brain works.


Opinion.


I do not view the world as godless. I do not view the world as Bigfootless. I do not view the world as pixieless. I do not view the world as ghostless. Do not misrepresent my position.


No, I make tentative conclusions based on you inability to demonstrate that gods are anything other than characters in books.

The burden is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. Are you new to this?


I do not claim that gods to not exist. Do not misrepresent my position.


How so?


Nice dodge.


Or what?


You are dodging again.

1. Chr. 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
2. Ps. 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
3. Ps. 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
4. Ps. 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
5. Is. 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

That it "appears" that way - your words - does not make it so. The burden is on you to substantiate your claim; you have not done so.


No.


i do not claim it is an illusion. The burden is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. You don't get this burden of evidence concept, do you?


What, exactly, have I denied, that you are able to provide objective evidence for, in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?


You have provided no reasons for concern.


I am not asking for gods/design to be shown conclusively. I am asking for objective evidence, in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, that might show that gods are not simply characters in books. Got anything?

And all these points would go away, if one could simply state; I believe what I do on faith alone and don't have objective evidence to show you.

With some though, faith just isn't good enough for them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rider, if you don't mind me asking, did you used to post here under another name?

 

[LoricaLady]

I wonder how many scientists went into science being a believer in God and after a time, became a non believer?

I'd like a dollar for every scientist who lost his or her faith because of this culture's inundation with the pseudo science of evolution. I'd even like a dollar for every scientist in academia who is afraid to speak up, as are quoted in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a movie on Youtube. Most people are not going to rock the boat. They've got kids to support, bills to pay. But you go on defending your status as a modified "lesser ape" who sprang from the evidenceless and anti scientific primal pond if you wish. Who am I to burst your bubble? Who am I to try to get you to see that you are infinitely more than that?

 

[Willtor]

It's amazing how some people revere scientists as bastions of all that is good. Let's face it. Some are merely liars for hire; searching for grant money by creating phony crises which they need to investigate; like global warming. What, no warming? Okay, climate change. Remember the pending ice age? How did we miss that one? Science is a field of study. It has been corrupted by the influence of agenda driven research dollars. Always believe half of what you see and little of what you hear.

This totally mischaracterizes the mentality in science and why people go into science. Top scientists invariably _could_ have done something that made them a _lot_ more money. They choose not to.

These kinds of arguments may work in creationist circles, but it's also probably related to why people leave Christianity when they discover how specious all of the reasoning is about mercenary scientists. If you have a child who goes into science at a top school, he or she will quickly find out that what you've been telling him or her about scientists is totally bogus. What will happen then?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd like a dollar for every scientist who lost his or her faith because of this culture's inundation with the pseudo science of evolution.

What is this pseudo science that you are talking about?

I'd even like a dollar for every scientist in academia who is afraid to speak up, as are quoted in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a movie on Youtube. Most people are not going to rock the boat.

The producers of that show are not telling you the truth.

http://expelledexposed.drupalgardens.com/

 

[Willtor]

Not to mention Y2K.

This can only be said by someone without any connections to the techie community.

 

[bhsmte]

I'd like a dollar for every scientist who lost his or her faith because of this culture's inundation with the pseudo science of evolution. I'd even like a dollar for every scientist in academia who is afraid to speak up, as are quoted in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a movie on Youtube. Most people are not going to rock the boat. They've got kids to support, bills to pay. But you go on defending your status as a modified "lesser ape" who sprang from the evidenceless and anti scientific primal pond if you wish. Who am I to burst your bubble? Who am I to try to get you to see that you are infinitely more than that?

You mean the scientists that make names for themselves by making new evidenced discoveries, which can prove someone else to be wrong and get a Nobel prize and or have a theory named after them? Those scientists?

Rock the boat? Hilarious, absolutely hilarious!

 

[bhsmte]

This totally mischaracterizes the mentality in science and why people go into science. Top scientists invariably _could_ have done something that made them a _lot_ more money. They choose not to.

These kinds of arguments may work in creationist circles, but it's also probably related to why people leave Christianity when they discover how specious all of the reasoning is about mercenary scientists. If you have a child who goes into science at a top school, he or she will quickly find out that what you've been telling him or her about scientists is totally bogus. What will happen then?

What will happen then?

Highly likely, that child will be told they have been poisoned by the other scientists.

 

[LoricaLady]

I answered all of them in another thread. Here are those answers.

Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that.

The evidence is in the fundamental unity of life that simply doesn't have to be there other than for common ancestry. For example, we use the same tRNA anti-codons and the same metabolic pathways. If life did not share a common ancestor, then the tRNA's and metabolic pathways could have been very different. ATG codes for methionine in humans, but is there any reason why it couldn't code for alanine in bacteria? There is certainly nothing stopping that from happening, other than common ancestry.

LoricaLady stated, "I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it. Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc."

Just for reference, that is not evidence. That is an assertion.

Qs. # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evolution. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless varieties, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds.
That is what you should see if evolution is true. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. You are what your ancestors were, plus modifications. Humans are still apes, still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes. If we are to believe the argument being put forward by LoricaLady, then all eukaryotes, from pine trees to people, evolving from a single celled eukaryotic common ancestor isn't change simply because we can describe all of those species with one name: eukaryote.

This is what I call the creationist name game. They think that if they can use the same name to describe two different species that they can somehow claim that no change has happened. As we can all see, this just doesn't work.

Then we get even more empty assertions, like this one:

"In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention. To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc."

This claim is never supported by any evidence. Nowhere does LoricaLady support this assertion.

Qs #3 We are told mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. Virtually all are harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot?

This is a really easy one to answer. Why do you think humans are different from chimps? It is due to a difference in DNA sequence, is it not? We have plenty of evidence showing that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, such as the ERV evidence. When we compare our genomes to that of apes, we can directly see the mutations that have made all of these species different from each other.

Genetic equidistance is evidence that mutations accumulate.
"The genetic equidistance phenomenon was first noted in 1963 by Emanuel Margoliash, who wrote: "It appears that the number of residue differences between cytochrome C of any two species is mostly conditioned by the time elapsed since the lines of evolution leading to these two species originally diverged."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock

You can check the data yourself here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/homologene?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AlignmentScores&list_uids=133055

Also, nowhere is any data shown for the claim that a majority of mutations are harmful.

Qs, # 4 Pick any "transitional" fossil you like, Lucy, Australopithecus, whatever. Then answer these Qs with data, with evidence. How do you know it ever had a single descendant significantly different from itself in any way much less that it eventually changed from say Ambulocetus, a little animal with four legs and hooves, into a great whale?

It is the mixture of physical characteristics that evidences evolution. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see fossils with a mixture of human and basal ape features, and that we should not see fossils with a mixture of ape and dog features. It is these predictions that are tested with the fossil data. You seemed to have confused the terms transitional and ancestral. They are not the same thing.

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil


They were well respected in their fields because of the knowledge they displayed. The unfortunate part of your posts is that much of it is based on assertions instead of knowledge. For example, you claim that most mutations are harmful. This is asserted with no evidence to back it, and it flies in the face of the knowledge we do have in the field. Most mutations are neutral. Only about 10% of the human genome shows evidence of negative selection against harmful mutations. It also flies in the face of simple comparisons of genes between species. For example, human and yeast cytochrome C differs by 40% at the sequence level. If mutations are almost always harmful, how can you change a gene by 40% and not cause harm?

If you had said that most indels in coding regions of genes are harmful, I might agree with you.

You certainly did not answer my Qs.! I invite anyone to look over your "answers" at this link:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/evolution-or-creationism.7880556/page-8

I do hope you understand that an answer, in science, is not simply typing words. It also doesn't involve making statements that are based on inferences and theories that are then called "evidence." I do hope you understand that an answer actually gives data to support it.

I did not read over your entire post. I'm sorry I only have so much time to chase down disinfo bytes. But I will leave you with this, as one reason why I don't find you to be a credible source of information. It is an article from Discover Magazine, an evo. lovin' source. The title says it all: Most Mutations In the Human Genome Are Recent And Probably Harmful. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/ju...-human-genome-are-recent-and-probably-harmful

I wish you well but don't find it personally edifying or a good expenditure of time to keep posting to you. Right or wrong the impression I get is that you are going to look at and believe one side only.

I've prayed for you. Only the Holy Spirit can open the eyes of our understanding. Sometimes, especially, to the obvious.

 

[bhsmte]

You certainly did not answer my Qs.! I invite anyone to look over your "answers" at this link:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/evolution-or-creationism.7880556/page-8

I do hope you understand that an answer, in science, is not simply typing words. It also doesn't involve making statements that are based on inferences and theories that are then called "evidence." I do hope you understand that an answer actually gives data to support it.

I did not read over your entire post. I'm sorry I only have so much time to chase down disinfo bytes. But I will leave you with this, as one reason why I don't find you to be a credible source of information. It is an article from Discover Magazine, an evo. lovin' source. The title says it all: Most Mutations In the Human Genome Are Recent And Probably Harmful. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/ju...-human-genome-are-recent-and-probably-harmful

I wish you well but don't find it personally edifying or a good expenditure of time to keep posting to you. Right or wrong the impression I get is that you are going to look at and believe one side only.

I've prayed for you. Only the Holy Spirit can open the eyes of our understanding. Sometimes, especially, to the obvious.

What does this article have to say about whether evolution is happening or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

You certainly did not answer my Qs.!

I most certainly did. If you can, please respond to the material that I posted.

 

[Loudmouth]

The title says it all: Most Mutations In the Human Genome Are Recent And Probably Harmful. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/ju...-human-genome-are-recent-and-probably-harmful

The material says something different. They are only talking about gene variants. Mutations in genes only make up 2% of all mutations. The other 98% of mutations happen outside of genes.

 

[LoricaLady]

You mean the scientists that make names for themselves by making new evidenced discoveries, which can prove someone else to be wrong and get a Nobel prize and or have a theory named after them? Those scientists?

Rock the boat? Hilarious, absolutely hilarious!

I find it interesting that evolution fans all seem to feel that getting a Nobel Prize in science means you are conveying scientific truth every time. Of course it never occurs to them that the Nobel Prize committee might have any politically correct biases. How could that be? Surely they are all open minded saints, you know like the rest of the population

I gave a link earlier where Nobel Prize winning scientists, and other secular scientists, admitted evolution has no evidence.
That link even showed some evolutionists have admitted the theory has no evidence! Since it apparently didn't benefit you in anyway, thanks anyway for bringing up the topics as I will post it again and maybe someone else will benefit:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts

So pick the Nobel Prize winners you want, the ones who agree with your theory. I can think for myself. I can see the data. I know how science and logic work and that is no way how evolution works, even if every last Nobel Prize winner defended it. And just btw at one time every scientist, including Einstein, believed that the universe was eternal. Accepted, orthodoxy approved, politically correct "scientific" theories have been overturned often throughout history.

For ex. when doctors were asked to wash their hands, after working on cadavers, before helping women have babies, to say they were mad would be putting it lightly.

Evolution will never be fully overturned as a belief system in our society, though, because the "other side" means You ain't in control, you ain't the One Who makes the rules and you will be held accountable for how you lived your life. Have you considered the fact that if an Intelligent Designer exists, those who oppose that truth are opposing their Creator? How smart is that?

I guess I've done all I can to help you see the other side on this issue. You'll either "get it" or you won't. Up to you and....the Creator. Byeeee!

 

[bhsmte]

I find it interesting that evolution fans all seem to feel that getting a Nobel Prize means you are conveying scientific truth every time. Of course it never occurs to them that the Nobel Prize committee might have any politically correct biases. How could that be? Surely they are all open minded saints, you know like the rest of the population

I gave a link earlier where Nobel Prize winning scientists, and other secular scientists, admitted evolution has no evidence.
That link even showed some evolutionists have admitted the theory has no evidence! Since it apparently didn't benefit you in anyway, thanks anyway for bringing up the topics as I will post it again and maybe someone else will benefit:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts

So pick the Nobel Prize winners you want, the ones who agree with your theory. I can think for myself. I can see the data. I know how science and logic work and that is no way how evolution works, even if every last Nobel Prize winner defended it. And just btw at one time every scientist, including Einstein, believed that the universe was eternal. Accepted, orthodoxy approved, politically correct "scientific" theories have been overturned often throughout history.

For ex. when doctors were asked to wash their hands, after working on cadavers, before helping women have babies, to say they were mad would be putting it lightly.

Evolution will never be fully overturned as a belief system in our society, though, because it says You ain't in control, you ain't the One Who makes the rules and you will be held accountable for how you lived your life. Have you considered the fact that if an Intelligent Designer exists, those who oppose that truth are opposing the Creator? How smart is that?

I guess I've done all I can to help you see the other side on this issue. You'll either "get it" or you won't. Up to you and....the Creator. Byeeee!

You are highly entertaining.

 

[Loudmouth]

I find it interesting that evolution fans all seem to feel that getting a Nobel Prize means you are conveying scientific truth every time. Of course it never occurs to them that the Nobel Prize committee might have any politically correct biases. How could that be? Surely they are all open minded saints, you know like the rest of the population

I gave a link earlier where Nobel Prize winning scientists, and other secular scientists, admitted evolution has no evidence.
That link even showed some evolutionists have admitted the theory has no evidence! Since it apparently didn't benefit you in anyway, thanks anyway for bringing up the topics as I will post it again and maybe someone else will benefit:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts

We already know how creationists pull quotes out of context.

We also know that you have refused to address the evidence I have posted, especially when it came to the ERV evidence which still awaits you:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

You can't claim that evolution has no evidence when you refuse to address the evidence.

 

[KWCrazy]

Rider, if you don't mind me asking, did you used to post here under another name?

Yep, and they still haven't restored my account.
KWCrazy.
I was Nutrider99 for a long time before someone decided that it had a sexual connotation. The name actually dates back to the late 80's when the internet was all pay-per-hour. There was a chatroom called "Hecklers Online" that was all about making fun of the world around us. I ride a motorcycle, people called me a nut and "Knightrider" was popular, so... Nutrider was born. I moved to KY in 1997 and changed it to Nutrider99. When the mods here changed it to "Rider99" I went away and came back as KWCrazy.