Opinion on a creation v evolution summary

[Subduction Zone]

Creationists are just as enthusiastic about science as evolutionists.

Then why do all of the professional creationist sites require their workers to abandon the scientific method?

 

[Papias]

Thank you for the points you have made. However, there is mass deception in the evolutionary area as well (remember the peppered moths, for example).

You're welcome! : )

You are saying that the entire worldwide scientific community, including millions of scientists who are Christian, Hindu, Jewish, European, American, Chinese, with many different political and religious views, many being inventors and Nobel prize winners, and having access to libraries full of data, have been collectively hoodwinked, while you, young and sitting at home, have figured out the truth? Stating that view is only going to make you look delusional.

The peppered moths have been replicated many times. Your creationists liars didn't tell you that. Instead, they only told you about the flaws in the original experiment, and lied that the peppered moths aren't an example of selection. I know how angering it is to be lied to. You are too smart to keep buying their lies.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html

Actually, I think that creationists are strengthening Christianity, rather than weakening it, .....

The survey data clearly show that creationism is destroying Christianity. Everyone, and especially young people, are fleeing the church, and when asked why, Barna research showed that many of them specifically say it was due to creationism. Here is a discussion of those data.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-this-past-hour.7879732/page-49#post-67996310

... because if you start taking apart the Bible and saying that some parts can be trusted, while others cannot, how do you decide which is truth and which is not? In the following passage, note how scripture is described: "2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." [my emphasis added] If we cannot trust ALL scripture, then doesn't that indicate that God is being deceptive/economical with the truth?

Genesis has long been recognized as poetic. If you consider a non-literal interpretation of Genesis as "saying that some parts can't be trusted", then you must reject the idea that germs cause disease, since the Bibles describe diseases as caused by demons. It's been clear for over 300 years that a non-literal reading is both correct and helpful in many places in the Bibles, not just Genesis.

Again, to stick to a literal only reading is to relegate the Bibles to fantasy.

Most importantly, however - please take the time to investigate the bullet pointed items in my post. Otherwise further conversation here is not likely to be productive.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[RickG]

The fossil record – it doesn’t support evoluti on as there should be millions of transitional forms, rather than just a handful of highly-contested examples. Even Darwin admitted that the fossil record didn’t support his theory, but he assumed that in time, further discoveries would confirm his theory. It hasn’t.

That was quite a dissertation in your OP. Just a suggestion, each item you listed would make a good subject for discussion, but they need to be in their own thread for proper review. However, I have choose one of your claims for which I am qualified to comment on. I prefer not to comment in areas of which I have little or no understanding or expertise in.

The fossil record is laid throughout geologic strata as the theory of evolution would describe it only if evolution were to be true. If evolution were not true we would find fossils from all life co-mingled throughout the geologic strata, which is not the case. Although there are quite of few transitional fossils based on taxonomy, transition fossils are not necessary to show evolution. What I would ask you is, explain the fossil record without evolution. How did it get distributed throughout geologic strata as to suggest evolution without evolution? Why do we not find any rabbits in Devonian strata, or trilobites in Cretaceous strata, or dinosaurs in Cambrian strata, or rabbits in Triassic strata?

And welcome to the CF

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could not agree with Papias more. One does not need to deny reality to be a Christian. And creationism does not seem to be a worldwide belief of Christians. It may be a majority belief among Christians in the U.S., but I doubt if that is the case worldwide. I constantly see creationists claim that evolution being true would "make Jesus a liar". Strangely enough they cannot see that creationism being true would make God an even bigger liar.

 

[sfs]

In our lab, we just submitted two papers, both now accepted for publication, one on Lassa virus and the other on Ebola virus. Both had the word "evolution" in the title. I guess we're just confused.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I have a problem with people using sites that order their workers to abandon the scientific method in a scientific argument. And please note that they make an error almost immediately, they say that "evolutionists" claim that the first stars appeared sometime after the Big Bang. That would be wrong. Evolution is a biological science when the word is not used with any qualifiers. They mean cosmologists or astronomers. If they get something that simple wrong how good can the rest of their argument be. If you want detailed answers go as Essential Saltes here.

Actually there is. It is called "gravity".
I would recommend watching the second DVD by Spike Psarris for further explanations about the many problems with the naturalistic interpretation for the origin of the universe, including why gravity would not be a valid explanation for the formation of the first stars.[/quote]

I might do that. Bear in mind that these people are the laughing stock of the scientific world.



Wrong, just because you can't understand something is not evidence that is is a faith based belief. I don't understand how penicillin works. Does that men that if I have a bad infection I should not let a doctor treat it with some sort of antibiotic? My acceptance of his medicine is not faith based.



It sounds like a hoot, I probably will.



No, he did not state that. You are misunderstanding his words. And you there are so many fossils now that almost all fossils are considered to be "transitional". Yes, we do not have a movie picture. We have what amounts to a very very detailed family album. And you need to remember, creationists have no explanation of the fossil record that has not been thoroughly refuted.



You do not seem to realize that any arguments claiming that something had to create the universe are equally valid at pointing out that something had to create your God. All you are doing with a God idea is to push the problem further back. Most atheists do not believe in any gods because there is no reliable evidence for any gods.



Nope, that nonsense was debunked long before Darwin came along. I could help you with that.



But you have already shown that your sources are not valid. Sources that abandon the scientific method are not very good at refuting science.



I know, but it is a sad habit that most creationists get into. You may not have been the originator of the quote mine, you are just copying the work of another. The original person who did it did know that he was being dishonest. I would suggest that if you want to quote someone from the evolution side that you find the original source, not the creationist quote of that source, that way you won't fall into this trap.



Yes, but Jesus often used allegory, parables, and other teaching tools. His uses of Genesis were usually of a poetic nature. Never does he say that that story was real.[/QUOTE]

How do you know that sites are "order their workers to abandon the scientific method?" Also, I think they use the word "evolution" in the general sense (atheist works on subjects relating to the cosmos do exactly the same thing). The DVD by Spike Psarris actually alludes to this right at the beginning.

Just because anyone is "the laughing stock" doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. The crowds mocked Jesus, but if they had known whom they were mocking, their laughter would have stopped immediately.

The penicillin example is not comparing like with like. The effects of penicillin can be tested; theories about origins will always remain theories because it is not repeatable.

On Darwin, in Chapter 9 he says this, "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." Where are all these so-called intermediate forms (please name some so that I can check them out)?

On God - He doesn't need to be created as He is eternal. He created time/space/matter (which Einstein showed to be inter-dependant) so doesn't need a cause.

Noah's flood - I'd be interested to hear how this has been "debunked." I would need to research you answers as I'm not a flood expert.

Invalid sources - I don't agree. I haven't seen any hard evidence to convince me that the sources I have used are in any way invalid.

I would like to see some scientists of opposite beliefs debate the scientists who produced "Evolution's Achilles Heels" to see which ideas seem the most credible. It would make for fascinating viewing. Why doesn't someone try to set that up? It would be very helpful for the public to see this subject being brought out into the open, rather than separate camps sniping at each other as sadly, is often the case. No-one need get upset as I'm sure that everyone, whether creationist or evolutionist, just wants to get to the truth, wherever possible.

 

[The Cadet]

It's quite true, I'm not a scientist, but I would say that strength in numbers doesn't necessarily equate to truth. There are scientists on both sides of the argument who are much more clever than I could ever hope to be and this is the tragedy of it all in that the general public don't know who to believe.

To speak from a field I have learned quite a bit about, there is at least on noteworthy MD alive today who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS or that vaccines cause autism. There are geologists who believe the earth is expanding. There are historians who deny the holocaust. There are climatologists who deny anthropogenic climate change and global warming. There are architects who believe that the twin towers could not have been brought down by the planes. And there are biologists who deny evolution.

But here's the thing.

Do you know what all of these people have in common? They are a tiny, fringe minority. In many cases they have clear ulterior motives (for example Jonathan Wells, who went into biology after his cult told him to undermine evolution, or Willie Soon, whose work on climate change is buttressed by millions of dollars of undisclosed funds from the fossil fuel industry). They are almost universally rejected by their peers. Why do you think it's such a tiny, fringe minority in the first place? Because nothing they say makes any sense. Michael Behe's work on intelligent design is scientifically vapid, and he has been forced to admit as much in court. Jonathan Wells hasn't published anything noteworthy in peer review, instead posting on blog sites and the popular press. Do you know why? Because if he submitted the crap he posts on EN&V to peer review, he'd get laughed out by people who actually know what they're talking about.

In science, we look for consensus. Not 100% consensus - there will always be frauds out to make a quick buck who don't actually care about the evidence - but a strong, significant majority of the field. And evolution has that consensus, to a degree where pointing to the tiny handful of exceptions whose work has all been soundly trounced in the scientific and legal arenas is just downright silly. It's like pointing to Peter Duesburg and saying, "See, there's still doubt on the HIV-AIDS issue!" But there isn't. Just because Duesburg is a blinkered dogmatist who was unable or unwilling to abandon his pet theory does not denigrate the massive consensus among doctors, virologists, and other medical scientists that HIV causes AIDS. And just because Jonathan Wells is obliged by his religion never to accept evolution does not denigrate the massive consensus among virtually every branch of life sciences that evolution is a fact.

Perhaps the time has come for ALL scientists, whatever their beliefs, to come together and debate these issues.

What do you think has been going on for the last 150 years since Darwin published his book? The scientific community has been debating these issues basically nonstop, with each new discovery leading to a refinement of the model! Just like any other scientific issue (although if you tried to stage a debate between a geologist and a flat-earther, I think people would just laugh at you). And the challenges by the intelligent design community and various YECs have been constantly and consistently addressed. You think anything in your OP is new? That any objection heard there is something scientists studying evolution have heard before? Buddy, I hate to break it to you, but that whole screed? It's a slightly more sophisticated version of "Well if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys". Make a thread over any individual point on it and I'd be glad to look it over, but as a whole? There's too much to get into here all at once and would just make for a confusing mess.

This is an often-quoted fallacy, that belief in evolution is required to advance scientific discovery. It's nothing of the kind. Historical science has nothing to do with the science that made computers or put men on the moon.

Um... No. I mean, very explicitly, the theory of evolution and the knowledge we gained from that model help us today to find out things about HIV and fight diseases. I'm not talking about computers, or engineering. I mean what I say when I say that without the theory of evolution, many advances made in the fields of medicine would be completely impossible. C0nc0rdance outlines it both with HIV specifically in the video I mentioned earlier, and in this video series. There are very real advances in zoology, agriculture, medicine, and more that would not be possible without the theory of evolution. It is used as a functional, predictive model, just like any other scientific theory.

And, no, by the way, "historical science" is not some separate discipline. Making inferences about the past is not somehow less scientific simply because we have to piece together the evidence around us.

A single flood would have produced many layers of rock. I have seen experimental evidence to support this. Digging vertically down into a rock layers therefore does not represent real time, since the rock layers would not have been formed that way. Dating is often a circular argument (the fossils used to date the rock layers and vice versa), so it not really that useful.

Citation needed on that whole "single flood multiple layers" business. If you simulate the experience on a smaller scale and let it settle, you do not see multiple distinct layers. You see a sorting by pebble size, but not the sort of layering we find (this becomes particularly problematic in the case where fine sedimentary rocks are found below conglomerates filled with boulders).

But even if a single flood could cause this sort of distinct layering, why would we see the same in fossils? Why would the older, simpler, less-evolved fossils universally be closer to the bottom of the column, and more complex ones closer to the top?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I could not agree with Papias more. One does not need to deny reality to be a Christian. And creationism does not seem to be a worldwide belief of Christians. It may be a majority belief among Christians in the U.S., but I doubt if that is the case worldwide. I constantly see creationists claim that evolution being true would "make Jesus a liar". Strangely enough they cannot see that creationism being true would make God an even bigger liar.

[my emphasis] How so?

 

[AV1611VET]

I would recommend watching the second DVD by Spike Psarris for further explanations about the many problems with the naturalistic interpretation for the origin of the universe, including why gravity would not be a valid explanation for the formation of the first stars.

I've seen them both!

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know that sites are "order their workers to abandon the scientific method?" Also, I think they use the word "evolution" in the general sense (atheist works on subjects relating to the cosmos do exactly the same thing). The DVD by Spike Psarris actually alludes to this right at the beginning.

They have it as a requirement that anyone work there. They are quite upfront about it.

Just because anyone is "the laughing stock" doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. The crowds mocked Jesus, but if they had known whom they were mocking, their laughter would have stopped immediately.

It does if everyone can give examples of why they are wrong.

The penicillin example is not comparing like with like. The effects of penicillin can be tested; theories about origins will always remain theories because it is not repeatable.

You have no idea what a theory is. To be a scientific theory an idea must be testable, not once but many many times and it has to have passed those tests.

On Darwin, in Chapter 9 he says this, "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." Where are all these so-called intermediate forms (please name some so that I can check them out)?

And this is what is called a dishonest quote mine. He was not putting doubt on his theory. Keep reading and you will see that he explains why this is observed. Again, you should be linking the original source. Then when you can make such a mistake as you just did people will show it to you easily.

On God - He doesn't need to be created as He is eternal. He created time/space/matter (which Einstein showed to be inter-dependant) so doesn't need a cause.

Oh the Universe - It doesn't need to be created as it is eternal. It created the Big Bang which is our universe as we understand it. Do you see that the exact same explanation can be made for the universe as your are making for your God. The Big Difference is that we can see and experiment with our universe.

Noah's flood - I'd be interested to hear how this has been "debunked." I would need to research you answers as I'm not a flood expert.

Fine, when you stop gishing we can go over it.

Invalid sources - I don't agree. I haven't seen any hard evidence to convince me that the sources I have used are in any way invalid.

That is because as you have admitted you are terribly ignorant about science.

I would like to see some scientists of opposite beliefs debate the scientists who produced "Evolution's Achilles Heels" to see which ideas seem the most credible. It would make for fascinating viewing. Why doesn't someone try to set that up? It would be very helpful for the public to see this subject being brought out into the open, rather than separate camps sniping at each other as sadly, is often the case. No-one need get upset as I'm sure that everyone, whether creationist or evolutionist, just wants to get to the truth, wherever possible.

There is no "Achilles Heel" to evolution that creationists have found yet. If you have not noticed it is still extremely alive. And no, most creationists hate the truth. Why else would they continually site people that have been shown to be liars?

 

[Subduction Zone]

[my emphasis] How so?

There is no scientific evidence for creationism. Not one whit. And to understand this you must be able to understand what scientific evidence is. And this is the fault of creationists. The fact is when you begin to understand science is that it supports the standard scientific model and only that. There is a reason for this. When scientists find out that they are wrong they change their minds. Therefore the standard scientific model is always changing slightly, always improving slightly. Creationists have to assume and answer and try to force science to fit in.

That has not worked very well for them.

 

[The Cadet]

People laughed at Jesus. They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo The Clown.

 

[RickG]

People laughed at Jesus. They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo The Clown.

And they laugh at creation science in the same way they laugh at Bozo the clown because it is so easily shown to be intellectually dishonest.

"Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest."

Source: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty​

 

[Papias]

How so?

With apologies to SZ, I think SZ may have missed the point of NBC's question. NBC, you were asking how creationism makes God into a liar, right?

If so, then here's my answer-

There is a huge amount of evidence, from many different fields (includging genetics, anatomy, biochemistry, paleontology, oncology, pathology, geology, biology, and so many more) that give, independently, the same family tree of life on earth (common descent, or "evolution"). Notice that these many fields don't just simply show that species can evolve into new species, but in addition to that, they independently establish the same family tree. If any of them were not reliable, then they wouldn't give the same answer, right?

The upshot is that God is the creator of our world, so for all of God's creation to give show the same history, again and again, then either that history (evolution) is true, or God is a liar.

This is summed up in Rick's .sig, above, which is: "It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here... I cannot... believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind." --Charles Kingsley

Charles Kingsley was a prominent Protestant minister, and wrote this around 150 years ago, before we even had all the confirmation from many of the fields listed above (such as genetics). This is one reason why, from a purely theological standpoint, creationism is so harmful.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[Not_By_Chance]

"Charles Kingsley was a prominent Protestant minister, and wrote this around 150 years ago, before we even had all the confirmation from many of the fields listed above (such as genetics). This is one reason why, from a purely theological standpoint, creationism is so harmful.

In Jesus' name-

Papias"

But we've learn't a lot since then and the more knowledge we have, the more it confirms the impossibility of evolution. It's interesting but despite all the hype, a very significant proportion of the population in the UK apparently do not believe in the theory of evolution and of course, the proportion is much greater in the USA.

 

[Loudmouth]

But we've learn't a lot since then and the more knowledge we have, the more it confirms the impossibility of evolution.

This is more empty rhetoric backed by zero science.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

"There is no "Achilles Heel" to evolution that creationists have found yet. If you have not noticed it is still extremely alive. And no, most creationists hate the truth."

Just watch the film - there are apparently plenty. Or are these people all liars as has been suggested? Why would they lie? What could possibly be their motive? Why would Ken Ham build a creation museum and now a life-size Ark if he wasn't convinced of the truth of scripture? He's been to my local church in the UK and I found him to be very sincere. In addition, all the creation scientists and presenters I have watched seem very genuine to me in their passion for truth. I have no trouble in accepting what they say. Given that we only have a choice to believe in God's word or man's ideas, I prefer to stay with God.

OK, I've said my piece - off now to watch a whole load more creation videos (just found the excellent site by Mike Riddle, who is a great speaker and has produced some wonderful DVDs on the creation/evolution debate, including "4 Power Questions to ask an Evolutionist," highly recommended).

 

[Loudmouth]

Just watch the film - there are apparently plenty.

Some friendly advice . . . we much prefer to discuss evidence rather than suggest which films to watch. If there is evidence, then please present it.

Or are these people all liars as has been suggested? Why would they lie? What could possibly be their motive? Why would Ken Ham build a creation museum and now a life-size Ark if he wasn't convinced of the truth of scripture?

You just answered your own question. Tricking creationists out of their money is good business.

 

[The Cadet]

But we've learn't a lot since then and the more knowledge we have, the more it confirms the impossibility of evolution.

And yet there's still that massive interdisciplinary consensus. What's going on there?