How much longer?

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Darwinist evolution isn't well founded. It has a bazillion guesses and suppositions.

And creationism is to many, a bandade that theiests use to as a patch to quilt over the question of our origin. belief systems are just that and no one theory can be beaten into anyone that doesn't already believe.

 

[justlookinla]

And creationism is to many, a bandade that theiests use to as a patch to quilt over the question of our origin. belief systems are just that and no one theory can be beaten into anyone that doesn't already believe.

They're both faith-based belief systems.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I haven't said that one would have to believe in what I believe in. My question was concerning contrary views on one's existence

Don't play word games with me. Your intent is quite clear and has been from the start.

Some believe that, some don't. The question is about the views of those who don't.

Again, you set up a strawman and then ask them to defend against it. No on but you has coined the phrase, bag of chemicals.

Of course one doesn't have to enter into discussion concerning one's view of their existence. Since this is a forum concerning creation and evolution, the source and meaning of one's existence is an integral part of the discussion though.

One's veiw of one's existance does not have to start with your interpetation of that without god. As I've said.This was a loaded question and one that has been circulating through these forums for many a year. This "I demand that you prove to me you aren't this and that" arguement has never gotten anywhere beyond the ammusment of others and the frustration of the poster, since it places everybody other than you in the role of defensive.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

They're both faith-based belief systems.

Yes but one has the overwelming approval of the scientific comunity which is has much more evidence to point to then we.

All we have is our resolution that it happened this way and a long line of self appointed quote/unquote false profits that have been making specticales of themselves by predicting events on dates that have come and gone with nothing transpiring other than the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West.

My view of this is that If God wanted to prove himself to all, he would have done so already. If he has not and we believe in him, then we should honor that decision and continue on with our own lives as he gave us leave to do. This idea of arguing the point with those dead set against us seems pretty assumptive and pretty close to assuming that we know better than god to conduct his business.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're both faith-based belief systems.

Nope. The theory of evolution is evidence based. As are studies into abiogenesis. Sadly you do not understand what is and what is not evidence.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Nope. The theory of evolution is evidence based. As are studies into abiogenesis. Sadly you do not understand what is and what is not evidence.

Could you please explain this"abiogenesis" please. I'm not trying to set you up for anything. simply trying to understand where you are coming from. Thank you.

 

[mickiio]

*coughs* Back to the topic....is it tolerated now?

Abiogenesis is life coming from non-life. As opposed to the Law of Biogenesis which is observable and provable that kinds produce like kinds.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Yes but I have heard that people don't only believe it they act on it to the detriment of their children and their communities.

I definitely agree that it's detrimental to the development of critical reasoning skills and scientific literacy, and that Bible literalism can lead to other negative consequences, but I don't know what more can be lawfully done about it than what measures have already taken place. We have to enable free speech. It's banned in public schools not just in the United States but in many other countries. Most accredited private schools, including parochial ones, don't teach it, either. Leading homeschool textbook publishers have begun to make textbooks with factually correct information on evolution. Most Christians have long accepted evolution, and some even view YEC as bordering blasphemy. There will always be people who insist on handicapping their children with ignorance like the Holocaust being a hoax, the Earth being flat, baby dinosaurs being on Noah's Ark, so forth and so on, and that's very unfortunate. All you can really do is to try to persuade parents, and put the correct information and hope that intellectually curious teens will seek it out. I only know two people who were brought up believing in YEC and indoctrinated with the false belief that evolution is this malevolent force they should expend energy and time fighting. One of them promptly sought a proper education for herself the day she turned 18. She paid her own way to community college, took the remedial classes necessary to fill in the deficits from her homeschooling education and then transferred to UCLA. She's now getting her Masters in Nursing, is an even more devout Christian, but of course does not believe in YEC any longer.

I do think creationism is harmful but I don't think it's a widespread problem across the country. It's in certain pockets and demographics. I took an agnotology class about it and learned about how it's very much culturally-induced. Most of the adherents in it are old. I mean, most on here who believe in YEC are over the age of 60 and seem to have a heap of time on their hands so they just post here titling at the windmill about evolution. So I kinda think they're harmless.

Tolerated???

Biblical creationism is not taken seriously in most circles and especially those involving educated people. People are allowed to have their personal beliefs though, would you agree?

Yep. Out of curiosity I made a poll about this on my college's Yik Yak herd and private forum and in neither one did a single person believe in Young Earth Creationism or reject evolution. Several have actually never met anyone who believed in YEC, and some hadn't even known it wasn't an entirely obsolete dogma. It's not even something we have to bother with tolerating anymore than we have to worry about people using leeches to treat medical ailments.

Someone in his 70s here threw out a 1979 quote mine from a respected, long-retired 88-year-old Stanford professor to try to portray him as a scholar who objected to evolution, when in truth he is renowned for having believed in theistic evolution and trying to reconcile faith and science through his popular classes. The cool thing is that I showed the post to one of my profs who was here back in the 70s and 80s and he told us about the Religion & Science class Dr. Bube had taught and how he had specifically deconstructed the faulty reasoning issues of the Creationist stance, amongst other things. It was not a required course, though it was one many chose to take.

 

[keith99]

I definitely agree that it's detrimental to the development of critical reasoning skills and scientific literacy, and that Bible literalism can lead to other negative consequences, but I don't know what more can be lawfully done about it than what measures have already taken place. We have to enable free speech. It's banned in public schools not just in the United States but in many other countries. Most accredited private schools, including parochial ones, don't teach it, either. Leading homeschool textbook publishers have begun to make textbooks with factually correct information on evolution. Most Christians have long accepted evolution, and some even view YEC as bordering blasphemy. There will always be people who insist on handicapping their children with ignorance like the Holocaust being a hoax, the Earth being flat, baby dinosaurs being on Noah's Ark, so forth and so on, and that's very unfortunate. All you can really do is to try to persuade parents, and put the correct information and hope that intellectually curious teens will seek it out. I only know two people who were brought up believing in YEC and indoctrinated with the false belief that evolution is this malevolent force they should expend energy and time fighting. One of them promptly sought a proper education for herself the day she turned 18. She paid her own way to community college, took the remedial classes necessary to fill in the deficits from her homeschooling education and then transferred to UCLA. She's now getting her Masters in Nursing, is an even more devout Christian, but of course does not believe in YEC any longer.

I do think creationism is harmful but I don't think it's a widespread problem across the country. It's in certain pockets and demographics. I took an agnotology class about it and learned about how it's very much culturally-induced. Most of the adherents in it are old. I mean, most on here who believe in YEC are over the age of 60 and seem to have a heap of time on their hands so they just post here titling at the windmill about evolution. So I kinda think they're harmless.



Yep. Out of curiosity I made a poll about this on my college's Yik Yak herd and private forum and in neither one did a single person believe in Young Earth Creationism or reject evolution. Several have actually never met anyone who believed in YEC, and some hadn't even known it wasn't an entirely obsolete dogma. It's not even something we have to bother with tolerating anymore than we have to worry about people using leeches to treat medical ailments.

Someone in his 70s here threw out a 1979 quote mine from a respected, long-retired 88-year-old Stanford professor to try to portray him as a scholar who objected to evolution, when in truth he is renowned for having believed in theistic evolution and trying to reconcile faith and science through his popular classes. The cool thing is that I showed the post to one of my profs who was here back in the 70s and 80s and he told us about the Religion & Science class Dr. Bube had taught and how he had specifically deconstructed the faulty reasoning issues of the Creationist stance, amongst other things. It was not a required course, though it was one many chose to take.

Bolding mine.

Perhaps a bad choice since leeches are making a comeback for some specific issues, mainly clotting issues or to increase blood flow to a local area.

I checked and bleeding patients still happens for an even more select set of conditions.

Perhaps 'Balancing the Humors' would be a better choice. I don't think any respectable physician does that any more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

*coughs* Back to the topic....is it tolerated now?

Abiogenesis is life coming from non-life. As opposed to the Law of Biogenesis which is observable and provable that kinds produce like kinds.

Sorry, but your understanding of the "Law of Biogenesis" is flawed. It only states that for the current conditions that is true.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Oh c'mon you know perfectly well what I meant, and are enjoying being contrarian too much. Let's not make my eyes roll out of my head when I still have a mountain of reading to get back to tonight, m'k. (Saying this lightheartedly and not maliciously or snidely - take it in jest.)

Yeah, they're occasionally used in treating rare conditions, as are maggots , but not routinely or widely. Fine, I accept it wasn't the best choice but eh. I could have said that we don't have tolerate that many people who believe the Earth is flat here, either. There are some not affiliated with the university who legitimately believe that, but it's not exactly like it's a common problem we have to combat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could you please explain this"abiogenesis" please. I'm not trying to set you up for anything. simply trying to understand where you are coming from. Thank you.

Abiogenesis is life appearing from nonlife. Even creationists believe in an abiogenesis event, though they tend to deny it.

It is a related but different topic than evolution. Many of the questions of how abiogenesis occurred have been answered, but there are many more that still need to be answered. Here is a link to one of the lead researchers into this topic:

http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

 

[justlookinla]

Don't play word games with me. Your intent is quite clear and has been from the start.

Don't claim that I've said something that I haven't said and then ignore your false claim. Actually face your words, your accusations.

Again, you set up a strawman and then ask them to defend against it. No on but you has coined the phrase, bag of chemicals.

How are we more than a bag of chemicals is the question. Use whatever terminology one wishes to describe the human body.

One's veiw of one's existance does not have to start with your interpetation of that without god. As I've said.This was a loaded question and one that has been circulating through these forums for many a year. This "I demand that you prove to me you aren't this and that" arguement has never gotten anywhere beyond the ammusment of others and the frustration of the poster, since it places everybody other than you in the role of defensive.

One should not ask for the clarification of one's views?

 

[dad]

Abiogenesis is life appearing from nonlife. Even creationists believe in an abiogenesis event, though they tend to deny it.

False, creation was life coming from Life.

 

[Jimmy D]

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

Obviously we don't know all the answers although it shouldn't stop us looking and it doesn't make the TOE untrue. Does the fact that we don't know all the details of how one particular type of creature evolved over 2 million years ago negate the mountains of evidence we do have? If you read this article with an open mind you'll find tentative answers to your question and reasons why Trilobite ancestors are difficult to find.

It’s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

I think you've plagiarized your analogy wrong, do you really think anyone who found a watch on the beach would think it was produced in that way?

Another reference explains: “If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find ‘the’ missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another” (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well.

Well, every fossil is transitional, but to give you something specific to address, have you read the threads about Homo Naledi, why is that not transitional?

I often wonder why creationists try to attack the fossil record in order to prove evolution false, they're difficult to find for many reasons but so what? There's mountains of compelling evidence for the TOE beside the fossil record, we're not living in the 19th century any more.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Don't claim that I've said something that I haven't said and then ignore your false claim. Actually face your words, your accusations

I said intent, not words and ofcourse you will ignore someone who will not allow you to deal falsly with others here. You seem to represent God here and I might represent that same God. I will not sit idly by why you besmirch the name by acting falsely other others.

How are we more than a bag of chemicals is the question. Use whatever terminology one wishes to describe the human body.

You can change the words around all you want,. It's your intent that is in the wrong

One should not ask for the clarification of one's views?

Boy you are indeed a piece of work. You haven't asked for any clairification. You've created a strawman, as I have stated and then ask them why they are not that.

 

[DDan]

Maybe they believe they're more than a sack of chemicals?

Are you saying that just by 'believing' you are more than a sack of chemicals you stop being a sack of chemicals?
is it a bit like religious people 'believing' something is real and for them it becomes real?
Isn't that the very definition of 'Delusional'?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even creationists believe in an abiogenesis event, though they tend to deny it.

Where did the angels come from then?

In scientific philosophy, abiogenesis is a chemical process that kick-started life.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Where did the angels come from then?

In scientific philosophy, abiogenesis is a chemical process that kick-started life.

I don't believe that angels exist. Bring one to the forum and then we can discuss its origins.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe that angels exist.

Of course not.

If you did, you couldn't say this:

Even creationists believe in an abiogenesis event, though they tend to deny it.