Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Theist and Not the Discussion?

[Speedwell]

The next time you read through a published article on whatever branch of evolution you desire, take note of the "qualifiers" that are in every one of them. Words such as "possible, believe, think, supposedly, points to, seems to, etc"... there are dozens of these "qualifiers" that are found in these papers. The amount of conjecture and supposition disqualifies them from being taken as fact.

Of course. The authors are just being careful their writing, in a field which does not offer absolute certainty.

 

[xianghua]

Indeed. The real issue here is the shameless, systemic lying that the creationists are forced to use since the scientific evidence is devastating to the creationist view.

The obedient Christian is called to seek truth, not to bear false witness ro support a naive Literalist interpretation of Genesis.

the simillarity between chimp and human can be the reesult of a common designer rather than common descent. this is why cars are similar to each other.

 

[Speedwell]

the simillarity between chimp and human can be the reesult of a common designer rather than common descent. this is why cars are similar to each other.

It could be, so what? Do you have any other evidence that it is?

 

[Ophiolite]

The next time you read through a published article on whatever branch of evolution you desire, take note of the "qualifiers" that are in every one of them. Words such as "possible, believe, think, supposedly, points to, seems to, etc"... there are dozens of these "qualifiers" that are found in these papers. The amount of conjecture and supposition disqualifies them from being taken as fact.

As I noted earlier, it is clear that you do not understand the scientific method, nor, I now learn, the vocabulary of scientific reporting.

Research articles are at the cutting edge of science. They are at the boundary bewtween the known and the unknown. Failure to use such terms where appropriate would be irresponsible, unscientific and represent an abandonment of personal integrity. I note that you fail to mention the words and phrases indicating certainty and conviction that can be found in these same papers. In short, you seem unware of the following:

• All scientific conclusions are provisional.
• There is a gradation of confidence that may be placed in any scientific conclusion.
• Some conclusions are so well validated and lack any plausible alternative that they differ only from facts at a fine semantic level.
• At the other extreme are conclusions yet to be confirmed by other researchers and for which sound alternatives exist. These are the category to which the words that so concern you are applied.

I have been making the following point, increasingly on this forum. If I have already made it to you, I apologise for the repetition.

You have a belief that is fundamental to your being. That is fine. I am pleased for you. It is a belief, as I understand it (correct me if I have this wrong), that is based upon faith, a confidence in the inerrancy of the Bible and a surety that the Creation story in Genesis is to be taken literally. That is fine. I am pleased you have found a worldview that gives you meaning. I shall not, now, or in the forseaable future do anything that might shake your faith.

So, given that, why do you act as if you lacked confidence in that faith by making ignorant and foolish statements in an effort to deny the evidence of evolution established by science? Ignore the evidence, it's not important. You have your faith. That should be sufficient. And if you must try to deny the science, then please actually learn something about it and avoid looking like a fool.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

An evolutionist clutching at any straw they can in order to make their point? Nooo, they would NEVER do that.

But seriously, creating confusion is generally a part of proving something is true, when it is not, you know, something like evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

the simillarity between chimp and human can be the reesult of a common designer rather than common descent. this is why cars are similar to each other.

-_- cars are similar to each other, yet they have many designers. Bringing them up just shows a huge hole in your reasoning, which is the fact that you don't account for the fact that different designers can come up with extremely similar designs or straight up copy designs.

 

[Kenny'sID]

-_- cars are similar to each other, yet they have many designers. Bringing them up just shows a huge hole in your reasoning, which is the fact that you don't account for the fact that different designers can come up with extremely similar designs or straight up copy designs.

Yes, they all have a designer, just as any other thing in existence... so, thank you, Sarah.

 

[expos4ever]

Debating scientifically established fact (e.g. evolution) with people who abuse truth, buy into conspiracy theories, and run the gamut of errors in reasoning can be very frustrating.

But there is good news: as of 2017, a Gallup poll showed that support for YEC had reached a new low in the US - 38%.

Like many creatures who did not survive due to a lack of fitness for their environment, it appears, thankfully, that belief in YEC may be going the way of the dodo.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I notice that you did not capitalize the word GOD in what you wrote. Most Christians and Jews, and in Arabic, Muslims do. Was that an oversight, or general practice ?

I notice that of all the things written and points raised in that post, you chose to focus on a grammatical thing.

That's just rich.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can you explain how random chance created the DNA code from nothing?

No.

ps: evolution isn't random and it doesn't start with nothing either.

The complexity of just one cell of the living organism has no basis in a random evolutionary process.

I don't know about that.
I only know about a non-random evolutionary process.
And it explains complexity just fine.

Also: argument from incredulity.

It like stating that randomly hitting keys on my keyboard for millions of years will produce the coding necessary to run my computer.... absurd.

I don't like pointing out the silly "random" strawman. Not any more at least. It was funny the first 100 times. By now, it's getting kind of old and just a drag.

ps: maybe you should read up on natural selection.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The next time you read through a published article on whatever branch of evolution you desire, take note of the "qualifiers" that are in every one of them. Words such as "possible, believe, think, supposedly, points to, seems to, etc"... there are dozens of these "qualifiers" that are found in these papers. The amount of conjecture and supposition disqualifies them from being taken as fact.

It's called intellectual honesty and you'll find such qualifiers in every science paper.

You don't like science when it contradicts your fundamentalist religious beliefs - we get it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But there is good news: as of 2017, a Gallup poll showed that support for YEC had reached a new low in the US - 38%.

Gallup: 89% of Americans Say They Believe in God, Down From Past Decades

To make a long story short, that is down from 96% in 1944.

Point being, what happens when your Gallup poll makes it to the point 50 or 100yrs from now, and popular opinion is God doesn't exist at all? Does that mean he doesn't or that people just think that? Questions you should probably answer.

So, in reality, your "good news" is no news at all.

And what was it you were saying about abusing the truth?

 

[DogmaHunter]

the simillarity between chimp and human can be the reesult of a common designer rather than common descent. this is why cars are similar to each other.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The next time you read through a published article on whatever branch of evolution you desire, take note of the "qualifiers" that are in every one of them. Words such as "possible, believe, think, supposedly, points to, seems to, etc"... there are dozens of these "qualifiers" that are found in these papers. The amount of conjecture and supposition disqualifies them from being taken as fact.

Agree, and as has been mentioned, they are just being honest, and gee, I would hope so, but either way, that doesn't change the fact they are basically admitting they are dealing with a bunch of maybe's.

What your comment had to do with not liking Science is far beyond me...I saw no indication of that whatsoever in your post...none.

Anyway, very good point, that speaks loudly to those who choose to hear it..

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, they all have a designer, just as any other thing in existence... so, thank you, Sarah.

That wasn't the point. The point is that common traits in items doesn't mean that they share the same designer at all, even in objects like cars which we absolutely know are designed. You cannot claim that the similarities between organisms could be reasonably explained by them all having the same designer because similarities in items, whether they are designed or not, do not indicate that.

 

[pitabread]

I wonder why Aztec society taught that sacrificing humans and ripping their hears out was a good thing?

By the same token, there have been times in history people have used the Bible to justify horrible acts of violence...

Besides that, are you really trying to compare a biological theory in science with human sacrifice? If you think is a fair comparison either you are really comfortable with the latter or you flat out don't know anything about the former.

 

[pitabread]

The point is that common traits in items doesn't mean that they share the same designer at all, even in objects like cars which we absolutely know are designed. You cannot claim that the similarities between organisms could be reasonably explained by them all having the same designer because similarities in items, whether they are designed or not, do not indicate that.

Not only that, but even if commonality indicate a "common designer" (which it doesn't to begin with), then wouldn't differences indicate different designers?

The argument for monotheism definitely doesn't follow from biology.

 

[pitabread]

The next time you read through a published article on whatever branch of evolution you desire, take note of the "qualifiers" that are in every one of them. Words such as "possible, believe, think, supposedly, points to, seems to, etc"... there are dozens of these "qualifiers" that are found in these papers. The amount of conjecture and supposition disqualifies them from being taken as fact.

This is a silly charge and (ironically) contradicts the other creationist charge that science is rigidly dogmatic.

Science is ultimately about looking for the best understanding of the natural world possible. Consequently any "truth" in science is inherently provisional, which is why you always see such qualifiers in scientific literature. Scientists know that hypotheses, theories, etc, in science are not the rigid, dogmatic truths that you might get in, say, religion. There is always more to learn in the world of science.

But then you'll still get creationists arguing that science is rigidly dogmatic and equating things like the theory of evolution with religion. It's a bizarre contradictory view of science that makes no sense.

 

[pitabread]

So,the alleged precursor organism, which began the process, and it's origin, are irrelevent to the study of the process.

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, just not necessarily required.

For example, if someone wanted to study the evolutionary history of mammals, they wouldn't necessarily need to re-create the origin of life to do so.

I do think that as more is learned about the origin of life, we could one day see a merging of abiogenesis with contemporary evolutionary theory to form a singular "theory of life". But for now the respect areas of study are more discrete.

 

[Goonie]

Because they’ve already won the discussion, name callings all that’s left.