Don't like the implications?

[Speedwell]

At least a creationist talked about science.

YOU (assume not a scientist), do not talk about science. You just believe in science.

Who is more religious?

That is highly offensive to laymen who have actually put in a lot of effort studying the subject. Your assertion that a non-scientist can know nothing about the theory of evolution and has to take it on "faith" is nothing but an attempt on your part to be insulting.

 

[Papias]

You insist that evolution is true, even you are not a biological scientist.

What makes you qualified to do that?

Because evolution is the consensus view of practically all scientists. You don't have to be an expert to accept settled reality.

You, Juvi, know this, agree with it, and act on it. You accept that electrons are real, that viruses cause disease, that gravity keeps the planets in orbit, that blood carried oxygen, that atoms are real, and so much more, even though you are not a physicist, a pathologist, an astronomer, a medical doctor, nor a chemist.

Nobody - not you, tailgate, Vir, nor anyone else - has to be an expert to accept the consensus of the experts, and you know it.

How are you different from a creationist who is not a scientist?

The difference is that the creationist, with no basis other than his chose misinterpretation of scripture, rejects the consensus of the experts. That's the same as the HIV denier, the holocaust denier, the gravity denier, the germ-theory denier, the flat-earther, or anyone else who rejects the consensus of the experts.

That's why creationists don't have a leg to stand on. - Even when they cite PRATTs.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

You have no idea who I am, if I am a scientist or not.

Evolution is a scientific theory that is confirmed by the facts.

You dont "belive" in science, you accept it, study it. Belief is for metaphysics.

You accept something you do not understand. That is what a belief is.

 

[juvenissun]

That is highly offensive to laymen who have actually put in a lot of effort studying the subject. Your assertion that a non-scientist can know nothing about the theory of evolution and has to take it on "faith" is nothing but an attempt on your part to be insulting.

I would call that person a scientist.

 

[juvenissun]

Because evolution is the consensus view of practically all scientists. You don't have to be an expert to accept settled reality.

They do that for their living. ALL of them do not really know that evolution is a fact.

 

[Speedwell]

I would call that person a scientist.

LOL! By your definition most of the people here who you are accusing of "taking it on faith" are scientists. In the real world, a scientist is someone who is pursuing research in a field for which he has a PhD degree. The rest of us are laymen.

 

[Papias]

They do that for their living. ALL of them do not really know that evolution is a fact.

Sure they do - as much as physicists know electrons are real, or pathologists known that viruses cause disease, that astronomers know that gravity keeps the planets in orbit, medical doctors know that blood carries oxygen, or chemists know that atoms are real, and so on.

Why do you accept the others and deny evolution - other than somehow imagining that your own personal interpretation of Genesis is a better guide to reality than the experts?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At least a creationist talked about science.

No, they don't. They talk about a religion and just throw in a bunch of sciency-sounding buzzwords (while oftenly not even using them correctly).

Creationism, as in YECs and stuff, is fundamentalist religion and nothing more or less.

YOU (assume not a scientist), do not talk about science. You just believe in science.

No. I understand science. There's a difference between "believing in" and observing/understanding its continued reliability in producing effective results.

Science doesn't require "faith". It has evidence, instead.

Who is more religious?

Obviously, the fundamentalist. The YEC, in this case.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would call that person a scientist.

A scientist is someone who actual does science. Doing research, performing experiments, publishing papers.

Having a Phd or reading a biology book does not make one a scientist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They do that for their living. ALL of them do not really know that evolution is a fact.

Your entire point here, seems to be nothing but a rehash of "it's just a theory!". The underlying fault is the exact same. You're implying that these ideas are just being dreamed up by a bunch of guys at the bar or something similar. It completely ignores the rigorous nature of the scientific process.

Evolutionary biology has been a standard thing for more then a century. Everything that's been accomplished since then could have potentially falsified it. Instead it just got more robust, more solid,... The discovery of DNA literally exposed how these processes actually went down at the molecular level. The level of detail by wich these processes are understood is insane.

It's quite literally a body of knowledge wich is the result of thousands of people working for more then 150 years.

I mean, seriously, look at this:

For you to come on here, thinking you can throw such a body of knowledge and hard work under the bus with some one-liners, is mindblowing to me.

You ask why I accept it? Because I see the results of their work. Because I understand how the scientific process works.

It's the same process that produced the knowledge required for us to even be able to have this out-of-this-world conversation.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you accept the others and deny evolution - other than somehow imagining that your own personal interpretation of Genesis is a better guide to reality than the experts?

Because others are not related to Christian faith. Evolution does.
I know Genesis better than any of so-called scientist.

 

[juvenissun]

For you to come on here, thinking you can throw such a body of knowledge and hard work under the bus with some one-liners, is mindblowing to me.

I never do that. It is your prejudice due to the lack of scientific knowledge.

 

[juvenissun]

A scientist is someone who actual does science. Doing research, performing experiments, publishing papers.

Having a Phd or reading a biology book does not make one a scientist.

This idea indicates that you are not a scientist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This idea indicates that you are not a scientist.

You don't have to be a scientist to have an understanding of science. It helps, but it's the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[VirOptimus]

You accept something you do not understand. That is what a belief is.

If you want to stay ignorant thats up to you, but I do understand and have educated myself.

I know what a belief is, I do know the science. One is not like the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because others are not related to Christian faith. Evolution does.
I know Genesis better than any of so-called scientist.

Did it ever occur to you that what you might understand genesis to say, could be incorrect?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never do that.

Yes you do. You do it every time when you post a one-liner thinking you can reject 150 years worth of research, just like that, because "it doesn't agree with my personal interpretation of the bible"

It is your prejudice due to the lack of scientific knowledge.

lol.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This idea indicates that you are not a scientist.

No, it indicates that you don't know what a scientist is.

It's a profession. Doing science is a specific activity. Done by a scientist.

It's not just knowing something or holding a degree.
If I have 20 phd's in biochemistry, and then move on to become a security guy at the shopping mall... then i'm not a scientist. Then I'm jsut a security agent who happens to hold a bunch of phd's.

 

[juvenissun]

Did it ever occur to you that what you might understand genesis to say, could be incorrect?

I have questioned Genesis for decades. One by one, I ironed the question out. It is bullet proof now.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have questioned Genesis for decades. One by one, I ironed the question out. It is bullet proof now.

Good for you - it's important to get your interpretation consistent.

But whatever your God belief, and whatever your interpretation of the bible, the multiple, independent lines of physical real world evidence for evolution is still there to be accounted for. What you do with that evidence, how you manage to twist your beliefs around it, or shoehorn it into your worldview is up to you; but the evidence can't be denied - there's too much of it, and it's too consistent; it provides a foundation for all biology, and holds the key to some of the major biological challenges we face today.

To try and pretend otherwise is escapist fantasy.