What I meant was you must have relied on some authority to form a worldview that which you have.
Why? My entire life has basically been an ever flowing river of doubt, and most of how I view the world has been shaped by experiences, not any authority at all. In fact, I can't think of any aspect of my worldview shaped by authorities of any kind aside from, as an inevitability, my perspectives on items directly related to the concept of authority. -_- the end result of that is that I don't recognize or respect social hierarchies and instead base my respect of people on how well they function in society rather than their social standing.
For example, "a lack of recognizing hierarchies of authority so heavily that it's written down in my psychological evaluations." While it means that you do not recognize certain authorities, there were ones you recognized.
I am capable of recognizing that objectively a person holds some form of expertise in some field, based on their experience. I can recognize why other people view them as authorities sometimes, but that doesn't make them an authority from my perspective. -_- as you can imagine, my parents and teachers did not appreciate that I behaved as if their rules were arbitrary and optional as a child. At this point in my life, I just try to follow social rules so as not to make waves because my life is a lot less pleasant otherwise.
We all learn from other humans.
And autism is a social disorder that interferes with social learning, which would include perspectives on authority and degree of influence by authority.
Also, we learn from God and reading the Bible (believers anyway; probably non-believers do, too).
-_- fyi, the reason I ended up being an atheist was a lack of indoctrination and deciding to read the bible independently at the age of 13, despite me being in a mental state that should have made me ripe for conversion. I don't think your holy book by itself is sufficient to convert most people.
We learn from experiences and observation.
Which aren't an authority.
It's good that you could pfft Darwin. Not so good to do that to God.
-_- no one in their right mind would view Darwin as an authority in any scientific field in modern times. He's over 100 years out of date. A 10 year old paper is behind the times at this point, especially in the field of genetics. Also, not so good to do that to Zeus, bringer of lightning ;P . Kinda hard to feel threatened by something I don't believe in.
I didn't read AiG, at first, either. However, I kept an open mind and started to understand what they were saying after 2012.
You misunderstand, I've read their articles a ton since joining this site 5 years ago. And I have fact checked them a lot; their articles straight up lie to people. If you actually try to look up what they claim, reality rarely fits. It's proven itself such an untrustworthy source that if you use it after you've already been corrected, no one will take you seriously. Not because it is a creationist site, but because of the outrageous lies it makes that are easily disproven with a quick Google search. It relies on people trusting it enough not to look into it.
I incorporated that with natural selection which is taught both in evolution and creation science.
To an extent, I suppose creation scientists acknowledge natural selection (microevolution and whatnot). I know a lot of creationists on here don't, though.
The difference is time that it takes for new species to appear. CS is very fast.
So fast that if evolution were occurring at the rate necessary for the planet to be only 10,000 or so years old it would demand that we see new species practically every generation at least. Obviously not what we observe.
Evolution takes longer even for natural selection.
Misconception; evolution is a continuous process, and how long it takes for an original population to give rise to a new species is extremely variable. Consider, for example, that humans have a generation length of 15-20 years, while E. coli has a generation length of less than 24 hours. Obviously, populations of these organisms are not going to change at the same rate as each other. Certain organisms are also far more prone to mutations than others. That is, humans have a far higher mutation rate than, say, pufferfish do. How quickly and how much the environment changes also influences the speed. As a result, it's actually far more common for populations to experience periods of lots of change within short amounts of time and long periods with little change and alternating between the two than it is for the process to be consistently slow. I got longer tails on my Triops within 8 generations just because the selection pressures were so strong, but the general body plan of these organisms has been retained for millions of years.
With artificial selection, we know that it happens rapidly. We learned that some breeding does not allow for further generations such as horse and donkey.
actually, 1/100 of female mules are fertile. But the general infertility is a matter of differences in chromosome number being particularly not tolerated in pretty much all mammals. Cross breeding between two different whiptail lizard species resulted in an all female species that has an entirely different chromosome number and reproduces asexually. Bacteria can integrate plasmids from dead bacteria that aren't the same species. The sort of "breeding restrictions" most people are familiar with are not the norm for living things.
I haven't heard of your other story.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."
It's so weirdly specific.
There are scientists with their own fossils and they found soft tissue inside theirs. Actually, it was a creation science woman who made the discovery and the explanation of the proteins.
Ok, I was unaware that she was a creationist, but looking through the internet shows that she is LOOKING for proteins and hasn't found particularly many. Also, no DNA.
Suffice it to say creation science believes that dinosaur fossils are found in abundance due to their size and durability.
-_- dinosaur fossils aren't found in abundance and are actually kinda rare. Things like Trilobites, which existed on the planet for an extremely long time and had exoskeletons, are among the most common fossils. If you look up the number of T. rex fossils, you'll find less than 100 ones from different individuals. Same for the entire genus Stegosaurus. And these are groups for which we have a lot of fossils compared to most other dinosaurs. In contrast, Trilobite fossils are so common that I can buy a small one for less than the cost of a decent steak.
They believe the dinosaurs were included on Noah's Ark. They believe they went extinct due to the global flood. So that is a huge discrepancy between the Bible and what evolution states
.
-_- from an evolutionary perspective, birds ARE dinosaurs and most dinosaurs of lineages that didn't lead to birds didn't all die at the same time. For example, no member of the genus Stegosaurus lived at the same time as T. rex. I've never heard a YEC creationist claim that any organisms went extinct before the flood. The discrepancy is most definitely huge.
Does it matter? It won't change our worldviews. Same with the KNM-ER 1470. Same with the pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil.
Of course it matters; how the heck could AiG get the number so wrong without either not caring about doing any research or outright lying? I was able to find the actual numbers in less than 10 minutes!
Plus, you are basing your assumption that the scientific community won't ever change their minds about creationism regardless of evidence presented ON GROSSLY MISREPRESENTED EVENTS. You should care a whole lot more about that.
I suppose I would have to deal with it personally. You said you can give up evolution. I can, too.
I said I would cease to view evolution as a legitimate theory if it was disproven. I'm not addicted to it as if it is heroin, dude, there is nothing to "give up".
If I were a biologist, then I would have to do my job, but also ignore the evolution parts where I disagreed.
Lol, that'd be like being a physicist and ignoring atomic theory.
If I was a teacher though, then I would have problems and would not be able to teach something I don't believe in. My daughter started probing my beliefs during a conversation while we were going home from a trip. I answered best I could and then dropped it. I don't think I should confuse her and I want to end up deciding for herself after college. I'm sure there will be parts she will question.
This entire speech you have going on apparently doesn't address my point at all. If you found evidence that legitimately disproved the existence of the deity you currently worship, would you be honest about it? Both to yourself and to others. This is not about teaching people something you don't believe, but rather asking how willing you actually are to change in the fact of evidence.
That's why I'm here with the evidence.
You have yet to present actual evidence against evolution or for creationism. AiG obvious lies are not evidence, dude, and the fact that you weren't appalled that it was so inaccurate disturbs me. That's like reading a fraudulent paper that claims bleach cures cancer, believing it to be true, and then not caring when presented with evidence that shows that bleach doesn't cure anything and is just straight up poison. You should demand better of your sources.
With plate tectonics, the creation scientist who came up with continental drift was largely ignored.
It'd be weird if Abraham Ortelius wasn't a creationist, considering the fact that he lived in the 1500s. If you are talking about Alfred Wegener, you've neglected to consider that he proposed that continental drift was, at least in part, a product of the Earth's centrifugal force from rotating as well as astrological precession and that the rate of continental drift he proposed was far too fast to match up with observations. His version of the theory was terribly flawed so people had good reason to be skeptical. Also, his initial proposals were in the 1910s, he was not ignored because of being a creationist.
He also wasn't ignored and did have supporters even early on. Plus, his theory actually has 0 to do with creationism.
Only later when they found plate tectonics they started to believe him.
Actually, it was taking samples from countries such as India and realizing that they matched up with portions of the planet they aren't connected to gave the theory more backing.
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
Genesis 7:11-12 KJV
The first verse explains the great amount of water and tells us that it was enough to cover all the mountains at the time including Mt. Everest that was much lower than it is today. It explains the water on the surface today.
Actually, there's not enough water on our planet to flood it like that, and there is no indication that there ever was. Plus, water is an extremely common compound in the universe, so the presence of water in abundance on our planet doesn't require a flood to explain. And the amount of water falls so short of being able to cover the planet as high as Mt. Everest that if a deity lifted the water to do so and spread it evenly, it'd mean the water wasn't touching the ground.
The second explains there was an undersea volcano and water from underground oceans and mountains came up from beneath the seafloor. The windows of heaven is hypothesized as a canopy of water that protected the earth from radiation.
None of the verses you have posted have said anything about volcanoes. Even with the limits of ancient Hebrew, I'd never call an underwater volcano an "underwater fountain". Also, the verse says that they were all destroyed, and we see plenty of underwater volcanoes, so the verse cannot be referring to them AND be an accurate representation of reality.
