For Creationists.....

[vipertaja]

I can still see that you've posted even if I set you on ignore.

As he just stated...you're not doing a very good job when it comes to
ignoring him, which is what you stated you would do IIRC.

 

[TheOutsider]

 

[FoeHammer]

Of course I have "faith" in science... the same way I have "faith" in the sun coming up in the morning. It is not the same as the context you used by referring to the "evo faithful." The implication you were making is obvious ... that those who accept evolution and defend the teaching of evolution here treat evolution as a religion. Stop pretending otherwise.

Of course it is a religion, it has all the hallmarks of a religion, and as the saying goes, ''if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why would you think it's anything other than a duck?
The FACT is that simple(?) life-form to man evolution IS unobservable, unrepeatable and untestable. To believe that it happened and preach that it happened requires a huge amount of faith.
We can, if you like, go through all the claimed evidence for evolution and see just how much you have discovered for yourself and compare it to the amount discovered by others and whose word you trust (have faith in). That they are scientists seems to be all that is required to warrant such faith, as if scientists are never mistaken and would never lie (I remain extremely sceptical of such a view). This is naive of course, they are no less affected by peer pressure than anyone else and, let's not forget, they have their reputation and reasearch funding to consider.

It is the Creationists here who conflate the two meanings. They are the ones that try to gain parity by claiming both creationism and evolution require "faith" and therefore both should be given "equal time." Tell me you have not seen that here... The lengths some people will go to eh?

I have seen it but am not counted among them as I believe that they are not equal. The amount of faith required to believe in the part of atheistic non-philosophy called evolution (simple(?) life-form to man) requires much more faith (IMO) than that required to believe in the Genesis account of creation.
Take me through what you believe... from the beginning.
Starting with the cause of the ''appearance'' and expansion of the universe. The formation of galaxies, How the stars formed, about the formation of our Sun, earth and moon in particular, what the earth was like and how it came to be as it is now. How the first life-form came into being and its evolution from that point.
Let's see just how much faith it takes when God is left out of the reckoning.
Faith in God, for this creationist Christian, is warranted based on the fact that The answers to some questions are (and will always be - a prediction if you like) beyond even those considered brilliant among men.
I do not believe for one moment that we may be as God, that is, omniscient. I see no reasonable alternative to Goddidit. Ask questions by all means, observe, test and demonstrate all you want but accept that there will always be limits to what can be known via these methods.

Yes, but as you pointed out yourself, "Faith" in science is not the same as "Faith" in Jesus as a savior, or "Faith" in Genesis as historical fact.

Oh but it is. The point I was making is that evolutionists overlook the difference between a general faith and a specific faith where creationists are concerned this doesn't mean that evolutionists do not have a specific faith themselves, they do, as I have pointed out above.

Rhetoric. Show us some examples.

At this moment, in the background, I have on Kent Hovind - Lies In The Textbooks. Iknow, I know but rather than attempt to shoot the messenger how about objectively listening to the basic message. Here.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3954156199145885147
Or get hold of the latest high school biology textbook and check it out for yourself.

I have shown you that it is questioned and tested all the time. Just do a PubMed search for "evolution," and you will see all the research being done on various aspects of evolution. That is not how one treats Dogma.

That evolution happened is never questioned... that is dogma.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Give it another 5 years or so.

A faith statement.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Dogma is an established belief that never changes. Science corrects itself when presented with new facts.

The established belief is that evolution happened and that is never questioned by its believers... Dogma.

I'm going to bite my tongue now. But if you've got some evidence of Creationism there are 2 threads going right now on the front page you might want to look into.

Bite it hard.

FoeHammer.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The established belief is that evolution happened and that is never questioned by its believers... Dogma.Bite it hard.

FoeHammer.

Evolutionary science is not dogmatic and is always questioning the data, to the point where our views on evolution change. That’s the nature of science, it is self correcting, new books on subjects are being written all the time, that supersede older text. Here’s a quote for a resent scientific article, with a link to the full article.


Quote

The story of a critical phase in human evolution may have to be rewritten after the discovery of two remarkable fossils in Kenya that have shed new light on the origins and behavior of two ancient relatives of Homo sapiens.
Link
Religion is dogmatic, it is stuck with an ancient text that cannot evolve, so is always stuck in the past and always wrong. Therefore its followers have dogmatic blind faith and are unwilling to except any new information that discredits their views.

I think it is quite clear which of religion and science is dogmatic, do you want me to spell it out for you. RELIGION

 

[MarcusHill]

Of course it is a religion, it has all the hallmarks of a religion, and as the saying goes, ''if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why would you think it's anything other than a duck?

I've said this to Creationists who have made this claim before, and none has provided me with an answer. Can you provide me with a clear definition of "religion" which:

1) Any reasonably intelligent person can apply to any concept and determine whether it is a religion or not according to this definition. If we can't get at least a 90% agreement rate when we put a bunch of concepts to a bunch of people using the definition, it's not clear enough.

2) Will classify all generally acknowledged religions such as Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism etc. as religions.

3) Will classify all generally acknowledged non-religions such as sports fandom, social clubs, political parties etc. as non-religions.

4) Will classify adherence to the theory of Evolution under current levels of scientific knowledge and evidence as a religion.

If Evolution is so obviously a religion, this shouldn't be too difficult a task.

ETA: I've started a separate topic for this question.

That evolution happened is never questioned... that is dogma.

It's never questioned that the Earth orbits the Sun. Is that "dogma" or merely an implicit acceptance of mountains of evidence? Would you like to test the "dogma" that objects with mass attract each other by jumping from some suitably high platform, or does the existing evidence convince you to the point that you think testing it is a waste of time?

We don't check on gravity any more, but you can guarantee that if something were observed which seemed to contradict it, scientists would try to replicate that observation and explain it - or change the theory. Similarly, whilst we no longer feel the need to check whether evolution occured (and occurs), if evidence to the contrary were to arise, it would stimulate a huge amount of activity to refine or replace the theory.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Of course it is a religion, it has all the hallmarks of a religion, and as the saying goes, ''if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why would you think it's anything other than a duck?

There are a series of traits which apply only to religion, and which are shared by every religion commonly recognized as such. Every religion is a doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, mythology, and associated dogma of a faith-based belief system which includes the idea that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul, consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being. These would be the "hallmarks" you were talking about. Evolution has none of these. Nor can you list any others that it does have. Because you and I have had this conversation before, and you knew you were wrong then just as you know you're still wrong now. But being a creationist, you will continue to use arguments you know have already been proven wrong, and you don't care about that. But if it doesn't look like a duck, doesn't walk like a duck and never quacks like a duck, then why would keep trying to call it a duck?

The FACT is that simple(?) life-form to man evolution IS unobservable, unrepeatable and untestable. To believe that it happened and preach that it happened requires a huge amount of faith.

Forensic science neither requires nor desires faith, and you already know this too. Instead of faith, all scientific hypotheses must be based on evidence, and the conclusions of science must follow where the evidence leads.

Whether creationists accept any amount of proof against them or not, the fact is that according to every ounce of paleontological evidence anyone has ever dug up, there is every indication that the further back in time you look, the simpler and more similar living things appear to be until there are only single cells, and prior to that, there is no life of any kind at all. According to everything we know about the fossil record, there were no primates 100 million years ago, and no mammals 200 million years ago, and no land animals at all 400 million years ago. 600 million years ago, there weren’t even any fish or even bugs yet. We’ve never found any fossils for macroscopic life forms prior to 700 million years ago, but we have oodles of bacterial trace fossils covering another 2.8 billion years prior to the first multicellular anythings we’ve ever found a trace of. The only possible conclusion we can draw from all that is that life was only microscopic & microbial for the first 80% of the history of life on this planet. In addition, we also have genetic orthologues cross-confirming the morphological indications of evolution as well, and then there is the fact that we are still apes right now, and you never answered my direct question to you as to how else you could explain that. So there is profound evidence indicating our evolution and nothing but nothing to indicate any other conclusion.

We can, if you like, go through all the claimed evidence for evolution and see just how much you have discovered for yourself and compare it to the amount discovered by others and whose word you trust (have faith in).

You're on. But faith is not "trust". Faith is a belief in impossible things which is assumed for no reason and defended against all reason to the contrary.

That they are scientists seems to be all that is required to warrant such faith, as if scientists are never mistaken and would never lie (I remain extremely sceptical of such a view). This is naive of course, they are no less affected by peer pressure than anyone else and, let's not forget, they have their reputation and reasearch funding to consider.

This assertion is senseless, and is precisely why the scientific method includes critical analysis in peer review. Science doesn't let people get away with lies and false assertions like religion does.

It is the Creationists here who conflate the two meanings. They are the ones that try to gain parity by claiming both creationism and evolution require "faith" and therefore both should be given "equal time." Tell me you have not seen that here... The lengths some people will go to eh?

I have seen it but am not counted among them as I believe that they are not equal. The amount of faith required to believe in the part of atheistic non-philosophy called evolution (simple(?) life-form to man) requires much more faith (IMO) than that required to believe in the Genesis account of creation.

Then you are counted among them after all -because you still parrot the lie that both are equal because you wrongfully say both require faith. I can prove otherwise.

Take me through what you believe... from the beginning.
Starting with the cause of the ''appearance'' and expansion of the universe. The formation of galaxies, How the stars formed, about the formation of our Sun, earth and moon in particular, what the earth was like and how it came to be as it is now. How the first life-form came into being and its evolution from that point.
Let's see just how much faith it takes when God is left out of the reckoning.

Evolution is an aspect of biology. So it doesn't matter how the universe came into being. That is an entirely different and completely unrelated subject.

See, I said earlier in this very thread that creationists habitually use the word "evolution" incorrectly because their real problem isn't with evolution; its against science, and not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well. You're proving my point.

Faith in God, for this creationist Christian, is warranted based on the fact that The answers to some questions are (and will always be - a prediction if you like) beyond even those considered brilliant among men.
I do not believe for one moment that we may be as God, that is, omniscient. I see no reasonable alternative to Goddidit.

Then you cannot be reasoned with. But we can still discuss how goddidit, and whether that was by one of many inextricably integrated natural systems he seemingly designed, or whether he simply blinked, wiggled his nose, wished upon a star and said "abra-cadabera".

Ask questions by all means, observe, test and demonstrate all you want but accept that there will always be limits to what can be known via these methods.

And what of the limit of knowledge when you believe things that can never be tested,l which you assumed without any evidence at all, and which you already admit you're unable to reconsider?

The point I was making is that evolutionists overlook the difference between a general faith and a specific faith where creationists are concerned this doesn't mean that evolutionists do not have a specific faith themselves, they do, as I have pointed out above.

They don't, as I have pointed out above. I myself certainly don't.

At this moment, in the background, I have on Kent Hovind - Lies In The Textbooks. Iknow, I know but rather than attempt to shoot the messenger how about objectively listening to the basic message. Here.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3954156199145885147

Hovind is but one of myriad examples to illustrate how creationism is naught but deliberately dishonest nonsense and propaganda.

Or get hold of the latest high school biology textbook and check it out for yourself.

How about listening to the author of those textbooks revealing how the creationists were found guilty of purjury once their nonsense was put on trial?

That evolution happened is never questioned... that is dogma.

Evolution has survived 150 years of the most intense critical scrutiny that has ever applied to any science. The greatest minds of the modern age have pitted their wits against it and find it only gaining strength for their efforts. And, I should mention that taxonomy, deep time, heliocentricity and the geologic column were all discovered by Christian scientists more than a century before Darwin! And today, Christian pseudoscientists oppose all of those too.

 

[FoeHammer]

Evolutionary science is not dogmatic and is always questioning the data, to the point where our views on evolution change. That’s the nature of science, it is self correcting, new books on subjects are being written all the time, that supersede older text. Here’s a quote for a resent scientific article, with a link to the full article.

I think it is quite clear which of religion and science is dogmatic, do you want me to spell it out for you. RELIGION

That evolution happened is never questioned by it's believers... It is a dogma.

Every time they say that the old facts are wrong, but the new facts are true, their credibility decreases. Truth doesn’t change on a daily basis. Yes, electrical engineering textbooks used in the 1960’s are obsolete today, but nothing in them is wrong. Ohm’s law is still true. Everything they say about vacuum tube amplifiers is still true. The old electronics textbooks aren’t obsolete because they are wrong. They are obsolete because they don’t contain new information about transistors and integrated circuits. As science advances, new truth is added, but old truth is still true.
This isn’t the case with biology textbooks. The things old biology textbooks say about human evolution aren’t true any more. That means those things weren’t true when the old textbooks were written. Similarly, the things in current biology textbooks will someday be contradicted by future biology textbooks. That’s because the theory of evolution is philosophic, not scientific.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v11i11f.htm

FoeHammer.

 

[Allegory]

That evolution happened is never questioned by it's believers... It is a dogma.

Well I don't know about all that, but I would suggest that the reason it's "never questioned" is because there aren't really any alternatives for it.

 

[Aron-Ra]

That evolution happened is never questioned by it's believers... It is a dogma.

The real answer is because it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and still continues to be no matter how much some still want to doubt it.

 

[UnknownUsername]

Every time they say that the old facts are wrong, but the new facts are true, their credibility decreases. Truth doesn’t change on a daily basis. Yes, electrical engineering textbooks used in the 1960’s are obsolete today, but nothing in them is wrong. Ohm’s law is still true. Everything they say about vacuum tube amplifiers is still true. The old electronics textbooks aren’t obsolete because they are wrong. They are obsolete because they don’t contain new information about transistors and integrated circuits. As science advances, new truth is added, but old truth is still true.
This isn’t the case with biology textbooks. The things old biology textbooks say about human evolution aren’t true any more. That means those things weren’t true when the old textbooks were written. Similarly, the things in current biology textbooks will someday be contradicted by future biology textbooks. That’s because the theory of evolution is philosophic, not scientific.

I know you didn't directly say this, Foehammer. However, this is amazingly bizarre.

So, because other things don't change, some things can't?

According to that logic, the Earth is flat, the universe revolves around the Earth, and medical practices should be based upon the "humours" of the body. All because we figured out how to build a printing press in 1440.

That logic is bizarre, and I'm amazed and ashamed that someone would use it.

 

[Schroeder]

The truorigin site makes the same mistake that all creationists make. They assume that there is scientific evidence supporting creationism. A exhaustive search of the peer reviewed scientific literature says otherwise. Trueorigins states that "Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely “a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.” The fact of the matter is that there is not a controversy in the scientific community. Talkorigins is a science based site, not a theology based site. Because of that there is only one side to choose: evolution. The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that explains biodiversity. THE ONLY ONE. If you don't believe me, go to www.pubmed.com, the largest database of biologically related peer reviewed literature. Search for "creationism" and you will get 59 hits. The authors of these articles are very critical of creationism stating that it is a political and religious movement. Now search for "evolution". This returns nearly 200,000 peer reviewed articles. Where is the controversy?

DUH why wouldnt it. you dont quite get it. EVOLUTION is FACT and it discribes lifes biodiversity. you DO NOT need the THEORY to understand evolution and how it is the reason for biodiversity.

 

[Aron-Ra]

you dont quite get it. EVOLUTION is FACT and it discribes lifes biodiversity. you DO NOT need the THEORY to understand evolution and how it is the reason for biodiversity.

Why do you keep saying "the THEORY"? What do you think you're referring to when you do that?

 

[Tomk80]

DUH why wouldnt it. you dont quite get it. EVOLUTION is FACT and it discribes lifes biodiversity. you DO NOT need the THEORY to understand evolution and how it is the reason for biodiversity.

Correction:
Evolution is a fact. All facts describe what happens. Evolution is the description that life's biodiversity changes.

If we described that biodiversity changes, we have not described what the mechanism is behind that change. Describing the mechanism behind something is a theory. That is why we need the theory of evolution to explain the fact of evolution.

I am pretty sure this has been explained to you before. What part of the above do you not understand?

 

[Split Rock]

Whenever Creationists want to discuss empirical data, the evolutionist never considers it objectively, again for the simple reason that God can't be objectively tested. If that's not dishonest than I don't know what is.

LOL! You are blaming us because your god cannot be objectively tested?! I guess you don't know what "dishonest" is.

Science, in it's true form, shouldn't require any faith(by faith I mean blind belief). Science must be repeatable, observable, falsifiable.

Yes.

It is true that evolution is taught dogmatically. Have you ever watched some online biology courses? I have, and they make Creationists sound like idiots.

No, Creationists make Creationists sound like idiots.

Too bad I can't read PubMed articles. I'll have to take your word for it. (I really hate having to do that)

Go to the library and take a look at the journals Science or Nature. They usually have a few evolution-based articles in an issue.

 

[RichardT]

LOL! You are blaming us because your god cannot be objectively tested?! I guess you don't know what "dishonest" is.

I'm blaming you for not being able to look through our interpretive glasses.

No, Creationists make Creationists sound like idiots.

I think a lot of professional Creationist are really awesome. Like Michael Oard for example, who realized that the K/T boundary was not synchronous around the world. I really admire this sort of research.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

Wow, is anyone actually convinced by that site? It seems like the only people who would fall for the blantant misrepresentation of evolution and poorly constructed arguments would already be on their side anyway.

Really, was anyone a supporter of talk.origins and after reading this now isn't?

 

[Split Rock]

Of course it is a religion, it has all the hallmarks of a religion, and as the saying goes, ''if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why would you think it's anything other than a duck?
The FACT is that simple(?) life-form to man evolution IS unobservable, unrepeatable and untestable. To believe that it happened and preach that it happened requires a huge amount of faith.

Why because you say it is a religion? Where are the prayers? Where is the god? Where are the churches? Sorry... this duck ain't quackin.

We can, if you like, go through all the claimed evidence for evolution and see just how much you have discovered for yourself and compare it to the amount discovered by others and whose word you trust (have faith in). That they are scientists seems to be all that is required to warrant such faith, as if scientists are never mistaken and would never lie (I remain extremely sceptical of such a view). This is naive of course, they are no less affected by peer pressure than anyone else and, let's not forget, they have their reputation and reasearch funding to consider.

Scientists are just as human as anyone else. Why do you apply a different standard to them then to any other professional group? Do you avoid flying in airplanes? Do you avoid traveling by bus or train? Do you avoid taking elevators? Do you avoid entering buildings you haven't designed and built yourself? You don't actually trust any of these people with your life do you??


[

COLOR=darkred]I have seen it but am not counted among them as I believe that they are not equal. The amount of faith required to believe in the part of atheistic non-philosophy called evolution (simple(?) life-form to man) requires much more faith (IMO) than that required to believe in the Genesis account of creation.[/COLOR]

Another ridiculous assertion. Evolution is a biological theory that explains the diversity and distribution of life on Earth. Period. It is not atheistic. I agree it is not a philosophy. Why you keep calling it a "non-philosophy" like you are making some point against it is beyond me.

Take me through what you believe... from the beginning.
Starting with the cause of the ''appearance'' and expansion of the universe. The formation of galaxies, How the stars formed, about the formation of our Sun, earth and moon in particular, what the earth was like and how it came to be as it is now. How the first life-form came into being and its evolution from that point.

All in this one thread?

Why don't you open up some books on cosmology, astronomy and biology? I accept what the experts say on these matters as the best knowledge we currently have. If it changes later, as we discover more, I have no problem with that. You see, it is not a matter of "faith" or "dogma" for me. If a better theory than evolution comes around tomorrow, and it explains the evidence better, I will drop evolution without a second thought. Can you say the same about Creationism?

Let's see just how much faith it takes when God is left out of the reckoning.
Faith in God, for this creationist Christian, is warranted based on the fact that The answers to some questions are (and will always be - a prediction if you like) beyond even those considered brilliant among men.

OK. Science does not answer all our questions. You can quote me on that.

I do not believe for one moment that we may be as God, that is, omniscient. I see no reasonable alternative to Goddidit. Ask questions by all means, observe, test and demonstrate all you want but accept that there will always be limits to what can be known via these methods.

If you see no "reasonable" alternative to Goddidit, than that pretty much speaks for itself. I really don't care, as long as you do not deceitfully call it "science" and try to get it taught as science in public schools.

Oh but it is. The point I was making is that evolutionists overlook the difference between a general faith and a specific faith where creationists are concerned this doesn't mean that evolutionists do not have a specific faith themselves, they do, as I have pointed out above.

You have not succeeded in doing so. If evolution can be falsified, and I tell you if it is I will abandon it, how can it be a "specific faith?"

At this moment, in the background, I have on Kent Hovind - Lies In The Textbooks. Iknow, I know but rather than attempt to shoot the messenger how about objectively listening to the basic message. Here.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3954156199145885147
Or get hold of the latest high school biology textbook and check it out for yourself.
That evolution happened is never questioned... that is dogma.

Hovind is full of it. I have listened to him.

Every theory is taught in a "dogmatic" fashion in high school. It is usually only in college that more subtle aspects are investigated and real thinking is encouraged. That may be necessary, or may be bad. But either way, evolution is not treated differently from other theories.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm blaming you for not being able to look through our interpretive glasses.

I would have to squint so hard it would hurt my head.

I think a lot of professional Creationist are really awesome. Like Michael Oard for example, who realized that the K/T boundary was not synchronous around the world. I really admire this sort of research.

I am not familar with him. Do you have any web links?