Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Often in this forum you will be directed to talk.originsweb site by the evo faithful
Evolution is not based on Dogma. Dogma is never questioned or tested. The theory of evolution is questioned and tested all the time. Every paper written on evolution and published in the scientific literature does just that. The joke is the same people that call evolution Dogma, claim it changes freely "with the flavor of the month." Which is it?
but before you click on that talk.origins
Talk Origins shows all the references for their claims. Whenever possible, primary sources are cited, unlike at Creationist websites, which rarely show primary sources. If there are any errors there, please show us what they are.
The sad part is that Talk.Origins really does have all the accurate research where creationist propaganda mills like "true" origins has only apologetics, which is naught but rationalization of their dogma. Evolution, being a science, has no dogma and is opposed to faith, and FoeHammer knows that. But he says these things anyway because creationism is inherently dishonest and he just wants be sound insulting.Often in this forum you will be directed to talk.origins
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
..... Fore-warned is fore-armed.
I think the desire for parity is also a part of this type of behavior.
Yeah, I often hear creationists pleading that “both sides should be taught equally.” But there can be no equality here. We have one side we know an awful lot about, and much of that for certain, and then we have another side that's nothing but blind and utterly baseless speculation asserted as truth without warrant, relying solely on a laughable fable that can't even be partially true even figuratively. They’ve tried desperately to popularize the illusion that creation and evolution have equal standing somehow, usually by saying that they’re both just beliefs. But they’re not. Evolution is backed by all relevent data from any source everywhere while creationism fails on its own lack of merit, and is promoted by nothing but a lunatic fringe of fools and liars. Creationism is not scientific and evolution is not religious, nor is it anti-religious, and it isn’t just a belief either. We know evolution is real. We know how it works. We've proven that it happens. We also know that creation doesn't happen. Evolution is the only conclusion possible, while creation is im-possible. Creation is a fantasy and evolution is a certainty. Evolution neither needs faith nor wants it, but one can't begin to consider creation without so much of it as to deny reason itself. Creationism is illogical, irrational, unreasonable and insane. Yet evoluton is easily demonstrable and observable with practical application in many multi-billion dollar industries. For those of us actively studying evolutionary science as a career choice, creationism is just as dumb as a hearing a grown man berrating obstetricians for not believing the myth about babies being brought by a stork. And there's no better example I can think of to illustrate how equal evolution and creationism are not.
I disagree. Scientists always have but a small expertise compared to the overall body of knowledge. A physicist may be aplying himself to the study of fluid currents and thus have no expertise at all in other areas. Such a scientist could easily be a creationist.
Put it this way then. According to Gallup, 0.14% of earth and life scientists give any credence to Bible stories, where the remaining 99.86% support evolution instead. If jewelers are correct when they interpret 99 and 44 one-hundredths percent "pure", then it is fair to say that evolution by the entire global scientific community even if some insignicant fraction acheived science degrees to aid in promoting thier alleged "contraversy".
That I do agree with, but again with a nitpick.
Often in this forum you will be directed to talk.origins
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
..... Fore-warned is fore-armed.
FoeHammer.
It is based on interpretations of ''evidence'' and the evolutionists faith in those interpretations. I dare say that even scientists need faith (to some degree) in scientists (not in how they ''do science'' but in the conclusions they reach) in order to accept evolution.
To the contrary, in this forum I have found that some people who have no faith in Jesus Christ will deliberately overlook the difference (I cannot believe that they do not see the difference) between a specific faith and a general faith in order to try and make a point in conversations with creationists. If you haven't made this specific claim yourself you must have seen it; ''evolution has nothing to do with faith it is supported by science and to reject evolution is to reject science.''. Of course without the oversight this claim is rendered blatantly absurd and a deliberate lie. The lengths some people will go to eh?
In fact evolution is a dogma. It is taught dogmatically, it is embraced dogmatically and it is preached dogmatically.
True Origin show references for thier claims.
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.
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?
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.
Rhetoric. Show us some examples.
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.
Science, in it's true form, shouldn't require any faith(by faith I mean blind belief). Science must be repeatable, observable, falsifiable.
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.
Too bad I can't read PubMed articles. I'll have to take your word for it. (I really hate having to do that)
Yes, but to YECs both uniformitarianism* and catastrophism are unobservable, unrepeatable, unfalsifiable frameworks where one has to work the empirical data. The problem lies with the methodological naturalists who a priori reject our framework.
