How the C&E debate has changed my beliefs

Chalnoth · Sep 14, 2006

You're combining separate things that have nothing to do with one another.

In the case where you quoted, the paleontologists simply compared the bone mass of this particular tetrapod to the bone mass of other fish alive today, or in the fossil record. The difference was clear: this one had much stronger bones, which would have been utterly useless in the water, but very useful on land. I'd say the conclusion that this fish spent time on land would be very strong indeed just from looking at the strength of these bones.

mnbvcxz87 · Sep 14, 2006

But you appreciate that's still an assumption. Perhaps this fish used these bones for some other purpose, digging for something edible on the oceon floor, who knows.

Chalnoth · Sep 14, 2006

There wouldn't be any need for the entire skeleton to be robust, just the part that does the digging. The strong skeleton would only come from supporting the weight of the body out of water. I don't see it as an assumption at all, but a pretty well-founded conclusion. Not absolutely and utterly certain, but exceedingly likely.

One would then correlate the dating of this fossil with the dating of other fossils, and from that solidify the picture considerably.

combatant · Sep 14, 2006

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
I always knew religious zealotry existed but never gave it much thought. I found it disturbing that people could be driven to commit suicide for their beliefs but, at the same time, regarded it as a very rare and extreme occurrence. I looked upon it as an extreme aberration of religion perpetuated by a few evil individuals and nothing more. If I had only taken a moment or two to give the subject deeper though I would have realized that, like all illness, religious extremism is just the festering symptom of a much larger problem.

You yourself are an extremist and zealot, just of a different sort. Your extreme atheism and devotion to the cult of evolutionary dogma color your view of the world just the same way you feel 'religious extremism' does to others.

Your attempt to intertwine creationism with those who would commit suicide for their beliefs ('extreme' Islam) is so far out of the line of reason that it makes you look silly. Advocates of YEC in particular are usually those people who are the most compassionate and giving, and no where near the sort of people you would like sow them in with.

When I saw the headlines about disclaimer stickers being placed on science textbooks decrying evolution I simply thought that some overzealous people, who didn’t understand the theory (or even what a theory is), wanted to approach the subject cautiously since they didn’t know how solid it was as a science. I understood that sometimes science is counterintuitive to what we would consider common sense. After all, a cursory glance at our past reveals that the simple notion of our planet circling the Sun caused great controversy in its time. I fully understood that as man watched the sun move across the sky he felt no forces of motion acting upon him. It must have been silly to think that we were the ones moving. Besides, the holy Bible said that we were the center of the universe. Saying otherwise was not only nonsensical it was blasphemy.

The disclaimers are rational, because the root of the problems with evolutionism is firstly scientific, and secondly (and more importantly, perhaps) philosophically and morally. Scientific falsification of evolutionism isn't possible, because any problem is plugged in with theoretical rationalizations. Problems and criticisms are hand-waved away instead of seriously dealt with. Evolutionism is the intellectual community's philosophical agreement because it is a godless form of dealing with the formation of life.

Of course a disclaimer is needed, because just look at some of the most popular evolutionists, such as Dawkins and Gould. These evolutionary zealots are hostile to religion, and quite honestly, they represent and bring to light the true roots and cause of evolutionism, which is atheism.

I decided to do my part by helping educate theists about the Theory of Evolution. I was convinced that, once they understood what a scientific theory was and how sound the Theory of Evolution is, unfounded belief would once again give way to reason. How naïve I was.

Reason is not a part of evolutionism. Evolutionism thrives on pseudo-science and unreasoanble assumptions and extrapolations. You're naive because you are a sheep in the massive flock of misguided individuals, whose shepherd's are even more misguided and blind than their sheep.

Once involved in the debate I began to realize that, while it was true that those in opposition to the Theory of Evolution didn’t understand what a scientific theory was let alone understand the Theory of Evolution, these people didn’t want to know. Their stance on the subject wasn’t based on reason. Because of this, no amount of reasoning could dissuade them from their belief. In fact, it seemed that the sole purpose of their involvement was to evangelize in the hopes to bolster their ranks. They called themselves soldiers of God™ and gleefully donned armor of God™ while perpetuating age old scare tactics about lakes of fire and promises of eternal bliss. This wasn’t a scientific debate at all. This was a clash of ideologies. I was witnessing the latent death throws of those who opposed the age of reason in favor of superstition.

The same old garbage regurgitated by another atheistic evolutionist zealot is hardly impressive. Perhaps you could make a few of your evolutionist zealot buddies giggle and feel superior to those who believe in creation, but the fact is that the debate is truly about science AND philosophy/religion. Evolutionism cannot be separated from the fact that it makes claims that involve moral implications. It says rape is natural, abortion isn't bad, along with theft, lying, etc. It says that it's a normal factor of life from evolutionism's past. To say it doesn't hit on these issues is truly naive.

While participating in the “debate” my eyes opened to the deeper problem of the erosion of the separation of church and state. All of a sudden there was controversy about public courthouses displaying the Ten Commandments, schools placing disclaimer stickers on science books, God™ inserted into the pledge of allegiance, God™ printed on national currency, and a push for Intelligent Design to be included in the public school curriculum. Were there really enough religious zealots to make inroads toward a theocracy here in the United States of America?

The systematic erosion of Biblical principles and morality is being perpetrated by those who are secular humanists, such as the ACLU. The rise of evolutionism has been to the detriment of America and its morality. If there is going to be a theocracy in the U.S., it's going to be from the church of evolutionism.

One thing is for sure. While I don’t yet have the answers to all of my questions, I am now certain that this is not a legitimate debate about the science of the Theory of Evolution but a throwback to the dark ages. What we are seeing here is a world power reluctant to loose any more mindshare (or tithing) to the enlightenment of the age of reason. Like the heliocentric solar system the real truth will prevail and creationism will be relegated to antiquity. My only hope now is that those seeking power by controlling the minds of its “soldiers” through fear and inculcation will one day be a thing of the past too.

The struggle is between those who despise religion (especially Christianity), and those who fight for morality and Biblical truth. I pray that the likes of you never control this country, because your seething hatred of Bible believers is dangerous.

I am now proud to call myself an atheist and freethinker. My mind is my own, not a tool for your antiquated power struggle.

You're free to think only what your cult leaders allow. You are a follower, not a freethinker. You are, in evolutionism's teaching, a mere ape with a mind dictated by the horrors of death and struggle. You are in a cult and don't realize it (as is the case with cults).

Chalnoth · Sep 14, 2006

So, you, combatant, not being a scientist, are more able to tell whether or not evolution is good science than scientists?

birdan · Sep 15, 2006

combatant said:
The systematic erosion of Biblical principles and morality is being perpetrated by those who are secular humanists, such as the ACLU. The rise of evolutionism has been to the detriment of America and its morality. If there is going to be a theocracy in the U.S., it's going to be from the church of evolutionism.

(emphasis mine)

OK, to see if this personal opinion has any basis in fact, all we have to do is compare America to a country where evolution is accepted as a valid theory. Here's a country - Japan. The theory of evolution is taught in schools without any disclaimer stickers, no court battles, no controversy at all. The vast majority of the population has no moral, religious, or scientific qualms about the theory. Only .7% of the the population is Christian. A very good test case vs. America.

So we look at the statistics, and sure enough, we find that one country has a longer lifespan, higher literacy rate, higher per capita income, lower HIV/AIDS rate, lower STD rates, lower teenage pregnancy rates, etc.

Care to guess which country that is, Combatant?

combatant · Sep 15, 2006

Chalnoth said:
So, you, combatant, not being a scientist, are more able to tell whether or not evolution is good science than scientists?

Chalnoth,

I am able to tell that evolutionism is based on creatorless assumptions, I am able to tell that it has no viable or demonstrable mechanism, and I am able to tell that it doesn't make sense, even when I have been analyzing it for quite a period of time. I have read, re-read, and read again the most prominent evidence said to be in favor of evolutionism, and I fail to see it as anything but wishful thinking.

I can see the dots that many evolutionists are trying to connect, and I can see the logic that they are using with regard to biological relationships meaning ancestral relationship. The problem is that their logic doesn't equal empirical science. It doesn't take a scientist to see the evidence, or to see the conclusions they are drawing from the evidence. The problem is, when you take away any possible chance of a creator, you are going to be able to come to only one conclusion. The intellectual/"scientific" community has taken away any possible chance of intelligent design, and created a required a priori asumption for the secular scientific community to abide by, so of course they are stacking the deck in order for you to come to only one conclusion.

What I want many evolutionists to understand is that just because a creator is not able to be detected by natural mechanism, does not automatically disqualify it as a possibility. We don't have to even "prove" a creator to "prove" intelligent design, but when we look at the evidence of design in nature, then we must accept the possiblity of a Designer. When we understand this, then intelligent design in living things makes a mountain of sense. But like I said, the deck has been stacked.

USincognito · Sep 15, 2006

And yet the TEs and non-believers on the evolution side agree on all of the science.

Tomk80 · Sep 15, 2006

mnbvcxz87 said:
But you appreciate that's still an assumption. Perhaps this fish used these bones for some other purpose, digging for something edible on the oceon floor, who knows.

No, it is not an assumption. We have observations of bone-mass of this fossil. We have observations of bone mass from animals in water and on land. We also have bone-mass of fish digging for edible things on the ocean floor. We can compare all of these. From this we reach the conclusion that the bone-mass is intermediate between land animals and fish. We also reach the conclusion that digging fish do not have a higher bone mass than other fish. Hence, we reach the conclusion that the bone-mass was needed to support being out of water. This, in iteself, is already a very strong conclusion.

When taking the other evidence (such as the fossils in later and earlier time-periods etc) the conclusion is strengthened even more.

That's the problem with calling it an assumption. It is not in any way.

combatant · Sep 15, 2006

OK, to see if this personal opinion has any basis in fact, all we have to do is compare America to a country where evolution is accepted as a valid theory. Here's a country - Japan. The theory of evolution is taught in schools without any disclaimer stickers, no court battles, no controversy at all. The vast majority of the population has no moral, religious, or scientific qualms about the theory. Only .7% of the the population is Christian. A very good test case vs. America.

So we look at the statistics, and sure enough, we find that one country has a longer lifespan, higher literacy rate, higher per capita income, lower HIV/AIDS rate, lower STD rates, lower teenage pregnancy rates, etc.

Care to guess which country that is, Combatant?

But I suspect that things like Japan's abortion rate is much higher than America's, and the way they view abortion seems to be in a manner where nothing is even considered abnormal about it. For example, a quote from this page gives us a glimpse at how Japan views abortion:

"The attitude towards abortion is quite different here from that in our home countries; inJapan it is considered a ‘necessary sadness’ and a natural process. Counselling is not provided, nor is it assumed that you will suffer any kind of moral dilemma." (emphasis added)

combatant · Sep 15, 2006

And yet the TEs and non-believers on the evolution side agree on all of the science.

But the deck hasn't been stacked against believing in God, just the fact that he had anything to do with it. Surely you understand that standard, real evolutionary 'science' will have absolutely nothing to do with evolutionism being guided in any way by the hand of God.

rmwilliamsll · Sep 15, 2006

combatant said:
But the deck hasn't been stacked against believing in God, just the fact that he had anything to do with it. Surely you understand that standard, real evolutionary 'science' will have absolutely nothing to do with evolutionism being guided in any way by the hand of God.

ok.
show me how we can detect not just the finger of God in this world (so to speak) but understand that it is a supernatural event with it's cause in God.
how do you detect this supernatural causation? how do people agree on what happened? especially if this kind of knowledge has a significant moral, religious or spiritual aspect, that is unbelievers can't see God?
I'm a supernaturalist but i don't see how physical eyes can see God, see the soul, see miracles etc. but i'm open to your suggestions, tell us how to incorporate the supernatural into methodological naturalism in science to produce a supernaturalist science. Do something easy like physics first, then show us how you can detect the hand of God, say in mutations or mating patterns.

btw, we already have a supernaturalist "science" in theology, how come they can't decide what is true and not true?
why can't all Christians agree if there is this obvious supernaturalism that is clearly seen?
doesn't the unity of science and the disunity of the church show that supernaturalism is private knowledge with no real intersubjectivity nor standards nor public knowledge accessible by everyone?
how would you propose adjudicating conflicting religious claims just among those who believe as you do?
here you can start on credo and paedo baptism, show how you can demonstrate to all Christians that either one or the other is wrong.
or are the only real Christians only those who agree with you on every minute detail of theology?

do you really propose to re-introduce the divisiness of religion back into science?
what would it accomplish if you can not prove who the owner of the supernatural finger stirring the universe belongs to anyhow?

shernren · Sep 15, 2006

combatant said:
But the deck hasn't been stacked against believing in God, just the fact that he had anything to do with it. Surely you understand that standard, real evolutionary 'science' will have absolutely nothing to do with evolutionism being guided in any way by the hand of God.

I believe that the hand of God guided the Allies to victory in World War II, to halt the atrocities of the Nazi Germans and the torture the Japanese caused to my own people.

But that doesn't mean that I believe that any miracles had to happen. That doesn't mean that I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were decimated by angels, not by bombs. This doesn't mean that I believe the Commander of the Armies of the Lord was whispering instructions into Churchill's ears.

God can guide miracles. Why can't He use a naturalistic process either?

Tomk80 · Sep 15, 2006

combatant said:
But I suspect that things like Japan's abortion rate is much higher than America's, and the way they view abortion seems to be in a manner where nothing is even considered abnormal about it. For example, a quote from this page gives us a glimpse at how Japan views abortion:

"The attitude towards abortion is quite different here from that in our home countries; inJapan it is considered a necessary sadness and a natural process. Counselling is not provided, nor is it assumed that you will suffer any kind of moral dilemma." (emphasis added)

Let's check. We first need a source, of course.

Total abortion rate for USA (1996): 0.69
Total abortion rate for Japan (1995): 0.40

This is the legal abortion rate, defined as follows: The number of abortions that would be experienced by the average woman during her reproductive lifetime, given present age-specific abortion rates. Numbers in bold were estimated by multiplying the rate by 30 and dividing by 1,000

This is not counting illegal abortions. Now, probably, the illegal abortion rate would be lower in Japan, as there is no real need there to conceal it, right? So the ration of legal abortions in the USA is higher then in Japan, and if we would count illegal abortions this difference would probably increase.

(on a side-note, in the Netherlands, where abortions are completely legal, the rate is around 0.20. This is one of the lowest in the world. I do love my country).

Chalnoth · Sep 15, 2006

shernren said:
I believe that the hand of God guided the Allies to victory in World War II, to halt the atrocities of the Nazi Germans and the torture the Japanese caused to my own people.

So why didn't God stop Stalin from killing even more people?

USincognito · Sep 15, 2006

Chalnoth said:
So why didn't God stop Stalin from killing even more people?

Come now. Let's have a little evolutionist ecumenicism and leave stuff like this for GA.

Chalnoth · Sep 15, 2006

You're right, I'll try to ignore 'em more.

USincognito · Sep 15, 2006

combatant said:
But the deck hasn't been stacked against believing in God, just the fact that he had anything to do with it. Surely you understand that standard, real evolutionary 'science' will have absolutely nothing to do with evolutionism being guided in any way by the hand of God.

You mean real scientists who do real scientific work in fields associated with evolution like Bob Bakker, Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, etc. etc.? You mean real scientists who word real science within the scientific method and understanding of it's limitations but still maintain a deep and abiding faith?

I love them! They make, what for me is a social and educational battle a lot easier since it eviscerates the "evolution = atheism" straw man.

Look at two of three respondants so far? A very strict Calvinist and a Christian living in a Muslim country. Sounds like these guys are pretty serious about their faith... and yet we agree on the science.

Hmmm.

That said, your problem isn't with evolution, it's with science itself and to a lesser extent technology. Ever read a car manual that suggests prayer or the application of holy water before running a diagnostic computer? Ever taken a First Aid Course where angels were mentioned? Ever seen a NASA or NOAA press release that discussed how God was involved in landing a probe on Mars or how a hurricane missed populated areas?

You think there's a good reason for these oversights, or do you think Ford, Toyota, The American Red Cross, NASA and NOAA are part of your Evilutionist Conspiracy phantasm?

shernren · Sep 15, 2006

USincognito said:
... and a Christian living in a Muslim country. Sounds like these guys are pretty serious about their faith...

Malaysia isn't thaaaaaatt repressive ...

... yet.

@ Chalnoth: you're right, I haven't really thought about the Soviet Union's involvement in this, but as someone whose country was once invaded and occupied by the Japanese I am quite glad that they didn't win the war. That's all I'm trying to say.

birdan · Sep 15, 2006

Tomk80 said:
Let's check. We first need a source, of course.

Total abortion rate for USA (1996): 0.69
Total abortion rate for Japan (1995): 0.40

This is the legal abortion rate, defined as follows: The number of abortions that would be experienced by the average woman during her reproductive lifetime, given present age-specific abortion rates. Numbers in bold were estimated by multiplying the rate by 30 and dividing by 1,000

This is not counting illegal abortions. Now, probably, the illegal abortion rate would be lower in Japan, as there is no real need there to conceal it, right? So the ration of legal abortions in the USA is higher then in Japan, and if we would count illegal abortions this difference would probably increase.

(on a side-note, in the Netherlands, where abortions are completely legal, the rate is around 0.20. This is one of the lowest in the world. I do love my country).

So it looks like Combatant's opinion:

combatant said:
The systematic erosion of Biblical principles and morality is being perpetrated by those who are secular humanists, such as the ACLU. The rise of evolutionism has been to the detriment of America and its morality. If there is going to be a theocracy in the U.S., it's going to be from the church of evolutionism.

doesn't stack up to the reality test. Btw, the source for my previous post was the CIA World Factbook, and a recent study (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5788/765) shows that only about 10% of the Japanese adult population think "the theory of evolution is false". Given the preponderance of facts running counter to one's opinion, a rational person would re-think their opinion.

How the C&E debate has changed my beliefs

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Active Member

Senior Contributor

Regular Member

Active Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Titleless

Active Member

Active Member

avid reader

you are not reading this.

Titleless

Senior Contributor

a post by Alan Smithee

Senior Contributor

a post by Alan Smithee

you are not reading this.

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency