-
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.
I struggle with...
- Thread starter Barry Desborough
- Start date
- Status
razzelflabben
Contributor
I would agree...btw, thanks for addressing the OP topic it was refreshing to say the least
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
Now on the last part I will disagree...Remember way back in the beginning of this discussion when I said that the reason there is teaching on both sides of the issue is because both sides are lining their pockets by making it into an issue...that is both sides not just one. In fact, let me ask you all a question...what do you gain from trying to convince anyone of the theory of evolution? Whose life does it change for the better? Hint: it doesn't change anyone's life for the better and yet you all make an issue even when there isn't one. This is by design because it causes funding and controversy just for the money that it brings in. That being said, you got the above half right which means your conclusion to the matter is wrong as well because you dismissed half the evidence that we have.
There is no justification for a controversy over the issue. Both sides are justified in what they believe to be truth and both sides have evidence to support their view. Until or unless we take in all the evidence and from that draw a conclusion we are equally at fault and as this thread shows, you all are equally dogmatic as the creationists you rail against which is a huge problem because from the standpoint of human nature which is in essence what the thread is suppose to be talking about. You all are demonstrating further the truth that it is all emotionalism based in blind faith. The only difference is what you put your faith in. the only exception to this is those who are willing to put down the non sense in exchange for a rational discussion.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
lol amen and amen...or those that take someone like me who says ID is the closest thing to describe what I believe and turn that into some sort of free for all about YEC and the stupidity of believing in the God of the Bible.
Upvote
0
I'm not necessarilly denying what you say, but how is the "evolutionist side" (for want of a better word) lining their pockets?
What makes you think I've got anything to gain? Maybe I just enjoy discussing these topics. You never know, someone who's sitting on the fence of such issues might be reading this exchange and it's only fair to point out obvious misconceptions (such as there being no evidence for macro evolution). Hypothetically, such a person could be experiencing a crisis of faith as they struggle to reconcile the nonsense site like AIG promotes with what they're hearing elsewhere, could threads such as this not be useful to them?
So true, it's a lucrative business....
Institute of Creation Research generated about $6,000,000 in revenues FYE 2015, and as for Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis.....
Ham and his family members received a total of $456,437 in compensation from Answers in Genesis Inc. in fiscal 2012-13. That amounts to 4.4 percent of the $10.4 million in total compensation-related expenses that the organization reported that year
Answers in Genesis pays Ken Ham and family nearly $500,000 a year
As for controversy.....
"Teach the Controversy" is a campaign, conducted by the Discovery Institute, to promote the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses.
The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.[15][16][17] A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a "false perception" that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[15][16][18][19] McGill University Professor Brian Alters, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution",[20] whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[21][22] In the December 2005 ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".[23] The Dover ruling also characterized "teaching the controversy" as part of a religious ploy.
Teach the Controversy - Wikipedia
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
all the books, propaganda, grant money, etc. it all adds up.
There is a difference between enjoying to talk about something and trying to belittle and ridicule people who hold a different view. It is the later I am speaking of.
lol...please show the evidence for macro evolution, you know that that requires millions and billions of years to evidence....you know this is really getting to be a tiring argument. you and others claiming there is evidence for macro evolution but only present evidence for micro evolution and speciation and such that is not being questioned in the first place.
"could threads such as this not be useful to them? Don't know how since this thread is about why they believe as they do and nothing more. In fact, claims such as the above about evidence for macro evolution just make their beliefs look stronger in their eyes.
WEll, I disagree with the conclusion but agree with the rest...I mean as I previously stated, if you only look at part of the evidence you are not likely to get the conclusion right.....a simple and quick websearch shows us more of the picture...https://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/nsf_spends_almost_2_million_of/
It isn't just the creation people who are making money by digging their feet into something that cannot at this time be evidenced.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,626
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
[Staff edit].
When a discussion is going badly, you can always attempt to fiddle with definitions to get out of it. The standard scientific definition of macroevolution includes speciation--which has been observed. I assume that is why you have started to refer to "macroevolution which cannot be tested." rather than just "macroevolution."
When a discussion is going badly, you can always attempt to fiddle with definitions to get out of it. The standard scientific definition of macroevolution includes speciation--which has been observed. I assume that is why you have started to refer to "macroevolution which cannot be tested." rather than just "macroevolution."
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
lol no one here that I know of has ever questioned speciation in fact, I have agreed that it is evidenced and is supported in Gen. so don't know what you hope to gain by trying to recreate the argument as you are doing.
Upvote
0
No, I'm not following you, you said they're making money from making an issue of the contoversy. Just going about their business isn't doing that, can you provide any examples? What are they doing that's different from any other field of study, astronomy for example.
I agree.
I provided quite a comprehensive list three times, you have rejected it out of hand without justification, I'm not sure what you want.
Well maybe they could take solace from seeing that posters like Speedwell or Strathos have no problem in reconciling modern understandings of biology with the Christian faith, but we digress.
LOL, The National Science Foundation funding science education, who'd have thought it! Who's profiting from this? I like that your source is an arm of the same Discovery Institute I mentioned above, did you make a donation.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
oh you all sometimes wear me out...Subscribe to read
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/phi...lution-for-international-business-studies.php
At Age 180, Darwin's Theory of Evolution a Materialist House of Cards | The Stream
well, there are a few for you to look at...
none of it evidenced macro evolution over micro evolution which is the heart of the issue. Since I asked and you claimed you could present evidence for macro over micro I'm still waiting. Since we both know you can't do it I am figuring I'll be waiting for a good long time. Now also keep in mind I am not asking for evidence that can draw the conclusion of macro but rather evidence that 1. is specific to macro or 2. only allows for one viable conclusion which none of what you presented does.
wow...some other sources above....one thing that I hate soooooo much is when someone asks for evidence then when presented finds a way to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with what they want to believe. Seriously, if you want to argue against the evidence presented then find a source that says they are wrong. Everyone gets something right once in awhile and if I can confess that about evolution why can't you confess it about things that you don't believe in...oh, wait, because I don't have any thoughts as to whether or not evolution is true and you are convinced it is, is that the difference between you and I when it comes to evidence?
Upvote
0
What the heck is that? The first is a student essay about how Darwin's ideas can be applied to business, the second is a jounalists opinion on materialism. Seriously how is that the "evolution side" making money by creating a controversy?
Incidentally, the photo accompanying the journalists short piece is of the library in the town where I live, Darwin's birthplace.
You won't even comment on what I posted, why should I bother, so you can handwave it away? This is not the "convince razzelflabben evolution is true" thread. I was merely pointing out that your assertion that there is no evidence for macro evolution is false, I have done that by posting evidence. Now we can go through that evidence step by step and you can demonstrate why it isn't evidence if you like, if not your hand waving will be ignored.
LOL. What is your issue with a Federal body responsible for funding science education funding science education? Or should they only fund subjects that don't conflict with your religious beliefs?
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,626
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
[Staff edit].
Take Louis Pasteur for an example. Pasteur was a Roman Catholic, which alone rules him out. He was skeptical of evolution, because at the time it didn't possess the evidentiary support he thought it needed, not because he was protecting a religious dogma.
Take Louis Pasteur for an example. Pasteur was a Roman Catholic, which alone rules him out. He was skeptical of evolution, because at the time it didn't possess the evidentiary support he thought it needed, not because he was protecting a religious dogma.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,626
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
[Staff edit].
Creationism is based on an idolatrous devolution to the Bible which requires that the appearance of the creation stories of Genesis as accurate literal history be maintained at all costs. Only evangelical Protestantism allows the theological scope for such an aberration. It is a reactionary movement. One might say that there was no such thing as creationism before Lyell and Darwin. One might even make the case that creationism dates from the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris. Certainly that work defines modern-day creationism.
Creationism is based on an idolatrous devolution to the Bible which requires that the appearance of the creation stories of Genesis as accurate literal history be maintained at all costs. Only evangelical Protestantism allows the theological scope for such an aberration. It is a reactionary movement. One might say that there was no such thing as creationism before Lyell and Darwin. One might even make the case that creationism dates from the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris. Certainly that work defines modern-day creationism.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,626
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
[Staff edit].
Evolution doesn't have to be absolute truth to be truer than creationism. It can merely be a scientific theory, accepted provisionally like all scientific theories and still be truer than creationism.
Evolution doesn't have to be absolute truth to be truer than creationism. It can merely be a scientific theory, accepted provisionally like all scientific theories and still be truer than creationism.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
[Staff edit].
We look at the geology of the Earth we can work out and understand how it was formed, it's history etc. We can look at the flora and fauna and detect and measure patterns in their development and distribution. What we don't see are the 'fingerprints' of a creator that needs to be identified, in fact, such a notion raises more questions than it answers... Why are the most primitive forms of life buried in the oldest strata? Why do they appear do develop, branch off and diversify over time? Why do markers in our genome reflect what we see in the fossil record?
We look at the geology of the Earth we can work out and understand how it was formed, it's history etc. We can look at the flora and fauna and detect and measure patterns in their development and distribution. What we don't see are the 'fingerprints' of a creator that needs to be identified, in fact, such a notion raises more questions than it answers... Why are the most primitive forms of life buried in the oldest strata? Why do they appear do develop, branch off and diversify over time? Why do markers in our genome reflect what we see in the fossil record?
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
that would depend on what version of creation you want to accept and for what reason you want to accept it. In my version the same evidence supports both and so it is a 50/50 at best...and you have a problem with that for some unknown reason. Oh wait, the reason is your blind faith that the theory of evolution is the only possible answer whereas I look at the evidence and ask, what are all the possibles and which ones fit the evidence and to what degree? It's two different ways to look at the same evidence. In one (your way) you are told what to make of the evidence. In the other (mine) I ask the evidence to show me truth. It's how I study everything from school subjects to the bible. I let the evidence tell me what is truth or presumed truth depending on what we are talking about. You like most people who attended public school rely on the teachers, in this case the scientists to tell you what to believe about the evidence. Different approaches, different perspectives, nothing more or less.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
[Staff edit].
Fair enough, so you accept creation because of the evidence. What type of creationism do you believe in?
Fair enough, so you accept creation because of the evidence. What type of creationism do you believe in?
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Wow, it's getting like the Wicker Man round here, all these strawmen. The very post you're responding to states that the TOE is "accepted provisionally like all scientific theories". No one thinks it's the only possible answer, just the one with mountains of evidence across multiple disciplines confirming it.
Upvote
0
razzelflabben
Contributor
You are asking questions here as someone who has been taught to believe a certain thing, which isn't your fault nor are you necessarily wrong to do so, at least you are asking questions and I fear we can't answer all of them here in this post on this thread.
Short cut...assume for just a moment that there is a creator...no harm is assuming for just a moment you won't explode or anything...what would His/Her/Their creation look like? Base your hypothesis off of how we know if anything in our world today is created or spontaneously exists. I was able to do this test when I was about 6 it's not that hard of a test to think through. (test meaning looking at critically) I presented a couple, you can think of more I am sure
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Gene Parmesan
Well-Known Member
- Apr 4, 2017
- 695
- 546
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I'd say a world created by a benevolent God would have a lot of similarities with how most of us picture Heaven. We could just skip over the bits that contain the sexual exploitation of innocent children and that kind of thing. There wouldn't be a litmus test that weeds out the people that withhold belief in things they aren't convinced of. And there most assuredly wouldn't be a realm of existence where people are infinitely tortured for finite crimes.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
