If evolution is true...

[OldWiseGuy]

That's one of the "ponderings" where I'd say your conclusion is not very good.

A reasonable conclusion sans needed information.

So there are "so-called" experts in some "most important" areas of life. They are wrong (in your opinion).

If they are ineffective can they be right? What good is 'expertise' if people don't buy into it?

And that means that no experts anywhere exist, and everyones view on things is of equal value and relevance for every topic.

The proof is in the outcomes. For example, the homeless with drug and mental problems need to be involuntarily hospitalized and treated. However, the experts don't agree with this. So are they really experts?

Not everyone who poses as an expert is an expert. And not everyone that is thought of by others to be an expert is an expert. Be careful who you consider to be an expert.

"Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is true."

 

[bekkilyn]

If you accept some things on faith you can use your brain for other things.

"After thinking about all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can even think at all." -Neil Simon.

Faith is also based on evidence that points to the unseen; it is not pretending that our brains only work under certain churchianity-approved circumstances.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Faith is also based on evidence that points to the unseen; it is not pretending that our brains only work under certain churchianity-approved circumstances.

Absolutely! Knowledge and experience reinforce faith. We are to prove our faith to ourselves by putting it to the test. Our beliefs then become sure knowledge. I first began 'keeping' the Sabbath as a ritual/ceremonial belief, not as a physical reality. I now understand the incredible truth, value, and necessity, of resting mind and body from work for a full day each week.

 

[pitabread]

Absolutely! Knowledge and experience reinforce faith. We are to prove our faith to ourselves by putting it to the test. Our beliefs then become sure knowledge.

How do you put such beliefs to the test?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How do you put such beliefs to the test?

See above post regarding the Sabbath. Most articles of faith can be proven in the real everyday sense. Unlike other 'experts' God adds the condition, "No, Really ", to those articles of faith.

 

[pitabread]

See above post regarding the Sabbath. Most articles of faith can be proven in the real everyday sense. Unlike other 'experts' God adds the condition, "No, Really ", to those articles of faith.

I fail to see how acknowledging the benefits of resting one day a week requires or supports divine revelation.

 

[expos4ever]

Too much reliance on so-called experts, especially in the most important areas of life; namely health, wealth, and happiness. I enjoy all of these, but if I listened to the experts I would be sick, broke, and miserable.

Anecdotal. You may well be healthy even if you have, unwisely, rejected expert consensus on matters of health. If I am not mistaken, you believe that eating properly and exercising adequately are more or less all you need to ensure health. Correct me if I have mischaracterized your beliefs on this matter.

Modern medicine, while not perfect, clearly is, on the whole, a great boon to humanity. I suggest the evidence for this is overwhelming.

 

[eleos1954]

Has anyone else noticed that when someone starts a question/argument with "if evolution is true..." that what follows invariably has nothing to do with how evolution actually works?

Why is that?

Everybody understands what theory is .... whether they apply that to creation or evolution is their choice.

Science and people of faith agree whatever happened to allow life to begin ... started out in the cosmos and the cosmos is too vast for anyone to fully comprehend it.

A new frontier for science ...

Dark matter is stuff in space that has gravity, but it is unlike anything scientists have ever seen before. Together, dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of the universe. That only leaves a small 5% for all the matter and energy we know and understand.

So ... the theory of evolution is based on at best 5% of what is understood.

Life here on earth, various forms, are studied by science and some things are learned about life ... and it's good that it is studied ... much is learned ... much will be learned ... and is beneficial to mankind in many ways.

Much time and technology has advanced since darwins' theory and time for people to get out of earth's zoo in regard to when/how life began and get into the cosmos (where it is agreed life began) ... and many many many scientists are doing just that.

Here's a visual - from the science perspective.

 

[pitabread]

Obviously, if you want to believe this you can; however, I suggest there is precious little evidence to support this. For example, what "political" motive is there to advance the theory of evolution by natural selection?

This is why I always point to industry. If the theory of evolution were as flawed as creationists claim it is, why isn't anyone in industry raising the alarm bells? Why aren't biotech companies flocking to creationism as a superior explanatory framework for application in biology?

 

[pitabread]

In my initial response, "Genesis literalism" was merely mentioned in passing--incidentally. The rest was about trying to directly answer your "Why is that?" question. It was you who made creationism an issue of focus. Frankly, I don't see how the "why" question you posed can be explored without addressing the thought processes of the hypothetical "someone" who seems to be the object of the "why" question. But it's your thread, so I acquiesce. Perhaps the "why" question was rhetorical? Maybe a little more detail as to what it is exactly that you wish to discuss would be helpful.

Fair enough, I was admittedly hasty in my previous response.

To address the rest of your prior post, I fully acknowledge that there are creationists that have knowledge of biology and evolution, however they tend to be somewhat rare. In general there tends to be inverse correlations between knowledge of science and evolution versus the acceptance thereof. Or to put it another way, one's lack of knowledge of science and evolution can be used a predictor of creationist beliefs. This is based on studies that look at these sorts of correlations.

In general, on this forum those who seem to be creationists don't typically demonstrate much, if any real knowledge of the subject of evolution.

Hence with respect to the OP, it's a question of the issue of asking obviously loaded questions about evolution based on a non-sequitur.

I'm curious as to why people do this. I guess what I'm really looking for is if there is some sort of psychology behind it.

 

[loveofourlord]

Has anyone else noticed that when someone starts a question/argument with "if evolution is true..." that what follows invariably has nothing to do with how evolution actually works?

Why is that?

we already have so's law, should we come up with the IF variant?

 

[loveofourlord]

Or maybe they just take the Genesis account literally and believe that it is authoritative and is in no way deliberately misleading. Isn't that a rather simple conclusion for a person to make? There are many people who hold this view and are not so ignorant about evolution. Aren't there varying degrees of expertise on evolution? How much must one know about evolution to be qualified to decide for himself if he will accept the Genesis account? Have that criteria been established? What, exactly, constitutes ignorance in this case?

It seems to me that the line is drawn distinctly for some that if the findings of science are not believed to be of supreme authority on the matter of origins, the objections are held up to ridicule and dismissal, no matter the level of the objector's awareness.

well it would help if their arguments showed any understanding of evolution. For many creationists and c-design proponents here on the forum, their understanding of evolution is lacking in their own arguments. If they don't even understand mutations, and such how can I trust them on an ything else they say about evolution.

 

[loveofourlord]

Some ancient medicine isn't too shabby, either.

Except that many arn't and people still swear by them, ancient medicine that works is called medicine, ancient medicine that doesn't is called quackery, alternative medicine, complimentary medicine.

 

[loveofourlord]

Only partially. And some would argue that anecdote can be very useful in making a point.

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence.

 

[pitabread]

we already have so's law, should we come up with the IF variant?

So's law?

 

[bekkilyn]

Absolutely! Knowledge and experience reinforce faith. We are to prove our faith to ourselves by putting it to the test. Our beliefs then become sure knowledge. I first began 'keeping' the Sabbath as a ritual/ceremonial belief, not as a physical reality. I now understand the incredible truth, value, and necessity, of resting mind and body from work for a full day each week.

So when all evidence points to at least some aspects of evolution being true, then perhaps faith in a literal six 24-hour days of creation is an incorrect focus of faith, putting focus of faith on the creation rather than on the Creator. Knowledge of evolution does not in any way diminish faith in God as Creator.

 

[loveofourlord]

So's law?

Something like, "Any post starting with the phrase So, is inevitably going to strawman the post it's responding too."

Things like, "I think X about evolution is true." response, "So you think were just animals and we shouldn't be responsible for our own actions and rape should be fine." or simular things.

it seems to come from these forums :>

 

[Emsmom1]

So when all evidence points to at least some aspects of evolution being true, then perhaps faith in a literal six 24-hour days of creation is an incorrect focus of faith, putting focus of faith on the creation rather than on the Creator. Knowledge of evolution does not in any way diminish faith in God as Creator.

Yes! I agree it does not in any way diminish faith in God as Creator.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I fail to see how acknowledging the benefits of resting one day a week requires or supports divine revelation.

It's a "no, really" thing. You actually have to do it, as in abstinence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Anecdotal. You may well be healthy even if you have, unwisely, rejected expert consensus on matters of health. If I am not mistaken, you believe that eating properly and exercising adequately are more or less all you need to ensure health. Correct me if I have mischaracterized your beliefs on this matter.

It really is that simple, yes.

Modern medicine, while not perfect, clearly is, on the whole, a great boon to humanity. I suggest the evidence for this is overwhelming

I agree. However modern medicine only exists because of our disregard for our health.