If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[pitabread]

... then what have they been publishing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology all these years?

(Not to mention other scientific journals like Evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Genome Biology and Evolution, and so on...)

 

[Saucy]

Fake news.

 

[pitabread]

Fake news.

Not sure if serious...

But this type of denialism does seem rampant amongst creationists on this forum. Makes me wonder what they think scientists actually do.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Not sure if serious...

But this type of denialism does seem rampant amongst creationists on this forum. Makes me wonder what they think scientists actually do.

Secular scientists are trained with a bias against God to begin with. From an early age in their training they are given "rose colored" glasses, or glasses that are shaded against and distorted from true reality. Since the 1800's the "scientific" world has rejected the truth, and followed the errors of Darwin and others. They start with a preconceived, erroneous idea that life evolved over millions of years, and even when an animal that they say was extinct for millennia (the coelacanth) swims up and bites them in the ...., or their dinosaurs from antiquity that they dig up start being found with skin on them, and then food in their stomachs and mouths, they still don't see they are not as old as their faulty dating methods and God rejecting professors lead them to believe. Romans 1:22.

 

[sfs]

... then what have they been publishing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology all these years?

Lies, delusions, limericks -- the usual fare for a scientific journal.

 

[sfs]

Secular scientist are trained with a bias against God to begin with. From an early age in their training they are given "rose colored" glasses, or glasses that are shaded against and distorted from true reality. Since the 1800's the "scientific" world has rejected the truth, and followed the errors of Darwin and others. They start with a preconceived, erroneous idea that life evolved

Here is a short description I wrote about one of the many pieces of evidence for evolution. Please tell me where in there I was biased against God and what reality I distorted.

 

[danbuter]

Species that have children pass on their genes. Species that don't have children disappear from the Earth. That's all evolution is.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Here is a short description I wrote about one of the many pieces of evidence for evolution. Please tell me where in there I was biased against God and what reality I distorted.

I don't have to finish your second sentence to do that.
Before one gets to your period you write "Most of evolution happened in the distant past, after all. We claim that humans and chimpanzees descended from a single ancestral species over millions of years,"
Your bias against God is obvious. Not only have you not read all 1,189 chapters of his book the Bible, you seem to have not even read chapter one or verse one. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." If you were to go on and read the rest of the story (the Bible) you could trace back to the beginning in some 6,000 yrs, or if using modern versions of the Bible (which say there are gaps in the chronology of the Bible) some 10,000 years. When God shows us that the material universe is only 6-10,000 years old, and men say that it is millions of years old, then that is "distorted." If one will not even read outside of the realm of secular scientists, is not one biased in their thinking? Of course the argument/debate expands continually with questions/attacks, points and counterpoints, ad infinitum.

 

[Greg Merrill]

... then what have they been publishing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology all these years?

(Not to mention other scientific journals like Evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Genome Biology and Evolution, and so on...)

You mention all these other "scientific journals." Did you know that if you go to the "Fiction" section of a library, you will find more than one book?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't have to finish your second sentence to do that.
Before one gets to your period you write "Most of evolution happened in the distant past, after all. We claim that humans and chimpanzees descended from a single ancestral species over millions of years,"
Your bias against God is obvious. Not only have you not read all 1,189 chapters of his book the Bible, you seem to have not even read chapter one or verse one. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." If you were to go on and read the rest of the story (the Bible) you could trace back to the beginning in some 6,000 yrs, or if using modern versions of the Bible (which say there are gaps in the chronology of the Bible) some 10,000 years. When God shows us that the material universe is only 6-10,000 years old, and men say that it is millions of years old, then that is "distorted." If one will not even read outside of the realm of secular scientists, is not one biased in their thinking? Of course the argument/debate expands continually with questions/attacks, points and counterpoints, ad infinitum.

Disinterest in the reading of the Bible favored by Creationists is not the same thing as "bias against God"

 

[Greg Merrill]

Disinterest in the reading of the Bible favored by Creationists is not the same thing as "bias against God"

I dare to differ.

 

[pitabread]

Secular scientist are trained with a bias against God to begin with.

Not sure what a "secular scientist" is, although I do notice this continual pattern of trying to brand things creationists don't like.

Regardless, the existence of plenty of scientists that also profess various religious beliefs including belief in the Christian God renders any attempts at over-generalization or branding science some sort of anti-theistic crusade completely moot. It simply doesn't jive with reality.

Romans 1:22

Pretty sure this could just as easily apply to creationists and/or any fundamentalist mindset.

 

[pitabread]

You mention all these other "scientific journals." Did you know that if you go to the "Fiction" section of a library, you will find more than one book?

That wasn't the question.

What do you think is published in those journals?

 

[expos4ever]

That wasn't the question.

What do you think is published in those journals?

Good move. Although they are often quite skilled at the old two-step, forcing creationists to say that tens of thousands of trained experts are all either deluded, incompetent, or engaged in a monumental conspiracy reveals the profound implausibility of the creationist worldview.

 

[Deadworm]

Greg and the other anti-evolutionists posting on this thread lack the integrity and love of Truth to watch and then comment on these 2 YouTube lectures by Roman Catholic cell biologist and evolution text book writer, Dr. Kenneth. Prove me wrong!

kenneth miller youtube evolution - Bing video

In the first lecture, Miller demonstrates how clueless such posters are about the nature of science and the spiritual motivations of evolutionists. In the second lecture, especially near the end, he provides an example of how evolution can be proven.

Pitabread, watch these 2 videos yourself and then watch how the pontificating anti-evolutionists here will duck, evade--in short, say practically anything to avoid the hard work of critical engagement with the actual details of Miller's case.

 

[sfs]

I don't have to finish your second sentence to do that.

Perhaps if you'd read past the second sentence you'd have come up with a valid argument. (Unlikely, sure, but anything is possible.)

Before one gets to your period you write "Most of evolution happened in the distant past, after all. We claim that humans and chimpanzees descended from a single ancestral species over millions of years,"

Yeah -- that's the claim that I then proceed to test. You know, in the part you didn't read.

Your bias against God is obvious. Not only have you not read all 1,189 chapters of his book the Bible,

So far, every single thing you've written has been wrong. I am (a) a Christian, and have (b) read the whole Bible on multiple occasions, and was (c) writing on an explicitly Christian site.

Now, try again: what did I say that was inaccurate? (And no, "disagrees with my hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible" does not mean that something is inaccurate.)

 

[pitabread]

When God shows us that the material universe is only 6-10,000 years old, and men say that it is millions of years old, then that is "distorted." If one will not even read outside of the realm of secular scientists, is not one biased in their thinking? Of course the argument/debate expands continually with questions/attacks, points and counterpoints, ad infinitum.

Just using the Earth and Solar system as an example, there are multiple lines of independent evidence and dating methodologies that point to it being ~4.6 billion years old.

There are no independent lines of evidence used to date the Earth according to YECist timelines. Heck, even the Institute for Creation Research's own RATE project concluded there is hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity on Earth they have to account for.

You accuse others of not having "read outside of the realm of secular scientists", but have you ever read outside the realm of fundamentalist religion? Biases can cut both ways.

It's worth noting though that adopting YECism requires one to not only reject things like biological evolution or geology, but pretty much every other branch of the natural sciences and even basic human history. In effect, you need to pretend the last 200 years or so of gathered knowledge never happened. Not a position I envy.

(As an aside, I've noticed that many creationists don't seem that familiar even with creationist literature. For example, if you go to Answers in Genesis, a prominent creationist web site, they emphatically argue against the day-age/gap theory of creation and in particular the notion the world could be 10,000 years old. Yet claiming the world is either 6,000 or 10,000 years of age is a pretty significant margin of error for such a measurement.)

 

[Saucy]

Not sure if serious...

But this type of denialism does seem rampant amongst creationists on this forum. Makes me wonder what they think scientists actually do.

What do you expect creationists to do? Of course we deny the 'science'. There's a huge difference between observable science and stuff that happened supposedly billions of years ago and all you have are rocks. Most of these fossils I've seen that supposedly prove we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps are tiny fragments. You go into a museum and these fragments are completely filled in with plaster to make it look whole and there's a massive corresponding image on what the scientists think the creature looks like.

Have there not been numerous frauds and cases of mistake identity? Like when a single tooth was found and it was lifted up as proof of human evolution! They designed a whole creature and what it would've looked like from that single tooth. It was later found out that the tooth belonged to an extinct type of pig.

Yet, someone from the science community would've called me an idiot for questioning almighty science. It was put into textbooks as proof of evolution and it turned out it wasn't.

 

[Saucy]

Just using the Earth and Solar system as an example, there are multiple lines of independent evidence and dating methodologies that point to it being ~4.6 billion years old.

There are no independent lines of evidence used to date the Earth according to YECist timelines. Heck, even the Institute for Creation Research's own RATE project concluded there is hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity on Earth they have to account for.

You accuse others of not having "read outside of the realm of secular scientists", but have you ever read outside the realm of fundamentalist religion? Biases can cut both ways.

It's worth noting though that adopting YECism requires one to not only reject things like biological evolution or geology, but pretty much every other branch of the natural sciences and even basic human history. In effect, you need to pretend the last 200 years or so of gathered knowledge never happened. Not a position I envy.

(As an aside, I've noticed that many creationists don't seem that familiar even with creationist literature. For example, if you go to Answers in Genesis, a prominent creationist web site, they emphatically argue against the day-age/gap theory of creation and in particular the notion the world could be 10,000 years old. Yet claiming the world is either 6,000 or 10,000 years of age is a pretty significant margin of error for such a measurement.)

The problem with this is, most people who are creationists go to schools that teach evolution. We see both sides of it. It's really the atheists and evolutionists who have NEVER stopped and looked at something with an open mind. I have. I used to be an atheist until I had an experience that told me God is real. You could easily discount that experience as a hallucination, but I know it was real. From there, I went on a journey to discover who God is.

 

[pitabread]

Have there not been numerous frauds and cases of mistake identity?

Generally there are two that creationists constantly bring up. Piltdown Man, which was a deliberate fraud, and was not without controversy among scientists even prior to the fraud being uncovered.

And Nebraska Man which you mentioned. Which was a mistake identification more owing to an errant newspaper article than any scientific publication.

Both of these happened around a hundred years ago. It's time to let them go as they really don't help the case for creationists at this stage. Especially when weighed against the sheer volume of non controversial fossil finds.