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

[tas8831]

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

Non sequitur.

You presented the bible as 'God's book' and such, but the facts are not in your favor.

 

[tas8831]

That paper is garbage. I've read it multiple times and posted about it here before; it's basically an incomplete review of evolutionary literature on bird evolution, which the author criticizes and never actually provides any evidence for design.

Considering how poor an example of scholarship it represents, I'm surprised the DI even has it on their site. It demonstrates how barren the landscape of ID literature though if this is what they choose to highlight.

As you are aware, there are many creationist organizations and individuals whose primary (if not exclusive) m.o. is to take a paper or a concept and essentially just say they don't accept it, to make fun of the words used, etc., then conclude CREATION! They offer no alternative (I don;t really consider 'Goddidit' an explanation), typically no real criticism, etc. It is amazing.

 

[tas8831]

Interesting to say the least. Especially when the Bible says we were created from the dust of the earth, right there on the spot, with no mention whatsoever of an evolving period. I mean that's what my bible says anyway so that's what I choose to believe.

Pretty simple concept really.

So simple, even a child will believe it. Well, a non-inquisitive child.

Any insights on the mechanism of human-creation from dust? I mean, dust is basically minerals. How did God transform minerals into organic molecules, into cells, etc.?

You see, in science, we seek to EXPLAIN things, not just toss out stuff written by men thousands of years before the printing press was invented.

 

[tas8831]

No proof? OK, thank you just the same..

And your proof of creation is...?

In my experience, there will be:

1. God said it!
2. Its in the bible!
3. ...


Neither of which is very convincing to educated adults.

 

[tas8831]

You aren't paying attention, but I think that's by design. Glad you think that's working for you.

What is there to pay attention to?

Creationist antics are pretty well known. Your kind has a distinct tendency to rely on repetitive questions, dodging, martyrdom, etc. Gets old.

And aren't you one of the creationists I caught plagiarizing a few months ago? I know there was pshun and uber genius and brad... but I thought the other one was you....

 

[tas8831]

Secular scientist generally do not come from religious schools such as you. There are usually exceptions to the rule, of which you seem to be one. Secular scientists in general follow the religion of humanism, not of the doctrines of specific churches like the Catholic Church, let alone those taught in God's Word, the Bible. Check out the following URL.
Secular Science

It is just so precious when Christians feel the need to label things they disagree with as 'religions.' It really says something when they think it 'takes you down a notch or two' to be called a follower of a religion.

They seem incapable of understanding the self-defeating nature of that tactic.

 

[tas8831]

A person that graduates with honors from a university that promotes atheism may be thought by some to have a better education than a person that never even attended high school, but God says "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God." Psalms 14:1; Psalms 53:1.

This is hilarious - when an Evangelical brings up that verse, you know that have nothing left to argue.

How about when God says to bash the heads of children on rocks and to cut up pregnant women, thus killing their unborn child, all because they lived in a land that did not worship Him?

 

[tas8831]

There is no evidence, so there is not proof.

So you are admitting that creation is a myth? After all, there is no evidence, and thus, according to you, there is no proof for it.

Then there is the "You think you are smarter than the the scientist who have been doing this for years?" I mean how dare you think for yourself? lol And these are the free thinkers, mind you, that make the accusation.

When someone with no relevant education or experience "thinks for themself" when it comes to issues like biological science, it rapidly becomes clear that such a person is not a very good thinker. I don't understand this line of 'reasoning' - do you think you are just as good a football player as Brett Favre? Why not? You think you are intellectually capable of shutting down a practicing scientist, right?

I find it odd how many creationists lambaste 'educated elites' and such, yet fancy themselves so smart so as to be ABOVE such folk, intellectually. They, of course, suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, and are too prideful to admit otherwise.

When you have a guy that has been asking whether a robot made of organic molecules is alive or not - and has been doing so for YEARS - it is pretty safe to say that this guy is out of his league, no?

Believe it or not, just because it might hurt your feelings to be told you don't understand something as well as someone that has studied a subject for years as their profession, it doesn't mean that your unwarranted opinions have merit anymore than whining about how Brett Favre thinks he is so good at football means that you, too, are a great football player.

You folks need to grow some humility.

All is well and good until someone actually has to prove it.

That must be why, whenever a creationist is asked to provide evidence for creation, they are only capable of linking to YEC sites, yammering on about the bible or the classic burden shifting.

Then there is the old bible verse about how only fools don't believe in God. I mean golly, who can argue against that .....
Anyway, thanks for the laughs!

 

[Greg Merrill]

Just curious - what is your scientific background?


Lots of them. Most of the ones I see there are religious in nature. One bookstore I went to a few years ago correctly had books on Creationism in the fiction section.

What is your point?

Scientific background: The public school system from 1959-1971. I was a zoology major in Jr. College, and also took Psychology.
My point is: a lot of what is taught is not true science. It is a wrong conclusion based on an incorrect bias.

 

[Greg Merrill]

On what basis did you determine that what they claim is accurate?

They have an agenda to push. They make money doing it.

Most of their target audience lacks the requisite knowledge to tell that most of their claims are bogus.

On what basis did you determine their claims are not accurate.
They had no agenda. They were not even orthodox Christians. They simply looked at the evidence and let it speak for itself without bias for a change, and without preconceived ideas and preconceived agendas. Their research actually went against what they previously had been taught, taught themselves, and believed and had written books and papers on. That took some humility to say they had proved themselves wrong in the past.
Evolutionary scientists make money at what they do as well, so that is beside the point, and irrelevant. Even God said the ox that plowed should be allowed to eat of the grain, and that ministers should be allowed to be paid for their ministry.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Non sequitur.

You presented the bible as 'God's book' and such, but the facts are not in your favor.

Facts? You probably are referring to something called "facts" that are not the facts to be used to present the Bible as God's Word, or have seen those "facts" misinterpreted and misevaluated.

 

[Greg Merrill]

It is just so precious when Christians feel the need to label things they disagree with as 'religions.' It really says something when they think it 'takes you down a notch or two' to be called a follower of a religion.

They seem incapable of understanding the self-defeating nature of that tactic.

This is not my objective at all. I pretty much just go by proper definitions and sharing information, not trying to take people down a notch. But your defensive response is understandable and natural. I am not here to debate atheists, to play verbal "war games" with military tactics to defeat their arguments. He that is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I just try to share the truth, and if people want to accept it or reject it that is their choice, and I accept that. Wishing them all well.

 

[Greg Merrill]

This is hilarious - when an Evangelical brings up that verse, you know that have nothing left to argue.

How about when God says to bash the heads of children on rocks and the cut up pregnant women, thus killing their unborn child, all because they lived in a land that did not worship Him?

You are wrong both on your assumption that evangelicals have nothing left to argue (unless they choose not to argue for some very good reasons, not because of lack of information, resources, proofs, etc.) and on your question relating to the mass annihilation of certain people groups. For the latter, do you yourself have a reasonable answer, no answer at all, or do you just find this annihilation offensive, disagreeable to you, and criticize it. I will leave the" answer/reason God did this" for another post

 

[Kenny'sID]

So simple, even a child will believe it. Well, a non-inquisitive child.

Yes, simple. Unlike some maybe the children are inquisitive enough to know the body turns to dust after it's dead? But also smart enough to know a little commonsense and inquisitiveness goes a long way to not coming up with some of the most ridiculous alternative explanations, as in, it just happened....poof.

Did you know the dust of the earth can turn into some of the most beautiful and intricate things one has ever seen? And basically feed the world? Pretty impressive for a few "basic minerals". You probably have a lot of reading up to do on your own science there.

Any insights on the mechanism of human-creation from dust? I mean, dust is basically minerals. How did God transform minerals into organic molecules, into cells, etc.?

Any insights on where you think man came from? I mean from the start...where did all the elements come from in order to just happen to all fall together and eventually turn into man?

You see, in science, we seek to EXPLAIN things, not just toss out stuff written by men thousands of years before the printing press was invented.

With your knowledge of dust, I'd keep "seeking" if I were you.

Unless you can prove what ever else you *think* you have explained, thus far it looks like you are failing miserably.

Haven't read them but I'd guess the rest of your posts are as baseless as this one, so may or may not bother.

 

[Speedwell]

Scientific background: The public school system from 1959-1971. I was a zoology major in Jr. College, and also took Psychology.
My point is: a lot of what is taught is not true science. It is a wrong conclusion based on an incorrect bias.

The only "bias" I see is that the Genesis stories are not a 100% accurate literal account of our origins.

 

[MoneyGuy]

so if fossils indeed so old we can predict that we should not find a fossil with DNA remains that is date for more then 1 my?

I don't understand what you wrote.

 

[MoneyGuy]

"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Paul Simon

That quote belongs in the flat-earth threads.

 

[Greg Merrill]

The only "bias" I see is that the Genesis stories are not a 100% accurate literal account of our origins.

Where are they not accurate?

 

[HitchSlap]

Scientific background: The public school system from 1959-1971. I was a zoology major in Jr. College, and also took Psychology.
My point is: a lot of what is taught is not true science. It is a wrong conclusion based on an incorrect bias.

A. JuCo's don't offer "majors."
B. Psychology has nothing to do with natural science.
& C. Science is the best way to learn about reality.

 

[HitchSlap]

Where are they not accurate?

G1/2 are myths, that express man's understanding of the nature of reality and our place in it. Genesis is not literal in any sense, and this anti-intellectual movement of creationism is for the gullible.