Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Astrid]

The earth is telling us a different story.

Pretty much an insult to such God as there may be to ignorantly
deny the record written into the earth itself, in favour of the
so- arrogant belief in personal infallibility- in science and Bible reading.

 

[Speedwell]

So they can keep their job?

Why not? If you can believe in "imbedded age" they can believe in "imbedded evolution." But most Christians didn't regard the literal inerrancy of Genesis to be essential to their faith before they ever heard of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Pretty much an insult to such God as there may be to ignorantly
ceny the record written into the earth itself, in favour of the
so- arrogant belief in personal infallibility- in science and Bible reading.

Proclaiming that the theory of evolution denies the existence of God makes creationists sound more important to themselves than the truth--that it merely pokes holes in some of their theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not? If you can believe in "imbedded age" they can believe in "imbedded evolution." But most Christians didn't regard the literal inerrancy of Genesis to be essential to their faith before they ever heard of evolution.

Imbedded [sic] Evolution is Omphalism.

 

[chad kincham]

If you know all that much about science then you know that atheistic materialism is not a necessary requirement of evolutionary biology or of science in general. There are too many theists working in the field for that to be so. And, as you have pointed out, there are even creationists who do understand evolution. Dr. Todd Wood comes to mind...
A Tale of Three Creationists - Articles

That’s the point: real science doesn’t require atheism and naturalistic bias - yet the field of evolution has been hijacked by atheism.

Thus the fact that common ancestry is explainable by a common creator, can’t even be mentioned, let alone considered as one of two possibilities.

And the constant litany from evolutionists claiming that we can’t possibly understand science or we’d be evolution proponents, is beyond ludicrous.

 

[SelfSim]

That’s the point: real science doesn’t require atheism and naturalistic bias - yet the field of evolution has been hijacked by atheism.
Thus the fact that common ancestry is explainable by a common creator, can’t even be mentioned, let alone considered as one of two possibilities.

I don't see how the (implied) alternative, ie: a 'supernatural creator' can be a viably testable definition in science, so that notion is excluded by the methodology.
One might then argue that the process is skewed in the direction of naturalistic bias .. and practical usefulnesss though. Its about living in this world/universe .. and not some made up belief.

 

[Bradskii]

What disproves your claim , is the video that exist of Collin Patterson saying exactly that.

No cigar for you.

I didn't claim that he didn't say it. Even HE didn't claim he didn't say it. But he did explain the context in which he said it, the reason why he said it and explained that people who quoted him and used his words to imply that he was against evolution (when he's actually written books on the subject and is one of the leading lights in cladistics) are either charlatans or simply don't have the knowledge or intelligence to comprehend his meaning

Thanks for the opportunity to point out yet again how wrong you were. I look forward to reading the next link you post.

And I'll take an Arturo Fuente Anejo if you've got one.

 

[chad kincham]

You do not seem to understand that many more fossils have been found since the time that PE was proposed. It is still a well accepted hypothesis, that there are periods of very rapid evolution, and it is now supported by transitional fossils.

Of course part of the problem is the denial of science by creationists. They cannot afford to understand the concept of scientific evidence, nor can they afford to understand the concept of transitional species either.

Of course when transitional fossils are provided then creationists demand to see transitionals between the transitionals.

That’s bogus.

Transitional fossils are still missing in all the important areas.

And common sense knows that there can’t be short periods of intense macro evolution, to the point of creating new body plans.

Wildlife biologists who work with endangered species- the epitome of isolated populations- confirm that isolated populations lose genetic diversity - thus the facts are diametrically opposed to the PE hypothesis.

But PE is a good example of the fact that evolutionists are willing to accept any half-baked theory tif it promotes ToE.

Actually you did quote mine him.

Do you not know what a quote mine is? The spin comes from the quote miners.

Ridiculous.

A quote such as one from Gould admitting that the lack of transitional fossils in all the important places is the trade secret of paleontology, is a valid citation, and is too clear to obfuscate with complaints about quote mining.

Once creationists point out a problematic fact about ToE, evolutionists fall all over themselves to spin what they originally said, or to spin the facts.

Which is exactly what Gould did when he saw that his PE hypothesis blew up in his face.

BTW, anyone who ever wrote a college level paper, had to include citations and quotes for every single point they made. It’s SOP.

Pretending there’s something wrong with using quotes from those in the evolutionary field is preposterous and ludicrous - which is the edited version of how I classify whining about quote mining.

 

[chad kincham]

You do not seem to understand that many more fossils have been found since the time that PE was proposed. It is still a well accepted hypothesis, that there are periods of very rapid evolution, and it is now supported by transitional fossils.

Of course part of the problem is the denial of science by creationists. They cannot afford to understand the concept of scientific evidence, nor can they afford to understand the concept of transitional species either.

Of course when transitional fossils are provided then creationists demand to see transitionals between the transitionals.

That’s bogus.

Transitional fossils are still missing in all the important areas.

And common sense knows that there can’t be short periods of intense macro evolution, to the point of creating new body plans.

Wildlife biologists who work with endangered species- the epitome of isolated populations- confirm that isolated populations lose genetic diversity - thus the facts are diametrically opposed to the PE hypothesis.

And the above came from no creationis

But PE is a good example of the fact that evolutionists are willing to accept any half-baked theory tif it promotes ToE.

You might want to brush up on your research, because none of that it correct.

Hint, the appearance of "complex" eyes pre-date the Cambrian.
Second hint, squid didn't exist in the Cambrian - some cephalopod ancestor species can be traced to the late Cambrian.



Spriggina, Marywadea and Kimberella are annoyed at you right now.

The squid is one of many soft bodied creatures that appear suddenly and with a complex human-type eye, with not one transitional form eye predating it.

I’ve seen the research on what the strata below the Cambrian contains, and it contains nothing that is needed to prove phyletic gradualism.

The trilobite also has very complex eyes of a completely different type from the squid eye, and there is not one transitional eye found on any creatures below the Cambrian.

It’s called the Cambrian explosion and called life’s Big Bang, for a reason.

Vertebrates appear suddenly with no transitionals in lower strata, along with complex eyes.

It’s understood that evolutionists have to live in denial and desperately spin the facts, when anything endangers their precious ToE.

 

[Mr Laurier]

So I heard.

You do understand that it was christian clergy who first proposed an Earth over a million years old... Yes?
Ordained christian clergy. Men who dedicated their lives to Jesus.
And they remained christian clergy until they died.
Nicolas Steno was a bishop. And pretty much invented geology.
William Buckland was a trained theologian and geologist.
Adam Sedgwick was ordained in 1818. And was the geologist who NAMED the Cambrian era.

 

[Mr Laurier]

That’s the point: real science doesn’t require atheism and naturalistic bias - yet the field of evolution has been hijacked by atheism.

Tell that to Mary Shweitzer.
Anybody can study evolutionary biology. Christian, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans. Anybody.
There are more people in the field who are NOT atheists, than there are atheists.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Imbedded [sic] Evolution is Omphalism.

And embedded age is not?

 

[Speedwell]

That’s the point: real science doesn’t require atheism and naturalistic bias - yet the field of evolution has been hijacked by atheism.

No, atheism has been thrust upon evolution by creationists like you.

Thus the fact that common ancestry is explainable by a common creator, can’t even be mentioned, let alone considered as one of two possibilities.

Because they are separate questions. A common creator is possible with both special creation and evolution. A creator is not an argument against evolution.

And the constant litany from evolutionists claiming that we can’t possibly understand science or we’d be evolution proponents, is beyond ludicrous.

The constant litany around here is that if you understood evolution you would have better argument against it.

 

[dlamberth]

Imbedded [sic] Evolution is Omphalism.

Which would mean that God is lying to us. And God can't lie, so there must be something else going on.

This dance feels familiar.

 

[Astrid]

Deleted

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

No, atheism has been thrust upon evolution by creationists like you.

Because they are separate questions. A common creator is possible with both special creation and evolution. A creator is not an argument against evolution.

The constant litany around here is that if you understood evolution you would have better argument against it.

Well it might be stated that if he understood evolution he might not be arguing against it.

 

[dlamberth]

....yet the field of evolution has been hijacked by atheism.

That's an excessive statement of non-truth.

 

[Astrid]

Which would mean that God is lying to us. And God can't lie, so there must be something else going on.

This dance feels familiar.

As a general thing, when there is a he said- she
said sort of impasse, the person who can't
acknowledge a basic obvious mistake is
not the one to trust with a credibility award.

If they go on to repeat it three times, call
the correction a lie, well, if God
is on a side, it sure isn't that side.

 

[Astrid]

That's an excessive statement of non-truth.

Such a gentle way of saying it.

 

[Astrid]

Well it might be stated that if he understood evolution he might not be arguing against it.

That would get a person half way. All that takes is study
The next half is integrity. That is much harder.