Liars, stupid, or both?

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Science is the study of facts, correct? Not evolution. Evolution is a hypothesis based on the study of those facts, that has not been proven, just excepted by scientists and the media. Micro evolution happens and is proven, macro is what we debate and hasn't been proven, just postulated and excepted as fact without actual proof.

Lanakila, a few questions:

1) Microevolution - is it either of these: hypothesis or theory?
2) What is the standard of "proof" by which you call micro-evolution proven, as opposed to "accepted by scientists" (I will leave the media out, because they don't really matter).
3) What is the relevance of "proof" to science? Is not evidence the only criterion?
4) Is not the relative abundance of evidence for a theory and the lack of evidence that contradicts the theory the main criterion upon which scientific acceptance and confidence rest?
5) If so, are you sufficiently aware of what evidence is available to scientists to judge whether their acceptance of evolution is justified?

Just asserting that micro-evolution is "proven" while macro-evolution hasn't been proven, and has just been postulated and accepted, doesn't really do much to convince us that this is really the case. We need to see why scientific acceptance of macro-evolution is not justified but scientific acceptance of micro-evolution is... We need to know what the "proof" is that we have for micro-evolution, and how you know there is no similar "proof" of macro-evolution...

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Science is the study of facts, correct? Not evolution. Evolution is a hypothesis based on the study of those facts, that has not been proven, just excepted by scientists and the media. Micro evolution happens and is proven, macro is what we debate and hasn't been proven, just postulated and excepted as fact without actual proof.

If we just studied facts without making any hypotheses, then science would be a pretty useless pursuit. Our hypotheses are what allow us to predict the behavior of the natural world and therefore to manipulate it to serve our purposes.

In this sense, the evolutionary hypothesis is no different from the quantum mechanical hypotheses or the gravitational hypothesis or the millions of other scientific hypotheses that underly much of our modern technology.

 

[Didaskomenos]

The problem with literal Creationists is not their scientific blindness, but their view of the Bible. As long as they believe the Bible is a literal history book in regards to creation, then they will jump all over the place to avoid the watergun of scientific truth as though it were a real gun; i.e., they're afraid that science will do harm to the spiritual value of the Bible, although it won't. They will even concoct their own watergun as a defense. Until their view of Scripture is set aright, they will continue their senseless and useless watergun wars with science, and just end up all wet.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Joe V.
If creationists really had the evidence to back their arguments up, they would be the ones controlling the argument, and the evolutionists would be the ones running out of here with their tails between their legs. The creationists are the ones with the broken record, but they're not mindless machines, so most of them have stopped repeating the same old tired lines over and over and over again.

Joe, I suggest that you may wish to distinguish between young earth creationists and other creationists--unless you think that anyone who believes that God created the universe, our planet, and life is guilty of all the things you claim in your post. And if that is the case, you are castigating not only the young earthers, but also a significant portion of the scientific community.

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by Sinai


Joe, I suggest that you may wish to distinguish between young earth creationists and other creationists--unless you think that anyone who believes that God created the universe, our planet, and life is guilty of all the things you claim in your post. And if that is the case, you are castigating not only the young earthers, but also a significant portion of the scientific community.

I think it can be assumed, sinai. I mean, if you're going to contrast anything with evolution, it HAS to be young earthers, does it not?

 

[Jerry Smith]

I suggest that you may wish to distinguish between young earth creationists and other creationists--unless you think that anyone who believes that God created the universe, our planet, and life is guilty of all the things you claim in your post. And if that is the case, you are castigating not only the young earthers, but also a significant portion of the scientific community.

Very few people who believe in creation go by the name "creationist" unless they also deny evolution, but your point is sound.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I'm a creationist, I guess you could say, but I think evolution is basically true.

I am a creationist because evolution can't occur in the first place from "nothing."

The problem with literal Creationists is not their scientific blindness, but their view of the Bible. As long as they believe the Bible is a literal history book in regards to creation, then they will jump all over the place to avoid the watergun of scientific truth as though it were a real gun; i.e., they're afraid that science will do harm to the spiritual value of the Bible, although it won't. They will even concoct their own watergun as a defense. Until their view of Scripture is set aright, they will continue their senseless and useless watergun wars with science, and just end up all wet.

True.

 

[TScott]

I do not believe evolution to be true, but those that do believe in it do so with sincerity. If you get down to brass tacks the differences between the Bible and evolution will never be truly answered. Regardless of which side you are on, the beliefs are sincere. To state otherwise is just an attempt to tick people off.

You show a lot of wisdom with this statement David. I think what it boils down to, if you consider the nature of belief and the process that makes it work in our psyche, people who disrespect the beliefs of others must have shallow beliefs themselves.

 

[Joe V.]

Joe, I suggest that you may wish to distinguish between young earth creationists and other creationists--unless you think that anyone who believes that God created the universe, our planet, and life is guilty of all the things you claim in your post. And if that is the case, you are castigating not only the young earthers, but also a significant portion of the scientific community.

Oops. Sorry about that. When I'm referring to creationism, I do mean Young Earth Creationism. Guess I'll start using YEC to distinguish with, but what other forms of creationism are there?

- Joe

 

[Raging Atheist]

old earth creationists = all the science is correct, but its correct because god created the universe billions of years ago...

hence, creationism + evolution... they dont see a contradiction...

YEC = SCIENCE IS THE DEVIL!

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by Joe V.


Oops. Sorry about that. When I'm referring to creationism, I do mean Young Earth Creationism. Guess I'll start using YEC to distinguish with, but what other forms of creationism are there?

- Joe

There's old earth creationism. They usually either argue that there is a gap somewhere in the first verses of Genesis to allow for millions of years, or sometimes they argue for the "days" meaning periods of time.

Another possible view (although, as Jerry says, it's probably not usually called creationism) is that the Genesis account is a Hebrew mythological story that God used for the Israelites to understand that he created the earth and everything in it. Many who believe this (including myself) also believe that it is highly likely that God used evolution to develop the world.

 

[Joe V.]

old earth creationists = all the science is correct, but its correct because god created the universe billions of years ago...

hence, creationism + evolution... they dont see a contradiction...

Ah! I'm guessing that means OECs believe that the "random" mutations were actually acts of God to create all the diversity of life we see today? I could buy that, but how does one prove it? Must mean having faith, which I have no qualms with. I think I've been to too many YEC web sites to realize that there would be other Creationist views.

YEC = SCIENCE IS THE DEVIL!

LOL!

- Joe

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by Joe V.

Ah! I'm guessing that means OECs believe that the "random" mutations were actually acts of God to create all the diversity of life we see today? I could buy that, but how does one prove it? Must mean having faith, which I have no qualms with. I think I've been to too many YEC web sites to realize that there would be other Creationist views.
- Joe

Prove it? go here for extensive evidence regarding why creationism is truth...
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17842

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

old earth creationists = all the science is correct, but its correct because god created the universe billions of years ago...

hence, creationism + evolution... they dont see a contradiction...

YEC = SCIENCE IS THE DEVIL!

Yeah, thats what is looks like to me as well.

 

[flyingpenguin]

If you believe that Genesis is just a story, what evidence is there for that? When the Bible uses stories and allegories, it makes it clear (like or as is usually used). None of this is in Genesis.

What I find interesting is that people who believe in evolution think the creationists are wackos. Slinging mud on our beliefs doesn't make you a better person, nor a better debater. It just makes you look stupid.

I don't put down your beliefs in evolution, why attack mine for creation?

Again, the truth of the matter is that belief in creation is backed by faith. Science backs up evolution because it is in its interest to do so...much of modern science uses evolution as a foundation. That is all well and good, but it makes research and science a bit biased at this point.

However, many evolutionists seem to forget that not all scientists believe in evolution. Many have been quoted as saying such...and no I don't know the exact page number of the exact textbook that says such, but many have said it and you probably already know that.

David

 

[Morat]

It's amazing. I hear about all these scientists who have problems with evolution. And have said so.

And sometimes, big lists of quotes will be listed.

And do you know what I find? The quotes come from people in unrelated fields (engineers, for some reason) who are also fundamentalist Christians. They come from the occasional fundamentalist Christian in a related field. And they contain many, many, many out-of-context quotes and misquotes by scientists who are not fundamentalist Christians.

I have yet to find a single scientists supporting Creationism who was not a fundamentalist Christian. I have encountered one or two non-fundamentalist scientists with a problem with evolution, but none with a degree in that field. And none, obviously, that are Creationists.

How odd is that?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
It's amazing. I hear about all these scientists who have problems with evolution. And have said so.

And sometimes, big lists of quotes will be listed.

And do you know what I find? The quotes come from people in unrelated fields (engineers, for some reason) who are also fundamentalist Christians. They come from the occasional fundamentalist Christian in a related field. And they contain many, many, many out-of-context quotes and misquotes by scientists who are not fundamentalist Christians.

I have yet to find a single scientists supporting Creationism who was not a fundamentalist Christian. I have encountered one or two non-fundamentalist scientists with a problem with evolution, but none with a degree in that field. And none, obviously, that are Creationists.

How odd is that?

Whew!!! Talk about moving goalposts!!! Aren't you the one who once challenged people to name just ONE person with a masters in biology who believes in creation and got a list of people with doctorates? So now you will only accept the names of non-fundamentalist Christian scientists! In other words, you want to rule out anyone who is a Christian and believes the Bible is to be read literally unless otherwise indicated -- in short, any Christian who believe in creation.

Why not just cut to the chase and say, "I dare anyone to provide me with a single name of an evolutionist who believes in creation! I'll bet none of you can! Nyah nyah!"

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
If it seems the evolutionists are winnning here, it is just the mere numbers that are killing the creationists not facts.

Ain't it said that on a Christian board than so many followers have been led astray of the True Way (tm) to read the Bible.

We certainly are defeatin the creationists with facts because they haven't been able to produce any. You have claimed in the past to have facts that support YEC but refuse to divulge them because this is an "evolutionist" board. Maybe it wouldn't be such, if you have the courage to stick your neck out.

Science is the study of facts, correct? Not evolution. Evolution is a hypothesis based on the study of those facts

To get technical:
Evolutionary biology is a science.
Evolutuion is a scientific concept and refers to the fact that populations of individuals change.
Evolutionary Theory is a scientific theory that explains the fact of evolution.

that has not been proven, just excepted by scientists and the media.

Micro evolution happens and is proven, macro is what we debate and hasn't been proven, just postulated and excepted as fact without actual proof.

Macroevolution is observable and is a fact. Just look at any two species to see macroevolution. Now if you are actually refering to the modern synthesis which holds that macroevolutionary differences are no different genetically than microevolutionary differences, then that to is well supported. To claim that it was just postulated and taken on faith, demonstrates that you are rather unfamiliar with the history of biology and are just regurtating typical creationist claims. There is an eighty year window between Darwin's initial work and the modern synthesis. In those years, just about every version of evolution imaginable was proposed and debated. The accumulation of evidence put all but one of them to rest.

Now if you would feel so inclined as to do more than just simply assert that it is accepted without evidence, we will be waiting to hear from you.

 

[Sinai]

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines creationism as: "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."

Actually, creating out of nothing (Hebrew bara) only applies to the creation of the universe and of the human soul, while the creation (Hebrew wayyivra) of animals was not "out of nothing."

Yes, the young earth creationists tend to be fundamentalist Christians who often seem to take issue with all or almost all of the theory of evolution. The other creationists are somewhat harder to fit into pigeonholes, since their views toward evolution tend to be much more varied, though they will almost always accept at least micro-evolution (nothing surprising there). Some fully accept evolution, while others accept deistic evolution or intelligent design or some similar theory. Still others point out that today's extensive paleontological evidence has shown a staccoto pattern in which new life forms suddenly appear in the fossil record without the theorized long gradual development or adaptation, and question that portion of the theory of evolution.

 

[randman]

"Every other creationist, randman, Lanakila (and hubby), Franklin... they've all given up. I never see them trying to counter the evolutionsists position anymore. Why do you suppose that is? "

Given up? Sometimes I would invite the Jehovah's Witnesses that came to my door and try and talk to them about the Bible, and sometimes I grow tired of it.

Same kind of thing here.