Nothing changes in this forum.

[Phred]

I've been participating in here for a long time now. And nothing changes. Religionists continue to assert that Science/Evolution/whathaveyou is false. Why? Because. They insist that the Bible is literally true, mostly true, true if you read it correctly, true if you interpret it correctly, true but I'm not reading it correctly... you get the idea. They insist that science is a religion. They make assertions six ways from Sunday that Science says, "this" and then go on to disprove "this" when "this" isn't something that was ever stated in any scientific endeavor... ever. They show proof that Adam and Eve, Noah, ... all the gang from the Bible were real and did things that are evidenced in some place, some thing, some way... all of which show that the Theory of Evolution is false. Oh, and of course the "theory" is just a "theory"... that's one of my favorites.

For what it's worth, science is a method, not a capital letter thing. It's just a way that we can use to examine our universe. If what we find conflicts with what you believe then you might want to re-examine what you believe. The evidence that we have found tells us that we have evolved over time. We did not just "poof" into existence. There is NO evidence of special creation. As much as creationists with their websites and museums work to try and mislead you. There isn't any evidence that any creatures came into existence in any way other than evolution. We see fossils of creatures that don't exist anymore. Where did they go? We see creatures today that weren't here in the past. Where did they come from? We don't see creatures just popping into existence. It simply does not happen. So if every creature that exists had parents. And the parents had parents... then those parents/////parents must at some point have been different if there are no fossils of these creatures in the past.

Understand. No parents ever had a child they did not recognize. Do you get that? No dog ever gave birth to a cat. That's one thing that creationists constantly barrage people with. It's incorrect, impossible and false. Change is gradual. Slow. It happens over time and between generations. You die with the genes you were born with. Again, something that creationists don't seem to understand. No creature mutates spontaneously in midlife. All of this, all of it is dependent on life already existing. When you start to talk about how life came into being that's not part of the Theory of Evolution. Arguing that the Theory is false because life couldn't come from non-life... who cares? That's irrelevant. It's an entirely different theory. Then there are the folks who like to argue about where the planets came from. That's not even biology. Irrelevant! Evolution is about how one species can become another species. That's all.

I'm sure in another ten years things in here will be exactly the same. People will still be making unfounded claims, still be creating strawmen and still be ignorant of facts on so many levels. It's a shame. Even the Pope accepts evolution. He says that if God chose to create the world this way then who is he to question it? You all could learn something from this Pope.

 

[Tree of Life]

Feel better now?

 

[rockytopva]

I was an atheist and nothing would have changed for me.... Until I ran into a spiritual experience.....


If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, A mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

I came into a Pentecostal Holiness Church that was in revival. The old guys would sit back in the pew and weep while the people before them were being laid out in the Spirit. If they looked back and catch the amazed look in my eye they would weep, "The Holy Ghost! The Holy Ghost!" As they pointed to the souls blessed around the altar. After being in such an environment for months one evening while laying on my bed reading Nikki Cruises "Run Baby Run" I felt the Holy Spirit speak to me for the first time to put the book down. When I did he says again, "Where is all that stress, tension, bad feelings, and the like?" In which examining my soul there was nothing there but pure beauty, and in the words of George Clark Rankin,

"As we returned home the sun shone brighter, the birds sang sweeter and the autumn-time looked richer than ever before. My heart was light and my spirit buoyant. I had anchored my soul in the haven of rest, and there was not a ripple upon the current of my joy. That night there was no service and after supper I walked out under the great old pine trees and held communion with God. I thought of mother, and home, and Heaven.

"I at once gave my name to the preacher for membership in the Church, and the following Sunday morning, along with many others, he received me into full membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. It was one of the most delightful days in my recollection. It was the third Sunday in September, 1866, and those Church vows became a living principle in my heart and life. During these forty-five long years, with their alternations of sunshine and shadow, daylight and darkness, success and failure, rejoicing and weeping, fears within and fightings without, I have never ceased to thank God for that autumnal day in the long ago when my name was registered in the Lamb's Book of Life." - The Life of George Clark Rankin

 

[Kenny'sID]

Nothing changes in this forum.

I will give you that, nothing new at all in your OP.

Religionists continue to assert that Science/Evolution/whathaveyou is false. Why? Because.

And some Atheist continue not to tell the truth. As in anyone saying "science" is false.

No one that I know of has said that.

But as you say, nothing changes and the Atheists always with their tricks. Tricks, as in giving an opinion of something natural, then calling it science, and if someone doesn't agree with your opinion, then they are asserting Science is false.

Just so you know why many don't take you too seriously.

 

[pitabread]

I've posted here for a long time as well (started back in the early 2000's under a different account).

While on the whole, things are more or less the same, I have noticed some subtle differences:

1) There are generally fewer creationists in these discussions. Given that creationist beliefs have been on a steady decline, it seems to be reflected on these forums as well.

2) In the past, you'd see a lot more boilerplate YECist beliefs. Sites like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research were referenced a lot. In fact, you'd have discussions which would be little more than back-and-forths between people either referencing AiG/ICR on one side and TalkOrigins on the other. Hovind came up a lot.

Flash-forward to now and a lot of what creationists post seems more diverse and representative of individual beliefs. And arguments for a young-Earth as a whole seem to have diminished.

3) Flat-Earthism and climate change denial seems more prominent than they used to be.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science can't abandon the ToE; it's "their baby". Besides they paid good money to study it. To not believe it would make a mockery of their education.

 

[Kenny'sID]

They insist that science is a religion.

Now wait a second, I thought we said science was false?

Some Atheists will say/use whatever works for them at the moment, even if it means back peddling and hoping no one notices.

 

[pitabread]

Science can't abandon the ToE; it's "their baby". Besides they paid good money to study it. To not believe it would make a mockery of their education.

Remember what I said in the other thread about those in biology-related industries having a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible?

You never did give me a good response for that.

(Hint: The idea that the ToE is purely academic and propped up as such is completely unfounded.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I've posted here for a long time as well (started back in the early 2000's under a different account).

While on the whole, things are more or less the same, I have noticed some subtle differences:

1) There are generally fewer creationists in these discussions. Given that creationist beliefs have been on a steady decline, it seems to be reflected on these forums as well.

2) In the past, you'd see a lot more boilerplate YECist beliefs. Sites like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research were referenced a lot. In fact, you'd have discussions which would be little more than back-and-forths between people either referencing AiG/ICR on one side and TalkOrigins on the other. Hovind came up a lot.

Flash-forward to now and a lot of what creationists post seems more diverse and representative of individual beliefs. And arguments for a young-Earth as a whole seem to have diminished.

3) Flat-Earthism and climate change denial seems more prominent than it used to be.

One of the problems creationists have in addressing evolution is that they have a hard time overcoming their incredulity about the theory. I think a lot of it is simply defending our turf on the CF. We remember that the true Christians were cast out of the early church, and it seems be happening here as well.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We did not just "poof" into existence.

Finally, someone can explain how we came about. You could have saved many of us on both sides a lot of time had you given us that news sooner.

Now, will you please explain how we came into existence?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Remember what I said in the other thread about those in biology-related industries having a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible?

You never did give me a good response for that.

(Hint: The idea that the ToE is purely academic and propped up as such is completely unfounded.)

As I said I love science, especially medical science. It has kept me alive. Sadly though their bread is buttered by sick people, so they have a vested interest in making sure that the knowledge of health is withheld. Of course to CTA they must publish true health information, but they do so in disparate bits and pieces so the average person never collects enough knowledge to affect their health very much.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We did not just "poof" into existence.

That's the only way we could have come into existence.

Odds of creation: 100 percent.
Odds of evolution: Too small to calculate.

Doesn't science believe that the first life form appeared 'suddenly'?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Change is gradual. Slow.

So conveniently slow/gradual that it can't be observed, so we are to take your word for the idea God didn't make us as we are, we came about by all these unseen, unproven actions.

Now isn't that just like something an Atheist would like us to believe...no agenda there.

 

[pitabread]

Odds of creation: 100 percent.
Odds of evolution: Too small to calculate.

Care to show your math?

(Somehow I doubt there is any to support this. )

 

[pitabread]

So, would you rather everyone just blindly follow and agree with everything you say? Would that make you feel better?

I think the best broad argument in these forums would be that having a better educated populace is preferable given the correlation between education and standards of living/quality of life.

And along those lines, there is an inverse correlation between educational attainment and beliefs in creationism.

 

[Chisel]

Investigate.
DNA is impossible to form through evolution.

It is a fairytale for grown ups.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Science can't abandon the ToE; it's "their baby". Besides they paid good money to study it. To not believe it would make a mockery of their education.

I believe you are saying that scientists don't want to accept that ToE is incorrect because they worked hard on it?
Well, have you heard of:
Lamarckism
Mutation Theory
Valence Bond Theory
VSEPR Theory
Bohr's Model of the atom
Steady State Theory
All of these were worked upon, and then discarded because they were not able to explain all observable evidence. The first two are related to evolution as well. Discarded.

As I said I love science, especially medical science. It has kept me alive. Sadly though their bread is buttered by sick people, so they have a vested interest in making sure that the knowledge of health is withheld. Of course to CTA they must publish true health information, but they do so in disparate bits and pieces so the average person never collects enough knowledge to affect their health very much.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Do you think doctors hold information or are they not given this information in the first place? That scientists are secretly given a talk on never revealing their secrets because it generates profits for doctors, but not for them (seriously, if someone leaked some hidden knowledge, they would become rich). Or do scientists and doctors have a hidden quid pro quo?

So conveniently slow/gradual that it can't be observed, so we are to take your word for the idea God didn't make us as we are, we came about by all these unseen, unproven actions.

Now isn't that just like something an Atheist would like to believe...no agenda there.

Exactly. Just like
Plate Tectonics
Radiations (we emit them)
Electromagnetic Waves (except the visible spectrum)
Air
The Rock Cycle
Radioactivity in some elements
A reaction without a catalyst
Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long time. Microevolution has been observed. Speciation has been observed. Connecting links to exist in the present. Fossils exist which show, step by step, how life evolved. It is really not anyone's duty to give you evidence on a silver platter. There are evolutionary biologists who belong to a religion. Do they have a secret agenda too? Is there a meeting to tell them to join the secret agenda when they pursue research in evolution?

 

[pitabread]

It is a fairytale for grown ups.

As I said earlier in this thread, there is a vested interest for those in biology-related fields to have the best explanation for biology possible.

So why is the Theory of Evolution a foundational part of modern biology if it's just "a fairytale for grown ups"?

(And especially given the context of applied evolutionary biology.)

 

[pitabread]

As I said I love science, especially medical science. It has kept me alive. Sadly though their bread is buttered by sick people, so they have a vested interest in making sure that the knowledge of health is withheld. Of course to CTA they must publish true health information, but they do so in disparate bits and pieces so the average person never collects enough knowledge to affect their health very much.

You're still avoiding directly addressing my post.

Consider this: Imagine you're a guy in a biotech company tasked with doing genomics research to try to improve livestock or crop production on behalf of some agricultural firm your company is contract out to.

What is the personal motivation in that situation? What possible reason would such an individual feel the need to "defend" evolution simply because it was part of their education? Would they not be interested in the best understanding of biology possible? Would it not be to their ultimate benefit given the context of their work?

 

[pitabread]

One of the problems creationists have in addressing evolution is that they have a hard time overcoming their incredulity about the theory. I think a lot of it is simply defending our turf on the CF. We remember that the true Christians were cast out of the early church, and it seems be happening here as well.

I think you've already inadvertently pointed out a bigger issue with your comment about "true Christians": i.e. ideological factionalism. People have been happily fighting each other over different beliefs long before evolution was ever a thing.

It's also worth noting that the acceptance of and/or working with any scientific theory is not inherently dependent on an individual's religious beliefs.