Study: understanding ToE = acceptance

Status
Not open for further replies.

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have an 18 year old who is home today. He is NOT a christian. He is NOT a christian because he is very analytical and scientifically minded and because of that he finds it hard to simply believe which is what it takes to be a christian which btw is why I say believer not christian. Anyway, I digress...in an attempt to be fair I asked my son about some of the things you all were responding to my comments. Now keep in mind he likes disagreeing with me, it's a teen thing. He laughed at you all and then applauded me for being so patient with you all. He also pointed out many "flaws", "concerns", "issues", whatever word you want to put on it about the theory of evolution, "holes" if you want....iow's those things that are either not tested, not testable, flawed from the standpoint of science, or otherwise needing further scientific study. The list was long enough that I eventually stopped listening to him....lol...my claim is that zealots stop listening remember? I'm not even a zealot on the issue and I stopped listening to his droning on and on.

So I asked him what there was in my point to disagree with? He had no idea. I asked him what I was missing in you alls disagreements? He had no idea because there is nothing in what I said that should be a problem. He did however find a lot of things in you alls posts that demonstrated you are not listening. It's funny how my 18 year old son who loves to disagree with me couldn't find anything in what I was saying to disagree with but found all kinds of things in you all's posts to disagree with...I wonder why that is? Maybe because you all haven't been listening?
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
To be honest you spend so much time berating people for misunderstanding your posts it’s difficult to actually remember what your point was.

Could you remind me please?
The problem is all the people who try to change my posts and the point I am making, but sure.

The point is that the claim in the OP post is flawed on many levels but one that I have witnessed and the reason I don't talk about my personal beliefs in these discussion boards is because of human nature. See, human nature is such that people don't listen to one another and in not listening they misrepresent, twist, etc. what another thinks, feels, knows, and believes. As such it is impossible for the OP claim to be a valid understanding of what others know and understand about the ToE. It requires listening to what the person is saying without first trying to correct, argue, or belittle them for believing something different from what you (the person in question) believes. This goes for all people but it is especially true of people who are zealous about the topic in question.

Now, since so many people tried to claim that I cannot be understood, let me summarize some of the discussion over this point. 1. it goes for all groups of people including but not limited to both evolutionists and creationists. 2. when zealots get involved and refuse to listen to others they become emotional and that removes real effective discussion. 3. those who behave this way judge others before or without evidence. 4. there were a few other things thrown in but that is good enough....The evidencee of what I am saying was given in this thread and two posts specifically evidenced the claim

1. in one post I was told that I was wrong because the poster who was responding couldn't figure out what he was suppose to be arguing with me about....lol only someone not listening and wanting to argue would make such a claim
2. in one post I was told that I believe X (specific claim) even though I never once said what I believe about the ToE. When I called that poster out on it the claim was made that I can't communicate because they can't figure out what they are suppose to be arguing with me about....lol more evidence of not listening and only wanting to beat people up with personal beliefs rather than discussing anything.

Well that is a summary of my point...have fun with it. There is nothing in my comment that should stir controversy...it's really not hard to find people who refuse to listen to other people.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The problem is all the people who try to change my posts and the point I am making, but sure.

The point is that the claim in the OP post is flawed on many levels but one that I have witnessed and the reason I don't talk about my personal beliefs in these discussion boards is because of human nature. See, human nature is such that people don't listen to one another and in not listening they misrepresent, twist, etc. what another thinks, feels, knows, and believes. As such it is impossible for the OP claim to be a valid understanding of what others know and understand about the ToE. It requires listening to what the person is saying without first trying to correct, argue, or belittle them for believing something different from what you (the person in question) believes. This goes for all people but it is especially true of people who are zealous about the topic in question.

Now, since so many people tried to claim that I cannot be understood, let me summarize some of the discussion over this point. 1. it goes for all groups of people including but not limited to both evolutionists and creationists. 2. when zealots get involved and refuse to listen to others they become emotional and that removes real effective discussion. 3. those who behave this way judge others before or without evidence. 4. there were a few other things thrown in but that is good enough....The evidencee of what I am saying was given in this thread and two posts specifically evidenced the claim

1. in one post I was told that I was wrong because the poster who was responding couldn't figure out what he was suppose to be arguing with me about....lol only someone not listening and wanting to argue would make such a claim
2. in one post I was told that I believe X (specific claim) even though I never once said what I believe about the ToE. When I called that poster out on it the claim was made that I can't communicate because they can't figure out what they are suppose to be arguing with me about....lol more evidence of not listening and only wanting to beat people up with personal beliefs rather than discussing anything.

Well that is a summary of my point...have fun with it. There is nothing in my comment that should stir controversy...it's really not hard to find people who refuse to listen to other people.

Well thanks for taking the time to clarify.

Actually I agree with some, not all by any means, but some of what you just wrote.

(Edited after a re-read.)
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: razzelflabben
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I'll go ahead and assume that a world-reknown evolutionary biologist like Francis Collins understands evolution theory quite well. In fact, more then likely he understands it better then anyone posting here.

This man is also a christian.
So he accepts God and yet also accepts evolution.

You find one of his article and let's look at it together. I will point to you the BIG holes in his argument.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0

mnorian

Oldbie--Eternal Optimist
In Memory Of
Mar 9, 2013
36,781
10,563
✟980,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Mod hat on
thread has been cleaned of flames, goads, and nasty sarcasm.
Please post to the content of the post and not the character or intelligence; training; or perceived ignorance of the opposing members view of ToE.
Carry on.



 
  • Winner
Reactions: razzelflabben
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Would you say he rejects it on scientific grounds or on broader theological and philosophical grounds?
sfs may have already answered this, but he rejects evolution on purely religious grounds:

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

" It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you."
 
  • Like
Reactions: mnorian
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Funny thing I've noticed is that even PRATTs seem less common these days. It used to be you'd get creationists regularly citing sites like ICR, AiG, Kent Hovind, etc.

Nowadays it seems creationists just make up whatever nonsense they want and it varies wildly from one to the next, even to the point of contradicting each other.

Or even themselves - remember the whole 'Africans and Asians produce Afro-Asians' deal...
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Was Lazarus an ordinary human man?
Did his resurrection conform to or violate natural law?
Is natural law superior or subservient to the Creator?
What is the evidence that the Lazarus tale actually happened?
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do you think that nobody but you has ever seen one of these lists?

Heck, such lists are posted on this forum every few months.
huh? Why would you ask such a question of me based on what I said in the context of the discussion it was offered in?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Isn't that interesting - you talk a bout a list of creation scientists as if that list proves something, but later dismiss numbers of scientists as proof of anything.

Almost as if you want to have your cake and to eat it as well....
except in the context of the discussion where the comment about the list was offered there is absolutely nothing to draw out the conclusion that I think that the number of creation scientists has anything to do with truth at all...I mean it's as if you didn't read anything that was said and just pulled things out that you thought you could twist into something you had an argument against.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most elite scientific organizations in the United States, do not believe in God.
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. (Psalms 14:1)
Therefore, 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are fools.


Brilliant deduction.

Or, it could be that ancient mystics came up with condescending and threatening slogans to convince the ignorant to join their cult.

The figures are more marked in the British Royal Society, where 96.8% identify themselves as having no belief in God. Therefore, 96.8 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are fools.

It must make you feel special to consider yourself less of a fool than an actual educated distinguished scientist, but it really doesn't change the fact that creationism is an untenable belief of religious extremists, while evolution is a well supported scientific theory.

Even the smarter, less-dogmatic creationists admit this. Like Todd Wood, PhD (biochemistry):


The truth about evolution
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​



Wood is smart and honest enough to admit that he rejects evolution solely because of his religion.

Yet so many creationists want to pretend that evolution is not science, has no evidence, etc.

Those are the ignorant and dishonest ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And then you later dismissed the numbers, so why bother?
lol in the context of the discussion at hand...the claim was made that there was no list of creation scientists...I challenged that assertion by posting an experience I had where a list was provided and dismissed for no legitimate reason which supported what I said about people not listening. There was absolutely nothing at all offered by me as to the number of people being important, that is just you all reading into the post what was not there because of your zeal to argue and disagree rather than listen and communicate.
One usually does not have to listen very long to draw conclusions. For example, when I see someone write something like "How can random chance create an eye", I know the person does not understand much about evolution. There are "tells".
and there are different ways of saying something and in order to know which is truth one needs to listen not just pretend to....quick story my grandfather never called someone the same name two times in a row that doesn't mean he didn't know your name it means that he had a different way of communicating his feelings for you.
And there is another "tell"...

What "holes", exactly?
lol...now, what would it serve to communication if I listed someone elses problems with the ToE? See, I didn't claim there were or were not problems with the theory. I claimed that my son went on a long rant about all the problems with it and I listed a host of different words that could be used to explain what his rant was about. Instead of listening for comprehension you picked one word in that long list of words that could all be used to mean the same thing and called it a "tell" for someone who didn't understand. The funny thing is that shows your lack of listening rather than the posters lack of understanding.
Clearly, we do not know everything - as far as I know, nobody has claimed or implied otherwise. How is that a strike against us? Many creationists like to compare ToE with something like gravity - but have you ever asked a physicist what gravity actually IS? We have lots of experiments and observations showing gravity's effects, we have lots of equations showing its applications and such, but what IS it? A force. What produces the force? Its just a force. And did you know that there are phenomena for which the 'law' of gravity does not apply as expected? Lots of holes and questions, but creationists don't seem to have a problem accepting gravity is real.
Not sure why you needed to post this paragraph since it does not address anything I said but yes, I agree, the theory of gravity should be viewed as "problematic" just as the ToE.....
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not really. You posted that list (for whatever reason) and we just couldn't resist pointing out to you that it was a fraud, that many of the scientists on such lists are not really creationists.
lol what list did I post? REmember this was a list I posted on another site which was dismissed without rational reason given and here you are trying to claim that you saw the list and couldn't resist point out it was a fraud...please go back to the other site in which it was posted and cut and paste the post with the list you claim you saw for us all to review...I won't even tell you where to begin your search since you think you already saw it....lol wow, just wow.. your listening skills are astounding (sarcasm)
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That's hypocrisy. Thanks for proving my point.


Actually, I think you are missing the WHOLE point.

Creationists generally only understand the ToE to the extent that their church leaders, their parents, their creationist sources let them. There are dozens of threads on here right now documenting the extent to which most creationists do NOT understand evolution. They understand a twisted, strawman version of it, and that makes it easy for them to reject it. Heck, if I "understood" evolution the way most creationists do, I wouldn't accept it, either.

So, what the OP was showing is that when one actuality learns what the ToE ACTUALLY is about, and learns about the evidence for it, they are more likely to accept it.

Whereas, when a person learns what creationism entails, and they understand the science, they are NOT likely to accept it.

You were making an inapt comparison.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
While that may be true it is irrelevant. This is about the application of logic.
Yes, it is.

It is not logical that is a person learns about something, just by virtue of understanding it they will accept it. It IS logical that if a person learns about something, and what they learn convinces them of the factual nature of it, they are more likely to accept it.

How is that so hard for you to get?

If you learn about Hinduism, are you going to accept it?

By YOUR logic, you would have to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: razzelflabben
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The study is irrelevant. The basis of proving a point is the logic behind it. That's what I am addressing. So:

"So if the evolutionist had a better understanding of the bible/God/Creation they would be more likely to accept it."

Must be true as well for the initial logic to be correct.


By your creationist logic:

"So if the creationist had a better understanding of the Koran/Allah/Islam they would be more likely to accept it."

Must be true as well for the initial logic to be correct.



What is the conclusion?

That your logic is universally true and applicable?

Or that what you think is "logic" isn't?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
except in the context of the discussion where the comment about the list was offered there is absolutely nothing to draw out the conclusion that I think that the number of creation scientists has anything to do with truth at all...I mean it's as if you didn't read anything that was said and just pulled things out that you thought you could twist into something you had an argument against.

Such an amazing communicator.

"I have a question for you....when did truth depend on how many people believe or don't believe something? Does the same apply to religions? laws? professions? etc?"



Ok, I went back a bit to see what this context was that you think justifies your little hissy fit.

Looks like it started here {note - I will only present the link to the first post so as not to trigger the spam filter}:


Hitchslap:
"Creationists never put in the time it takes to fully understand the theory - and I mean really understand. All we ever get is regurgitated PRATT's from the 3 or 4 creo sites out there."

You:
"and yet there are lots of creation scientists in all areas of science...what does that tell us? "


Speedwell:
""Lots of?" There are many Christian and other theist scientists in all areas of science. But creation scientists? Not so many. In fact, if you look into it, you will find that most of them are working for the creation science "ministries" like ICR, AiG, CMI, etc. "


You:
"lol I did look into, found a long list of creation scientists, posted the link on another site and was told that I was wrong because...(no reason given) "

and then later, you:

"I have a question for you....when did truth depend on how many people believe or don't believe something? Does the same apply to religions? laws? professions? etc? "


Sorry dude. I forgot that you are the best communicator and people have told you this.

Bye.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
lol in the context of the discussion at hand...the claim was made that there was no list of creation scientists...I challenged that assertion by posting an experience I had where a list was provided and dismissed for no legitimate reason which supported what I said about people not listening.

That is not the case. You brought up a list all on your own. The post to which you replied with your tale of finding a list was this:


You:
" and yet there are lots of creation scientists in all areas of science...what does that tell us?"

Speedwell:
""Lots of?" There are many Christian and other theist scientists in all areas of science. But creation scientists? Not so many. In fact, if you look into it, you will find that most of them are working for the creation science "ministries" like ICR, AiG, CMI, etc."


No mention of a list until YOU mentioned it.


There was absolutely nothing at all offered by me as to the number of people being important, that is just you all reading into the post what was not there because of your zeal to argue and disagree rather than listen and communicate.

Right, sorry - I forgot that you are great communicator.

lol...now, what would it serve to communication if I listed someone elses problems with the ToE?

Don't know, you are the first one to mention a list.

See, I didn't claim there were or were not problems with the theory.

Claim? No, imply?

"Don't forget about those that understand it reasonably but because they don't believe in it, their objections are twisted and otherwise perverted till it appears that they don't understand because no one is listening to them only the reinvented version that can be argued against. "

Instead of listening for comprehension you picked one word in that long list of words that could all be used to mean the same thing and called it a "tell" for someone who didn't understand. The funny thing is that shows your lack of listening rather than the posters lack of understanding. Not sure why you needed to post this paragraph since it does not address anything I said but yes, I agree, the theory of gravity should be viewed as "problematic" just as the ToE.....

For a great communicator, you sure seem to have issues with comprehension.

You wrote:
"MY point however was that you all don't listen long enough or hard enough to know if someone knows the theory of evolution well enough to judge for themselves or not...." (ellipses in original)

I replied:
"One usually does not have to listen very long to draw conclusions. For example, when I see someone write something like "How can random chance create an eye", I know the person does not understand much about evolution. There are "tells".

You then wrote:
" but then again, according to you all the only thing someone could conclude upon understanding is that the TOE is truth even though it is full of holes and questions yet unanswered...."

I replied:
"And there is another "tell"...

What "holes", exactly?"


Now, you are trying to claim that I ignored what you wrote and picked out one word (holes), because it was a long list of words that could all be used to mean the same thing?

What list of words? You call your own sentences "long lists of words"?

My "listening" to your written words included me "hearing" the following from you:

" according to you all the only thing someone could conclude upon understanding is that the TOE is truth even though it is full of holes and questions yet unanswered...."


What, exactly, should I have "heard" when "listening" to that sentence other than YOU think that the ToE is full of holes?

As others have pointed out repeatedly, when pretty much every person in this thread has - according to you, anyway - problems "hearing" you, maybe it is YOU that are having a hard time communicating?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.