Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Citation?Founders of religions usually emerge from some epic struggle that required virtuous and noble character to survive.
We're not allowed to call Christianity "myth", so thank you for doing it for us.The story becomes myth, the morality of the founders is preserved and they become deified and worshipped.
There you go again. "Many many" to you equals "one"?Well, I could show you but you say "it's just not worth the trouble to go through the many many supposed evidences."
Like was said before concerning the Bible, one is enough. Lucy.I have no idea. I do know that hoaxes constitute a vanishingly small proportion of scientific output. That's one of the reasons they attract so much attention. Which makes a better headline? "Scientists confirm one small detail about the mechanism of how a small amphibious species deals with excessively high temperatures", or "Scientists fabricate data to 'prove' hominid remains from Kenya are direct human ancestors."
Can you provide a list of the top five or ten hoaxes that you think had a marked impact upon scientific thinking? Please.
Yes, that's what I am asking you to provide, for five or ten examples. You are the one implicitly making the claim that hoaxes have had a major, misleading impact upon evolutionary theory. This is your opportunity to demonstrate it.
I doubt it. The question has as much value as "Are all pastors, ministers, priests, denominations, churches, etc. above board with all their work, above the influence of money, position and possible public shame?"
No, not really.
That is correct - creationists do not have counters to evolution. Why should I think you are any different? What do YOU claim to know that this PhD YEC Biochemist that has done relevant research does not know:
The truth about evolution
September 30, 2009
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.
Yes, because I always have doubts to those claiming such things. Add to that, what you actually wrote says it all:
"I'm not going to study all the hundreds of thousands of data points to still believe there was not much confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving (think, "I'm just another animal!")."
Seems pretty straightforward - you have a psychological need to reject evolution, and to do so, you are ready to find ways to dismiss what you see as a threat. So, regardless of your pretense.... pretty disingenuous.
Sure they are. Well, there is a little real history, but we should hope for at least some reality. But that certain places and people were real does not by any means suggest, much less demonstrate, the veracity of the miraculous claims and such.
The evidence that you pre-dismissed because you will never be convinced that there is no "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving [something]"?
"Supposed" was a good indication, along with the whole "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving" thing.
Yes, because bible advocates/acolytes declare it to be 100% true and error free from cover to cover. Finding one error means that this claim is false. Scientists do not make such claims. In fact, just the opposite - we declare that science is an on-going process, and that errors are bound to occur (and ultimately found out and corrected). But unlike creationists, we are not bound to dismiss any necessitated change in favor of maintaining the status quo (contrary to what the snowflakes claim).
Interesting, seeing as how you probably think that 6 24 hour days is plenty. But I forgot that creationists never have to explain things or provide evidence for their claims. Silly me.
Yes - it happened.
You will have to ask more relevant and logical questions if you want real answers - What do you mean "enough time"? Enough time for what, specifically? And what do you mean 'circular reasoning'? I sense some projection.
Oh, you mean like the Jammal Ark hoax? He actually admitted to it, but I still find conservative Christians mentioning it from time to time.
If you have something specific in mind, spit it out, son! But please do not embarrass yourself and bring up Piltdown or Nebraska man.
Again, be more reality-based. Contrary to the lies Jon Wells and others make, nobody teaches or relies on any of that stuff today, nor for more than 75 years. Same with Haeckel's embryos. I mean come on - the desperation of cr4eationists is something to behold.
So you are, as I already indicated, pre-dismissing everything due to paranoid fantasies and conspiracy nonsense. Was this your "counter to Darwinian Evolution"? Conspiracy claims and mere 'disbelief'? And by the way, there are few strict 'Darwinists' around these days - maybe try a new schtick?
I've been encountering creationists for about 25 years. I've seen every bit of nonsense they have to offer. I suspect that soon you will claim Darwin was a racist, too?
Let me remind you what you asked for. I quote you without modification, from post #211: "Can show me, without confirmation bias or circular reasoning, that 14 billion years is enough time to go from Big Bang to the current stage of human development?"There you go again. "Many many" to you equals "one"?
You are making an incorrect use of the burden of proof. Most creationists refuse to learn why their beliefs are wrong. No amount of evidence will convince them. That means that they are the ones with prejudice. Do you think that you can approach this topic with prejudice?Evolution is your claim.
So you have a big job ahead of you. Convince me without prejudice.
Strange how a person can change their opinion mid-paragraph (evolution is no longer 'Darwinian'?) without losing any vehemence.
So, convince me. After all, the evidence is all on your side, no?No, not really.
That is correct - creationists do not have counters to evolution. Why should I think you are any different? What do YOU claim to know that this PhD YEC Biochemist that has done relevant research does not know:
The truth about evolution
September 30, 2009
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.
Yes, because I always have doubts to those claiming such things. Add to that, what you actually wrote says it all:
"I'm not going to study all the hundreds of thousands of data points to still believe there was not much confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving (think, "I'm just another animal!")."
Seems pretty straightforward - you have a psychological need to reject evolution, and to do so, you are ready to find ways to dismiss what you see as a threat. So, regardless of your pretense.... pretty disingenuous.
Sure they are. Well, there is a little real history, but we should hope for at least some reality. But that certain places and people were real does not by any means suggest, much less demonstrate, the veracity of the miraculous claims and such.
The evidence that you pre-dismissed because you will never be convinced that there is no "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving [something]"?
"Supposed" was a good indication, along with the whole "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving" thing.
Yes, because bible advocates/acolytes declare it to be 100% true and error free from cover to cover. Finding one error means that this claim is false. Scientists do not make such claims. In fact, just the opposite - we declare that science is an on-going process, and that errors are bound to occur (and ultimately found out and corrected). But unlike creationists, we are not bound to dismiss any necessitated change in favor of maintaining the status quo (contrary to what the snowflakes claim).
Interesting, seeing as how you probably think that 6 24 hour days is plenty. But I forgot that creationists never have to explain things or provide evidence for their claims. Silly me.
Yes - it happened.
You will have to ask more relevant and logical questions if you want real answers - What do you mean "enough time"? Enough time for what, specifically? And what do you mean 'circular reasoning'? I sense some projection.
Oh, you mean like the Jammal Ark hoax? He actually admitted to it, but I still find conservative Christians mentioning it from time to time.
If you have something specific in mind, spit it out, son! But please do not embarrass yourself and bring up Piltdown or Nebraska man.
Again, be more reality-based. Contrary to the lies Jon Wells and others make, nobody teaches or relies on any of that stuff today, nor for more than 75 years. Same with Haeckel's embryos. I mean come on - the desperation of creationists is something to behold.
So you are, as I already indicated, pre-dismissing everything due to paranoid fantasies and conspiracy nonsense. Was this your "counter to Darwinian Evolution"? Conspiracy claims and mere 'disbelief'? And by the way, there are few strict 'Darwinists' around these days - maybe try a new schtick?
I've been encountering creationists for about 25 years. I've seen every bit of nonsense they have to offer. I suspect that soon you will claim Darwin was a racist, too?
So, convince me. Show me all this evidence, without foundational unproven presuppostions.Let me remind you what you asked for. I quote you without modification, from post #211: "Can show me, without confirmation bias or circular reasoning, that 14 billion years is enough time to go from Big Bang to the current stage of human development?"
To do this effectively requires that you study multiple items of evidence, from a diverse range of sciences. Without that range and intensity of study the arguments might be casually, but not justly, dismissed. It astounds me that you could expect a theory that took centuries to lay the groundwork for, the lifetime's work of a genuis to intiate, and more than a century and a half of research by tens of thousands of scientists to validate and refine, that you could expect such a theory to be shown to you by addressing only "one" thing.
Such an attitude displays either an ignorance of the theory that is an order of magnitude more profound than I could have imagined, or a cynical device, consciously employed by you to excuse you from facing the evidence that you routinely shun. Frankly, I don't know whether to be amazed, or disgusted by your response. I urge you to stop these childish games and start to dicuss matters in good faith, else things will really go downhill.
I have consistently admitted to —even claimed— bias on my part, even to the point of confirmation bias in my assessing of evidences.You are making an incorrect use of the burden of proof. Most creationists refuse to learn why their beliefs are wrong. No amount of evidence will convince them. That means that they are the ones with prejudice. Do you think that you can approach this topic with prejudice?
`
No one is totally without bias. What depends is how well a person can support one's claims. Now you are using what appear to be bogus conditions.I have consistently admitted to —even claimed— bias on my part, even to the point of confirmation bias in my assessing of evidences.
So you claim to be able to approach this topic without prejudice?
C'mon, give me the evidence, without unproven foundational presuppositions. For example, show me that your dating methods are without further questionable presuppositions. Show me that the logic that what is claimed to be pre-cambrian soil is always actually actually pre-cambrian in date.
Show me this whole stack of cards is not theory built upon theory built upon theory, built upon guesses.
And your claim is that it is all basically "confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving" and "circular reasoning" and "hoaxes". And you are pretending NOT to be disingenuous? You people are something else.Evolution is your claim.
How can I convince without that which you have gleefully or perhaps unwittingly admitted to possessing in abundance?So you have a big job ahead of you. Convince me without prejudice.
Not as strange as the person claiming to know all about the evidence without understanding the theory.Strange how a person can change their opinion mid-paragraph (evolution is no longer 'Darwinian'?) without losing any vehemence.
I've posted this about 20 times on here. Have yet to have a creationist - even the ones claiming decades of study and the like - competently or honestly address it:Evolution is your claim.
Edited for length, added emphasis in spots:Darwinian Evolution.... Darwinism...Strange how a person can change their opinion mid-paragraph (evolution is no longer 'Darwinian'?) without losing any vehemence.
Like was said before concerning the Bible, one is enough. Lucy.
But he said - with no explanation or detail - "Lucy", so take that!I completely agree. Beyond that, all the Creatonist arguments are poor arguments; it's just a matter of comparing bad with worse. (Creationist are invited to provide a fresh and effective argument against evolution that is not one of the many that has been repeatedly refuted.)
And even if they were able to genuinely refute evolution, the explanation for biodiversity does not then default to that of Creation. Individuals should, by all means, accept Creation on the basis of faith, or personal revelation, if they think that is the right way to go. But they should not think that silly objections to evolutionary theory provide any support for beliefs arrived at in that way.
What were the 'concepts never before imagined'?... Then came Moses with concepts never before imagined. Truth not developed over centuries for generations but truth introduced suddenly and taught by one man.
That history repeats because of sin in man.What were the 'concepts never before imagined'?
Have you heard of the idea of Karma and rebirth? the idea that good deeds and bad deeds would determine how long the cycles of rebirth would continue before you are freed from the cycle? Those ideas and similar ones are recorded in texts from the 6th century BCE and are central in Vedism, Jainism, Buddhism, other Indian religions, and Chinese religions such as Taoism and Falun Gong. The concept of karma also appears in other religions, such as Shinto.That history repeats because of sin in man.
Then it is even more of a mystery why you would demand others do what you admit you do not.I have consistently admitted to —even claimed— bias on my part, even to the point of confirmation bias in my assessing of evidences.
The phenomenon and the explanationCan show me, without confirmation bias or circular reasoning
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?