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.
Are you bragging, or complaining?Please discuss.
I defend the right to do it.Are you bragging, or complaining?
Would you be willing to defend our right to "deny, ridicule and attack" the theory of evolution?
Sounds ominous.There is a need for a strong, persistent backlash. The stakes are too high to let you guys run free.
A lot of what I have read about evolution is not true. It's actually abiogenesis I have the bigger problem with. I think the best evidence you have for evolution is the fossil record. I remain skeptical that someone can tell me with accuracy that something is billions of years old. A lot of Christians accept evolution and I respect that. I will not argue about evolution with people who know more about it than I do and a lot of the arguments I see are misinformed. I think microevolution has been demonstrated. But I don't believe that men and apes evolved from a common ancestor not just for religious reasons I just don't think it can be proven.The Theory of Evolution is but the tip of the iceberg.
We all know the metaphor of the ice berg. We only see a tiny part emerging from the water, the vast bulk of it is hidden under the water. Creationists deny, ridicule and attack the theory of evolution. But actually, the ToE is but the tip of the ice berg. Belowis there a whole attack on science proper. Nearly all the sciences are under attack by creationists.
1) The ToE is not that important.
One can live a fulfilling life, be a functional citizen without any knowledge of it. The ToE is the big unifying paradigm of biology and other life sciences like biochemistry. So any active scientist in one of those fields should have an thorough understanding of it, but for the average Joe it doesn’t matter. So there is no need to ram it through people’s throat. Not more (actually less) than a good understanding of hygiene, the Holocaust or the dangers of tobacco.
That of course is for the individual. As a society we need
2) So what is the fuss all about?
Anyone reading YEC-material will soon realize that any aspect of any scientific statement that gives credentials to the ToE or that somehow invalidates the YEC position will be immediately seen as antagonistic. If we take the ToE proper out of the picture, there is still the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, the history and archaeology that are in direct contradiction of the Flood, there is the world demography that shows a continuity in contradiction with the Flood myth and so on. So the creationists adopted a new word, or at least gave it a new meaning: evolutionism.
“Evolutionism” is simply everything that either contradict Young Earth Creationism or somehow supports the creationist’s strawman of evolution. Let us take one example: radiometric dating. Since radiometric dating measures ages older than the canonical 600 years it is (for YEC-ists) wrong and hence is part of this nebulous “evolutionism”. Over the years I have seen arguments against
- Astronomy and it’s multiple subdisciplines: like the age of the Universe, the Big Bang theory, the starlight distance problem, star formation, etc;
- The Theory or relativity, that states the constancy of c, and hence the star light problem
- Planetary sciences, like the age of the rings of Saturn, the receding movement of the Moon,
- Demography: the repopulation of the Earth after the Flood is absolutely incompatible with the known populations of ancient civilizations
- Nuclear physics, that somehow ignores the fact that radioactive processes speed up in Flood conditions
- Glaciology, that thinks that collects ice layers of hundreds of thousands of years.
- Plate tectonics: that doesn’t know that the entire Himalaya mountain range formed in the Flood.
- Paleoclimatology, that keeps saying that there were multiple Ice Ages, lasting tens of thousands of years each. While YEC’s pretend that the Flood caused one single Ice Age, that lasted what? – a year?
- Genetics and molecular biology that have provided evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps through ERV's and the fused chromosome n°2
And so on. These aren’t isolated instances. These aren’t innocent positions. In the end all the sciences are labelled as invalid and “evolutionism”. The part of the ice berg below the water becomes visible. All sciences are wrong, according to the YEC’s, and not in some minor minutiae, but at the very foundational core of what they teach.
3) The ice berg grows
In science data is the end all tell all. The observed evidence is the ultimate arbiter. Not the authority of the scientist, not the number of letters in front or behind a PhD’s name, only the empirical evidence. This goes against the YEC’s attitude of argumentation based on authority, with of course the bible and god as ultimate authority. The mass of the ice berg becomes suddenly a lot bigger. What is at stake is not the ToE anymore, not the different sciences but the very scientific method itself and hence the possibility of research. Hence the possibility to progress and to tackle humanity’s needs.
Worse, according to this paper
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.568.8855&rep=rep1&type=pdf
titled “The post modern in of intelligent design” creationists deliberately portray science - all the sciences -as just a story of the elites and the scientific “truths” are just the outcome of a powerplay. Again, the very nature of science is at stake.
Please discuss.
Creationists don't necessarily reject science. I don't call myself a Creationist, but for sure I believe that Genesis is the literal account of God's creation. I also reject the assertion that evolution is scientific.
A lot of what I have read about evolution is not true.
It's actually abiogenesis I have the bigger problem with.
I think the best evidence you have for evolution is the fossil record. I remain skeptical that someone can tell me with accuracy that something is billions of years old.
A lot of Christians accept evolution and I respect that. I will not argue about evolution with people who know more about it than I do and a lot of the arguments I see are misinformed. I think microevolution has been demonstrated. But I don't believe that men and apes evolved from a common ancestor not just for religious reasons I just don't think it can be proven.
The accusation seems to be that there is a bias in favor of evolution but I don't believe there's some huge conspiracy going onCreationist literature is notoriously unreliable in this regard. Shocking, I know.
The problem being...?
I can see the difficulty because when we talk about the origins of "life," what we once thought of as a bright line becomes a gray area -- what is the definition of"life," anyway?
It's easy to give examples -- a horse is alive; a rock is not -- but how do you do it the other way? Come up with a definition of "alive" that applies (or doesn't apply) as needed without exception...
That's not so easy... And yet, in abiogenesis, that's where we stand.
Skepticism is a healthy thing... So long as it doesn't degenerate into cynicism.
There are plenty of ways to determine the age of something -- and for each of those ways, there are also plenty of ways for them to go wrong.
That's why in science, repetition is a safeguard against error. One mistake is human... However, for the dating methods to be wrong, mistakes would have to be made across the board from multiple tests from multiple sources in multiple eras that all deliver the exact same (wrong) results...
The odds of which are roughly analogous to getting struck by lightning on the very same day you find a winning lottery ticket on your way to being inaugurated as President... having just been crowned as Pope.
What degree of "proof" would satisfy you?
Because while the possibility exists that everything we know thus far is indeed mistaken, it would require an astronomical number of very specific errors to lead the entire scientific community to the same wrong conclusion.
Unless, of course, the misinformation is deliberate -- in which case, we're dealing with the greatest hoax that humankind has ever perpetrated on itself. And if that is the case, who's behind it, and what's the goal?
Sounds ominous.
Are there any specific programs in history that you think were effective in stemming the tide of anti-science sentiments?
You seem to show up no matter where I go on this forum. Is that a matter of random chance like abiogenesis?Creationist literature is notoriously unreliable in this regard. Shocking, I know.
The problem being...?
I can see the difficulty because when we talk about the origins of "life," what we once thought of as a bright line becomes a gray area -- what is the definition of"life," anyway?
It's easy to give examples -- a horse is alive; a rock is not -- but how do you do it the other way? Come up with a definition of "alive" that applies (or doesn't apply) as needed without exception...
That's not so easy... And yet, in abiogenesis, that's where we stand.
Skepticism is a healthy thing... So long as it doesn't degenerate into cynicism.
There are plenty of ways to determine the age of something -- and for each of those ways, there are also plenty of ways for them to go wrong.
That's why in science, repetition is a safeguard against error. One mistake is human... However, for the dating methods to be wrong, mistakes would have to be made across the board from multiple tests from multiple sources in multiple eras that all deliver the exact same (wrong) results...
The odds of which are roughly analogous to getting struck by lightning on the very same day you find a winning lottery ticket on your way to being inaugurated as President... having just been crowned as Pope.
What degree of "proof" would satisfy you?
Because while the possibility exists that everything we know thus far is indeed mistaken, it would require an astronomical number of very specific errors to lead the entire scientific community to the same wrong conclusion.
Unless, of course, the misinformation is deliberate -- in which case, we're dealing with the greatest hoax that humankind has ever perpetrated on itself. And if that is the case, who's behind it, and what's the goal?
The accusation seems to be that there is a bias in favor of evolution but I don't believe there's some huge conspiracy going on
You seem to show up no matter where I go on this forum. Is that a matter of random chance like abiogenesis?
That could be because they all had the same creator. There is still a world of difference in a human and a chimpanzee. If all of it is proven to be true I would still believe that there is a God who directed the process and all of it didn't take place on it's own initiative. You believe differently and I don't believe I could ever change your mind nor will I try.Ok then... Let's assume there's no conspiracy.
Either the evidence is correct, or, as I said, not only is it wrong, but it's ALL not just wrong, but specifically wrong to lead us to the exact same wrong conclusion.
As it stands, the evidence supports the theory... And when new evidence is discovered, it too supports the theory.
Case in point -- Darwin's theory comes a century before DNA was discovered... now, if common descent is correct, then DNA would show that ALL living things are related, but that humans and apes are far more closely related than humans and, say, daffodils.
And that is exactly what DNA ends up showing. The DNA of a human being is approximately 25% similar to a daffodil, 70% to a cow, 96% to a gorilla, and 98% to a chimpanzee.
Conclusion? Humans are closely related to apes, less related to bovines, and only very distant relatives to plants.
That could be because they all had the same creator.
There is still a world of difference in a human and a chimpanzee.
If all of it is proven to be true I would still believe that there is a God who directed the process and all of it didn't take place on it's own initiative. You believe differently and I don't believe I could ever change your mind nor will I try.
Unless there was someone overseeing the process what else would you call it?
Maybe your not discussing the who but it matters to mePossible -- but irrelevant. We're not discussing the who of creation; only the how.
Absolutely -- The human genome contains approximately 3 billion base pairs, so even a 2% difference ends up being a big deal.
And I hope we can agree that there's a much bigger world of difference between a human and a cow, right?
And the best part is, I have no interest in changing your mind in that regard, either. If God created the first life form as a single cell 3.5 billion years ago, and then then either:
What's the difference?
- Left it alone to grow and diversify into life as we know it, OR
- Guided the process, but in a subtle manner that would look the same as leaving it alone,
Evolution says a tornado tore through a junkyard and built the car's driver.The chances are about the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and building a car
Maybe your not discussing the who but it matters to me
The chances are about the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and building a car
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?