Why creationists can never convince me that evolution is false.

[BeyondET]

I'm not against the idea of a creator. In fact, if it turned out life on Earth had been created, it would be one of the most astounding things in the history of humanity ever.

The problem is there is currently no evidence that supports that idea. Conversely, the evidence we do have points to life sharing common ancestry and having likely arisen on this planet under natural conditions.

the natural conditions are only defined to a point on the tree of life. that's not much of a argument against design a Creator.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

I gave up trying to convince evolutionists that there is evidence that creationism and the theory of evolution has flaws a long time ago. These days I tend to say it is a matter of faith rather than science. there are people with greater knowledge than me that believe both sides. And if God is all powerful and all knowing He could easily have crated life through what people call evolution. Its a bit like when an artist paints a picture. They dont put all the paint on the canvas in one go. They start somewhere and add pther parts and colours until they build up the whole picture. The picture evolves as its being painted.

Instead I tend to say to people, try praying and ask God to reveal Himself to you, maybe say if you're there I would like to know you. If He answers you have your answer, if He doesnt what have you lost?

I will just add that I have met a doctor a few times who is a geneticist who in his humble way pf putting says he has spoken to international conferences on genetics where only the top 100 geneticists in the field ahve been invited to attend. He says he can prove evolution doesnt work from a scientific point of view. I did say I'd love for him to explain to me but he just laughed and said I wouldnt understand. For the sake of your post, this is just hearsay thoough so I dont expect you to take is as evidence.

 

[Yttrium]

the natural conditions are only defined to a point on the tree of life. that's not much of a argument against design a Creator.

Y'know, it seems to me that you're not really arguing against Pitabread here, you're arguing against Naturalism. Pitabread isn't defending Naturalism, he's defending the Theory of Evolution. If you're okay with the Theory of Evolution (a version with a creator making the first forms of life and guiding the evolutionary process), then there isn't really a conflict.

 

[HitchSlap]

And your not even remotely qualified to make a assessment about creationism, wow looking here God did it is a sarcastic statement

I used to be a creationist for many years. I could literally create a new account on CF, and have you convinced within ten posts that I’m a ID/creo.

And yes, any hypothesis that begins with the ‘goddidit’ claim, then looks for and accepts only what conforms to its conclusions is the exact opposite of science. It’s why no university or research anywhere and in the world uses ID/creo as a model.

 

[HitchSlap]

I gave up trying to convince evolutionists that there is evidence that creationism and the theory of evolution has flaws a long time ago. These days I tend to say it is a matter of faith rather than science. there are people with greater knowledge than me that believe both sides. And if God is all powerful and all knowing He could easily have crated life through what people call evolution. Its a bit like when an artist paints a picture. They dont put all the paint on the canvas in one go. They start somewhere and add pther parts and colours until they build up the whole picture. The picture evolves as its being painted.

Instead I tend to say to people, try praying and ask God to reveal Himself to you, maybe say if you're there I would like to know you. If He answers you have your answer, if He doesnt what have you lost?

I will just add that I have met a doctor a few times who is a geneticist who in his humble way pf putting says he has spoken to international conferences on genetics where only the top 100 geneticists in the field ahve been invited to attend. He says he can prove evolution doesnt work from a scientific point of view. I did say I'd love for him to explain to me but he just laughed and said I wouldnt understand. For the sake of your post, this is just hearsay thoough so I dont expect you to take is as evidence.

So, you have an anonymous bloke who can single handedly refute ToE, and we have over 150 years of rock solid, Mt. Everest sized, reproducible evidence from literally every field of biology...

But yeah, go with that anonymous guy.

Also, I gave up trying to convince creationists how scientific method works. I’ve found it’s impossible to have somebody change their mind when they think they have a direct line to an imaginary being and and old book.

 

[Gary987]

Pita. We part ways here. I thought I was engaging in a honest debate. But you seem pretty locked in on your beliefs right now. It’s ok. I struggle with aspects of scripture as well

I am not a Christian, if that's what you are asking. I find the core fundamentals of Christian theology to be illogical.

And no, I don't think that evolutionary theory is a destructive force for spiritual growth. Many Christians have managed to reconcile belief in Christianity with acceptance of findings of science as a means to understand God's creation. Look up the works of Dr. Francis Collins, for example.

 

[pitabread]

Pita. We part ways here. I thought I was engaging in a honest debate. But you seem pretty locked in on your beliefs right now. It’s ok. I struggle with aspects of scripture as well

This subforum is part of the science subforums. If you're looking to engage in apologetics, there are other subforums for those discussions.

 

[Gary987]

I understand. But what possibly can you get from a faith believing Christian that isn’t in the form of something tangible.

When Jesus saves a Christian. He doesn’t know right away why he believes what he believes because there spirit is contrary to the flesh.
This is not apologetic it is matter of fact. You want to have a phrase and formula and a tangible picture to accept what we as Christians accept and that isn’t a gift we have to give. We only offer the door to whatever he has for you. Which being as smart as you are I imagine god would brilliantly use you to expose the fact that albeit evolution is attractive. The whole movement is spiritually driven. So how do we argue that without calling it apologetics

our goal is Jesus Christ not creation. The argument is fine if your willing to say that without attending a church and offering your life to Christ for say 6 months. And if Christ does what you expect. Nothing. Then no loss. But if Christ does what I’m praying for. You’ll believe

 

[pitabread]

our goal is Jesus Christ not creation. The argument is fine if your willing to say that without attending a church and offering your life to Christ for say 6 months. And if Christ does what you expect. Nothing. Then no loss. But if Christ does what I’m praying for. You’ll believe

I've already been through my own spiritual journey and arrived at my own philosophies about the nature of life and the universe. So I'm all good there.

For the record, I have attended various Christian churches and even tried the whole pray to God/Jesus thing. Yet I have arrived at a philosophical position akin to a form of agnostism.

At any rate, this is getting off topic and I'm going to leave this subject here.

 

[HitchSlap]

I understand. But what possibly can you get from a faith believing Christian that isn’t in the form of something tangible.

When Jesus saves a Christian. He doesn’t know right away why he believes what he believes because there spirit is contrary to the flesh.
This is not apologetic it is matter of fact. You want to have a phrase and formula and a tangible picture to accept what we as Christians accept and that isn’t a gift we have to give. We only offer the door to whatever he has for you. Which being as smart as you are I imagine god would brilliantly use you to expose the fact that albeit evolution is attractive. The whole movement is spiritually driven. So how do we argue that without calling it apologetics

our goal is Jesus Christ not creation. The argument is fine if your willing to say that without attending a church and offering your life to Christ for say 6 months. And if Christ does what you expect. Nothing. Then no loss. But if Christ does what I’m praying for. You’ll believe

Oh good grief.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which being as smart as you are I imagine god would brilliantly use you to expose the fact that albeit evolution is attractive. The whole movement is spiritually driven. So how do we argue that without calling it apologetics

Evolution is a science. It is not "spiritually driven" (whatever that really means).

As PitaBread said, yours is apologetics or preaching. Neither are welcome here. THey do not add to the discussion of the things that are on topic.

 

[BeyondET]

Y'know, it seems to me that you're not really arguing against Pitabread here, you're arguing against Naturalism. Pitabread isn't defending Naturalism, he's defending the Theory of Evolution. If you're okay with the Theory of Evolution (a version with a creator making the first forms of life and guiding the evolutionary process), then there isn't really a conflict.

Except how it came to be is vastly different. the vast majority of evolutionist do not believe a universe could be design created, not sure exactly what the theory is by chance or luck or whatever that point is no where near being solved and I don’t think it will looking at nature in that way a thoughtless process without any coordination

 

[BeyondET]

Why does nature produce one four leaf clover in a field of three mutations. Why are there not fields of four leaf clovers.

 

[AV1611VET]

All the smart creationists become TE in time.

Eyes barn ignit; eyes die ignit.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why does nature produce one four leaf clover in a field of three mutations. Why are there not fields of four leaf clovers.

Because three is the number of father/son/ghost.

 

[HitchSlap]

Eyes barn ignit; eyes die ignit.

The choice is yours.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Except how it came to be is vastly different. the vast majority of evolutionist do not believe a universe could be design created, not sure exactly what the theory is by chance or luck or whatever that point is no where near being solved and I don’t think it will looking at nature in that way a thoughtless process without any coordination

Evolution is about how various species formed from earlier life forms. It states that by natural selection and other processes life diversified into many species. Creationism claims that a god spoke them into existence separately without development.

Creationism *also* claims that life didn't exist before it was spoken into existence by the god, but evolution says nothing about the origin of life.

Creationism *also* (seems to) claims that the Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars, and Universe were also spoken into existence by the same god. Evolution says nothing about these, since those are not biology.

One can accept evolution in a universe, or on an Earth created by a god, even with life started, but not evolved by said god. This may not be a position you hold, but many believers do hold it. (I once did.)

 

[AV1611VET]

The 1% would be people like Todd Wood, that seem to understand biological evolution, but are also honest that they are rejecting it for solely for the reason of satisfying their religious convictions.

Also of note is that Todd Wood has called out other creationists out for misrepresenting the science of evolution: The truth about evolution. Which imho, speaks volumes about the problems creationists have when discussing the subject.

So again, what are you looking for?

Are you now saying 100% of creationists will never convince you that evolution is false?

If so, are you bragging or complaining?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd put Todd Wood in that 1%. Though I do wonder if he will eventually become a TE.

THEN would you be convinced?

Or are you just being biased on principle?

 

[BeyondET]

I used to be a creationist for many years. I could literally create a new account on CF, and have you convinced within ten posts that I’m a ID/creo.

And yes, any hypothesis that begins with the ‘goddidit’ claim, then looks for and accepts only what conforms to its conclusions is the exact opposite of science. It’s why no university or research anywhere and in the world uses ID/creo as a model.

You are certainly not the first son to go off and explore the world. So tell me what science says by creating life in the beginning by computer simulations of soup in the beginning I’ve read on it and was built by humans the computer programmed to do what it does and then thinks that it equals the natural process yea right but not by design
It’s not in most university yet but the wheel will spin until there is nothing left but by design. A lot things are not taught at universities