Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Theist and Not the Discussion?

[EastCoastRemnant]

As I noted earlier, it is clear that you do not understand the scientific method, nor, I now learn, the vocabulary of scientific reporting.

Research articles are at the cutting edge of science. They are at the boundary bewtween the known and the unknown. Failure to use such terms where appropriate would be irresponsible, unscientific and represent an abandonment of personal integrity. I note that you fail to mention the words and phrases indicating certainty and conviction that can be found in these same papers. In short, you seem unware of the following:

• All scientific conclusions are provisional.
• There is a gradation of confidence that may be placed in any scientific conclusion.
• Some conclusions are so well validated and lack any plausible alternative that they differ only from facts at a fine semantic level.
• At the other extreme are conclusions yet to be confirmed by other researchers and for which sound alternatives exist. These are the category to which the words that so concern you are applied.

I have been making the following point, increasingly on this forum. If I have already made it to you, I apologise for the repetition.

You have a belief that is fundamental to your being. That is fine. I am pleased for you. It is a belief, as I understand it (correct me if I have this wrong), that is based upon faith, a confidence in the inerrancy of the Bible and a surety that the Creation story in Genesis is to be taken literally. That is fine. I am pleased you have found a worldview that gives you meaning. I shall not, now, or in the forseaable future do anything that might shake your faith.

So, given that, why do you act as if you lacked confidence in that faith by making ignorant and foolish statements in an effort to deny the evidence of evolution established by science? Ignore the evidence, it's not important. You have your faith. That should be sufficient. And if you must try to deny the science, then please actually learn something about it and avoid looking like a fool.

Interesting isn't it that the Word of God does not use these disqualifiers and has stood the test of time for over 3500 years. Something about shifting sands and a rock.... risky building site you've invested in mate.

 

[Goonie]

Interesting isn't it that the Word of God does not use these disqualifiers and has stood the test of time for over 3500 years. Something about shifting sands and a rock.... risky building site you've invested in mate.

Stood the test of time?! Sorry but no.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

By the same token, there have been times in history people have used the Bible to justify horrible acts of violence...

Besides that, are you really trying to compare a biological theory in science with human sacrifice? If you think is a fair comparison either you are really comfortable with the latter or you flat out don't know anything about the former.

It's all mass indoctrination. You could of course say the same about faith in God but the big difference is faith is a personal experience that can be seen and felt, not just theorized.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Stood the test of time?! Sorry but no.

It hasn't changed in it's purpose or ideology one iota... man's relationship to it may change but the Word of God is unchanging... warts and all.

 

[Goonie]

It hasn't changed in it's purpose or ideology one iota... man's relationship to it may change but the Word of God is unchanging... warts and all.

It is a book written by men, fallible unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

This is a silly charge and (ironically) contradicts the other creationist charge that science is rigidly dogmatic.

Science is ultimately about looking for the best understanding of the natural world possible. Consequently any "truth" in science is inherently provisional, which is why you always see such qualifiers in scientific literature. Scientists know that hypotheses, theories, etc, in science are not the rigid, dogmatic truths that you might get in, say, religion. There is always more to learn in the world of science.

But then you'll still get creationists arguing that science is rigidly dogmatic and equating things like the theory of evolution with religion. It's a bizarre contradictory view of science that makes no sense.

Evolutionary science is dogmatic in it's variableness over time... hardly compelling as truth.

As far as faith, it is true that evolution and Christianity both require it.

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionary science is dogmatic in it's variableness over time... hardly compelling as truth.

What?

As far as faith, it is true that evolution and Christianity both require it.

This is the common refrain from creationists, but it only works if you define "faith" loosely enough to include almost anything rendering the word relatively meaningless in the process.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It is a book written by men, fallible unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

I can show you prophesies that were recorded hundreds of years before the events happened... exactly as it was predicted to happen. Interested in checking some of them out?

 

[pitabread]

It's all mass indoctrination.

Are you equating education with mass indoctrination? Is learning the multiplication tables mass indoctrination? Learning the names of all the States? Learning about World War 2?

Where does the mass indoctrination end???

You could of course say the same about faith in God but the big difference is faith is a personal experience that can be seen and felt, not just theorized.

Religious faith is not science and science is not religious faith. Apples and grapefruits.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Are you equating education with mass indoctrination? Is learning the multiplication tables mass indoctrination? Learning the names of all the States? Learning about World War 2?

Where does the mass indoctrination end???

Injecting a few lies into a bunch of truth has always been the MO of indoctrination.... when have you heard me disparage physics, mathematics, etc?

Religious faith is not science and science is not religious faith. Apples and grapefruits.

Exactly, one is real and the other is conjecture....

 

[Goonie]

I can show you prophesies that were recorded hundreds of years before the events happened... exactly as it was predicted to happen. Interested in checking some of them out?

And are the existing documents older than the predictions?

Sorry but my dad wrote a series of Cold War thrillers predicting the discovery of the fake hitler diaries 6 months before it occurred, secret talks with Russia 6 months beforehand, a nuclear disaster in The Soviet Union before Chernobyl, and a coup against Gorbachev, I’m not impressed by prophecy.

 

[pitabread]

Injecting a few lies into a bunch of truth has always been the MO of indoctrination.... when have you heard me disparage physics, mathematics, etc?

If you're going to disparage biology, why not physics and math? In for a penny, in for a pound...

Exactly, one is real and the other is conjecture....

I'm sure you believe that.

Tell me, can you name any practical applications of religious faith in modern biology-based industries?

 

[HitchSlap]

I can show you prophesies that were recorded hundreds of years before the events happened... exactly as it was predicted to happen. Interested in checking some of them out?

If I walk into a restaurant, and order off the menu, and they bring my food just as ordered, is that prophecy?

 

[Speedwell]

I can show you prophesies that were recorded hundreds of years before the events happened... exactly as it was predicted to happen. Interested in checking some of them out?

Fulfillment proves the prophecy, not the Bible. Let me give you an example: Let's say you have a divine vision, a real 100% genuine prophetic vision. In it, God tells you, "That guy Speedwell angers me because he doesn't believe the Bible. I'm going to strike him with lightning and send him to the Devil." Now, you are seriously impressed by this and begin preaching about it, moved to eloquence by the vividness of your experience and the NT Times stringer hears about it and writes a little article. A few weeks later, I'm walking down the street and Pow! I am struck by a bolt of lightning out of a clear blue sky and vanish in a puff of smoke. Now, the NY Times is really interested and the next day's headline reads, "Divine Prophecy Fulfilled!"

And you know what? By your logic, that would prove the literal inerrancy of the New York Times.

 

[Brightmoon]

Once again, a self righteous evolutionist condemns all creationists as liars. Further, he preaches to all Christians, and tells those who accept the theological position on the book of Genesis that has existed for 4,000 years that they are naive and by inference, stupidly ignorant. What hubris

changing science terminology to what you want it to mean is called newspeak. It’s a form of lying . Pretending that evidence doesn’t exist and then lying about is , well , lying. So what would you call a liar besides a liar?

 

[Brightmoon]

Yes, abiogenisis is always preached as a separate discipline. Of course that begs the question, how can evolution be discussed thoroughly without discussing the alleged beginning of the process ? Can a comprehensive discussion on cancer exist without discussing the pre cancer changes in the cells ? My own OPINION is that abiogenisis is so obviously questionable and nebulous, it must be separated to maintain the facade that macro evolution is a slam dunk fact. Understandable.

. All you’ve demonstrated as that you have no idea what you’re talking about . Ok so define either word - macroevolution and Abiogenesis . I’ll bet you’ll get them wrong

 

[AV1611VET]

changing science terminology to what you want it to mean is called newspeak.

And what is changing Biblical terminology to suit science?

Spoiler: answer

plutoing

 

[Goonie]

And what is changing Biblical terminology to suit science?

Spoiler: answer

plutoing

Go on, where is Pluto in the bible?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

And what is changing Biblical terminology to suit science?

Spoiler: answer

plutoing

Speak easy.

 

[Brightmoon]

And what is changing Biblical terminology to suit science?

Spoiler: answer

plutoing

. That’s better than changing science terminology to suit silly fantasies