Why the Christian creation myth

[xianghua]

If they are not, or were not scientists, then their views upon the geometry of the Earth are irrelevant. That makes your observation regarding such a faulty belief irrelevant. Thus, I hope we can agree that ignorance on the part of sections of the general public about scientific matters, have no relevance in regard to the accuracy scientific observations, hyptheses or theories. Do you agree? Please confirm.

in general sure.

Practically no scientists in the field of biology or geology doubt evolution. (A small proportion of them believe in a creator who has realised his creation through the process of evolution.)

actually this is incorrect, as you can see at this list many biologists accept creation without evolution:

Creation scientists - creation.com

 

[xianghua]

But you fail to realize that biology is a broad subject, and it is entirely possible for a biologist to be ignorant about evolution.

if so most biologists are ignorance about evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

in general sure.

Good. Thank you.

actually this is incorrect, as you can see at this list many biologists accept creation without evolution:
Creation scientists - creation.com

Thank you for confirming my point. Slightly over two hundred individuals in a thousand could, barely, be called many. Slightly over two hundred individuals from a population of biologists and geologists numbering in the tens of thousands is not many. If you insist upon calling that many then you are misusing language and are being misleading.

Moreover your list includes many individuals who are not biologists or geologists. This includes:

• Psychologists
• Medical doctors
• Astrophysicists
• Engineers of many kinds
• Etc.

There are at least seventy five who do not have expertise in the areas relevant to evolution. That's 75 out of just over 200. 75 out of 200 is many. 75 out of tens of thousands is not many. This list is misleading. I hope that is accidental and not deliberate. Please confirm that you now understand it is inaccurate and misleading to claim that many biologists accept creation without evolution.

 

[he-man]

I looked up Eric Hovind's arguments for creationism, but couldn't find any. I did find a video where he is convincingly out-debated by an eleven year old. Hovind's only argument is to ask the eleven year old if he could be wrong. Hovind seems to believe that if Hovind claims absolute certainty then he 'wins' over those who don't. However, that same argument could be applied to the Bushongo creation myth. And hence, it doesn't appear that Hovind has any evidence or argument that would favour the Christian creation myth of the Bushongo one.

Get your thinking into realty:

 

[Ophiolite]

Get your thinking into realty:

There is no doubt there is a lot of money to made from real estate. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[he-man]

There is no doubt there is a lot of money to made from real estate. Thank you for the suggestion.

Reality

Get your thinking into reality:
View attachment 218556

 

[Ophiolite]

Reality

Yes, I know you meant reality. I was faced with three options:
1. A scathing dismemberment of your thesis.
2. Humour.
3. Ignore it completely.

I opted for 2. (Smiling is good for you.)

 

[xianghua]

Good. Thank you.

Thank you for confirming my point. Slightly over two hundred individuals in a thousand could, barely, be called many.

first: this is just a partial list. second: many people just mean many people. about 5-10% of all scientists dont believe in evolution. it means that many thousands of scientists dont accept evolution. this isnt a lot of scientists? you can claim that they arent the consensus but they are still a lot of scientists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

what? i only need to show that there are biologists who reject evolution and thats it. therefore the claim that many biologists reject evolution is true. clear and simple.

"many" is rather relative if they only make up for 0.01% of living biologists.

Maybe you should google "project steve" once.

 

[xianghua]

"many" is rather relative if they only make up for 0.01% of living biologists.

so if 0.01% means 1 million biologists (just for the sake of the argument) we cant claim that many biologists dont believe in evolution?

 

[DogmaHunter]

actually this is incorrect, as you can see at this list many biologists accept creation without evolution:

Creation scientists - creation.com

Most of the people on that list, aren't even biologists.
Those that are biologists, are only so in name - none of them are active working scientists. And no, posting propaganda on their own "journals" does not count.

Having said that, even if all people on that list would in fact be biologists - even active biologists - there are less then 200 people on that list. A mere 200.


"Project Steve" is signed by some 1500 scientists. The criteria to be able to sign that, were the following:
- your name is Steve or a variation thereof
- you are a working scientist
- you accept evolution theory
+50% of scientists on the list are also biologists, which is noteably more (proportionally) then any of these creationist lists.

Not that science is a popularity contest... but it does help to put these silly lists a bit in perspective. The fact is, that actual scientists rejection evolution is so marginally small that it's kind of funny how AiG etc can publish such lists while thinking it means something....

 

[DogmaHunter]

first: this is just a partial list. second: many people just mean many people. about 5-10% of all scientists dont believe in evolution.

That's false.

it means that many thousands of scientists dont accept evolution. this isnt a lot of scientists?

It's actually closer to 2% and 2% is marginally small.
It's also worthy to note that the objections to the theory from these 2% are religious objections. Not actually valid scientific objections. If they would have such objections then they would have publications detailing these objections and the number would be higher then 2% as well.

As it stands, rejection of evolution in those circles goes hand in hand with fundamentalist theism. Take a hint.

you can claim that they arent the consensus but they are still a lot of scientists.

They aren't. Also note that the number of 2% (not 5 or 10) consists of ALL TYPES of scientists: chemists, physicists, etc etc. If we limit it to only fields that are actually relevant to evolution theory, the number drops drastically.

 

[Jimmy D]

so if 0.01% means 1 million biologists

If my cat barked could I call it a dog?

Do a million biologists reject evolution?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if 0.01% means 1 million biologists (just for the sake of the argument) we cant claim that many biologists dont believe in evolution?

Considering that the total number of biologists would then be 10.000.000.000 then no, 1 million would not be "many".

Do you understand that words like "many" and "little" only give a sense of quantification/volume when put into contrast against the bigger picture?

0.01% is never "many". It is always "very little".

 

[Abraxos]

That would have been an exercise in futility, since it is an unfalsifiable claim.

Argument by anecdote - not really impressive.

On top of that, I'ld say that people who actively said out to "disprove" an unfalsifiable claim, were set up for failure from the get-go.

On the contrary, Christianity is the only worldview religon that could be falsified. Unlike other religions which are based on mystical revelation of some sort which can always be shoe-horned to fit our knowledge of the world, Christianity rests on historical claims which could be proven false. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, as they are based on public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry.

Overall, without the truth of the Resurrection, the Christian faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). There are compelling reasons to believe that the Resurrection is historical, and the case can be made using only facts that are accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars, including those who are skeptical of Christianity.

What I "like" has nothing to do with it. It's just what the facts are. A worldwide flood makes very testable predictions. And when tested, it is found that the predictions do not match reality (no global flood layer, no universal genetic bottleneck). Hence: falsified.



The analogy was no in terms of "types of things to believe". The analogy was in terms of "disproving claim X, does nothing to advance claim Y".

Trying to advance claim Y by trying to poke holes in alternative claim X, is what is called "negative evidence". To advance a claim's credibility, you need positive evidence in direct support of that claim instead.



Which is not correct, as I explained.

We could go into the evidence (positive evidence as you put it) but I would probably go into detail on that part elsewhere in the forum some other day. But basically the point I was making seems to be going over your head, unfortunately.

No. It's teaching them science and how the scientific method works. There's nothing "indoctrinating" about teaching them the current state of knowledge, theories, science.

If you teach them proper science, you also teach them that theories aren't the equivalent of "Truth", capital "T".



Facts aren't "good or bad". Facts are facts.



It is, no matter what you say.
Only creationists (typically, the creationists that understand very little about evolution) pretend that micro and macro are somehow two different processes. But they are not.




As I said....

Evolution works through the gradual accumulation of micro changes. That's what the process is. You understand what the word "accumulation" means, right?



No. The idea that 1+1+1+1+1+.....+1+1+1 equalling a big number does not "defy" logic.
Denying that you'll end up walking miles while moving 1 inch at a time, is what defies logic. And math. And reason. And common sense. And reality.

Let me put forward a few questions regarding gradual accumulation of small changes over time and decide whether the answer is a fanciful hypothesis or an observable fact. We should also ask ourselves on whether this constitutes as proper science or dogmatic assertions.

Question: When speaking on sexual reproduction, according to the theory of evolution we started out as non-copulated amoebas. What was it that led to the change over from cell division to copulation in the process of reproduction? And explain to me how that happened gradually. What would the value of a partially developed genital be exactly?

 

[Speedwell]

Question: When speaking on sexual reproduction, according to the theory of evolution we started out as non-copulated amoebas. What was it that led to the change over from cell division to copulation in the process of reproduction? And explain to me how that happened gradually. What would the value of a partially developed genital be exactly?

The short answer is that they swung both ways for a long time.

 

[Tom 1]

Are there any reasons why the Christian creation myth should be preferred to (or is more likely to be true than) the creation myth of the the Bushongo people, which says that the lonely God Bumba had a terrible stomach ache one day and vomited up the sun, moon, stars, and the earth?

There aren't really any shortcut answers to questions of this sort, if you do actually want to understand this you'd need to put some time into developing understanding of the purposes of the Hebrew creation account, i.e. what is the actual purpose of the narrative. It isn't a stab at explaining how creation happened in scientific terms. You could get your head around the different layers of meaning in Genesis within a few months with the help of a decent commentary or 2. Bruce K Waltke's is very accessible. If there's any actual info on the Bushongo narrative then you could do the same and compare them, if you wanted to, but the actual purpose of the Genesis account is to provide information about God and man in relation to God, so a more useful question would be who is the Hebrew God, and who is lonely Bumba? Whether or not you take them to be fictional characters, you can still use the info available to develop some understanding of how these characters are represented.

 

[PsychoSarah]

if so most biologists are ignorance about evolution.

That is not what I said, nor would that conclusion even fit with your claim, considering that evolution denying biologists, regardless of credentials, are a very small minority, and the careers of the biologists on that list are not representative of the norm.

You should honestly be glad that my review of your list, partially completed, yielded 2 legitimate cases of biologists active in fields relevant to evolution that don't have garbage careers and actually contest the theory actively. I've reviewed multiple lists like that, and that's the first one that actually had ones that weren't dead or currently inactive.

 

[Ophiolite]

Question: When speaking on sexual reproduction, according to the theory of evolution we started out as non-copulated amoebas. What was it that led to the change over from cell division to copulation in the process of reproduction? And explain to me how that happened gradually. What would the value of a partially developed genital be exactly?

You bring this up repeatedly. It is not relevant to this thread, or the other threads where I have seen you raise it. It is relevant to a discussion of evolution. (And it seems to be especially relevant to your doubts about evolution.) Why don't you stop taking threads off -topic and start one on this specific subject? If you have already done so, please direct me to it.

 

[klutedavid]

Are there any reasons why the Christian creation myth should be preferred to (or is more likely to be true than) the creation myth of the the Bushongo people, which says that the lonely God Bumba had a terrible stomach ache one day and vomited up the sun, moon, stars, and the earth?

Hello AA.

How do you know that the Genesis account is a creation myth?