A poll for creationists

[Subduction Zone]

I don't totally agree with that statement, as I feel there is if you look for it. Also, I feel the same argument can be made for the beginnings of evolution. We are here so it just happened, no working ideas of how it even happened, just that we are here so it had to happen. Why couldn't it have been through God or ID?

Your claim that you have to "look for it" tells us that there is no objective verifiable evidence. If there was such evidence a person could present it to another. There would be no need for the second person to go looking for it. And yes, life may have been possiby made by a God or through ID. The problem is that again there is no objective verifiable evidence for it. That is why the creationist sides always lose court battles. Judges tend to be very good at understanding the concept of evidence and they can see that there is none for creationism, only religion.

That is a good question, but I don't think that is part of the OP. So I will let you decide.

So you believe everything that is written about evolution and do not question any part of it? I think scientists question everything as they learn more, but from what you say neither you or I can question anything?

There is nothing wrong with questioning what is written about evolution. Scientists are skeptical all of the time. That is why some claims that are made are later shown to be wrong. But one needs to be honest. One needs to be able to look at the evidence and admit that evolution is the only concept supported so far. I have note massive cognitive dissonance by creationists when it comes to the subject of evidence. They seem to fear it since they won't even discuss the nature of evidence. If one understands the concept of evidence and is honest he has to admit that evolution is the only side that is supported to date. That could change in the future, but I do not see the IDists or creationists even trying to apply the scientific method to their work.

 

[Misunderstood]

Your claim that you have to "look for it" tells us that there is no objective verifiable evidence. If there was such evidence a person could present it to another. There would be no need for the second person to go looking for it. And yes, life may have been possiby made by a God or through ID. The problem is that again there is no objective verifiable evidence for it. That is why the creationist sides always lose court battles. Judges tend to be very good at understanding the concept of evidence and they can see that there is none for creationism, only religion.

Hello Subduction Zone, I liked the second part of your response and will address that at the end of my response. Some things are right there in front of us, all we need to do is figure out how it works, others we have to look for. Science looks for items in archeology if feel they want to find something if they are not sure it exits. Physicists will look for particles not even knowing if they exist. So I do not see it as being unreasonable to look for something that could possibly exist.

I would need to look up some of the court cases, but from what I remember the cases for ID being taught in schools. These were decided against ID as it was felt it was a back door to religion in schools and is against separation of church and state. The poofs for ID was not a part of the decisions.

There is nothing wrong with questioning what is written about evolution. Scientists are skeptical all of the time. That is why some claims that are made are later shown to be wrong. But one needs to be honest. One needs to be able to look at the evidence and admit that evolution is the only concept supported so far. I have note massive cognitive dissonance by creationists when it comes to the subject of evidence. They seem to fear it since they won't even discuss the nature of evidence. If one understands the concept of evidence and is honest he has to admit that evolution is the only side that is supported to date. That could change in the future, but I do not see the IDists or creationists even trying to apply the scientific method to their work.

I am glad to see you do agree that someone can have a different opinion on science without resorting to calling them 'Ignorant', 'uneducated', or 'goat herders'. I respect that.

I do not agree with everything about evolution, however to disagree with every part of it would be like denying gravity. But when these discussions come up on evolution vs creation, I usually stay away, because I feel they are the wrong argument. Creation does not vs evolution, it should be more of an beginning of life discussion. Was life created or did some type of life form come from some inanimate object. I feel neither one has any more evidence proving one or the other.

 

[blü 2]

Please vote.

It's very simple, really.

The bible has to be inerrant, the wholly perfect word of God.

Because if it isn't, sheesh, who'd believe a single thing it said, who'd credit the promises of eternal life and ─ well, eternal life, anyway.

So you have no choice but to pretend ─ first and foremost to yourself ─ that it's inerrant. Therefore the world was made in seven days by the god of the bible, there really was a Garden and a snake and a booting out of the first couple, Mt Everest really was 25 feet under water at a time when ark-building technology existed, and so on and so on.

Or else the whole thing's a scam, a trick, a load of nonsense.

So the only possible answer to the OP question is: No.


Footnote: The bible makes it perfectly clear that the world is flat (and shaped either like a plate or a table top), that's it's fixed and immovable and the center of the universe, that the sky is a solid dome to which the stars are attached, so that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth, and so on. For some reason this is too much even for creos, so they instead pretend it doesn't say that at all. Doublethink, self-deception, cognitive dissonance, call it what you will, but it's as much a part of the system as the bible is.

 

[Kenny]

This is only true to the extent of the fallible nature of humans, but . . .

Science encourages critical skepticism, and challenging existing science and unknowns is the adrenalin for the advancement and change in science. It is questionable that most religions encourage this level of skepticism.

Yes... although in my neck of the woods, we encourage questions. We grow that way.

And yet, as I see it, if someone has a critical skepticism of any aspect of evoltuion, they are shunned and ostricized. Usually they are called ignorant.

Usually it has these types of comments:

and that's only due to willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't totally agree with that statement, as I feel there is if you look for it.

Look for it?
We are talking about 'objective verifiable evidence,' and I am willing to discuss this as presented, but after more than 50 years looking I have found none.

Also, I feel the same argument can be made for the beginnings of evolution. We are here so it just happened, no working ideas of how it even happened, just that we are here so it had to happen.

No you cannot use the same argument for evolution and abiogenisis, because science is definitely dealing with objective evidence of chemical and physical processes that the research how abiogenesis could take place, We are finding the fossils of theearliest most primitive first forms of life, particularly rocks formed around ocean hydrothermal vents. There is of course many unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis, but based on the present evidence there is only a natural explanation.

Why couldn't it have been through God or ID?

I believe in God, and yes the evidence indicates that if God Created life and humanity it took place through natural processes including abiogenesis.

So you believe everything that is written about evolution and do not question any part of it? I think scientists question everything as they learn more, but from what you say neither you or I can question anything?

You are decidedly sarcastically over stating my view, and most other scientists of science, especially the science of evolution and abiogenesis. The following is from a previous post.

"Science encourages critical skepticism, and challenging existing science and unknowns is the adrenalin for the advancement and change in science. It is questionable that most religions encourage this level of skepticism."

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes... although in my neck of the woods, we encourage questions. We grow that way.

Your neck of the woods?!? Encouraging questions can go many different ways, and needs a better explanation.

And yet, as I see it, if someone has a critical skepticism of any aspect of evoltuion, they are shunned and ostricized. Usually they are called ignorant.

False, I cannot say anything more unless you can document the above meaningless generalization. As I said before there there are very fallible human problems such as rivalries, funding issues, disputes, and turf wars in science as in every human venture, but the motivation to advance and change science in a positive direction is the long term result.

The evidence is clear in ancient religions there are many presuppositions on the nature of science that are not questioned, and lead to the rejection of the science of evolution and abiogenesis with prejudice,

Usually it has these types of comments:

Father Heathen does not represent science. Question: Was Heathen question change and advancements in science, or theistic opposition to science?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Many people go to Charles Darwin, to account for evolution. But yet these people do not know, That Charles Darwin also believed in God.
That in his personal life, he was studying to be a minister.
Charles Darwin was not out to bring disbelief in God.
But as Charles Darwin dug deeper and deeper into his Theory of Evolution, he begin to realize that nothing happens by chance.
Like taking play dough and laying it out in the sun and in the hopes after a Billion years or so, it will come alive.

Do I believe in evolution, sure.
I believe that one giraffe will evolve from another giraffe.

But as far as a human beings evolved from the apes, that is yet to be proven, without the link to connect them, You have nothing but mere speculation.
Many people have tried, but were found to be false, by trying to connect bones with other bones that were found to be false.

By finding the DNA of each bone did not match with each other.

 

[Father Heathen]

To vague of a question. Of course opinions might be altered. But do you mean hypothetically? I don't believe such evidence exists that would get me seeing eye to eye with Richard Dawkins if that's what you mean

Again, the concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Subduction Zone, I liked the second part of your response and will address that at the end of my response. Some things are right there in front of us, all we need to do is figure out how it works, others we have to look for. Science looks for items in archeology if feel they want to find something if they are not sure it exits. Physicists will look for particles not even knowing if they exist. So I do not see it as being unreasonable to look for something that could possibly exist.

I would need to look up some of the court cases, but from what I remember the cases for ID being taught in schools. These were decided against ID as it was felt it was a back door to religion in schools and is against separation of church and state. The poofs for ID was not a part of the decisions.
I am glad to see you do agree that someone can have a different opinion on science without resorting to calling them 'Ignorant', 'uneducated', or 'goat herders'. I respect that.

I do not agree with everything about evolution, however to disagree with every part of it would be like denying gravity. But when these discussions come up on evolution vs creation, I usually stay away, because I feel they are the wrong argument. Creation does not vs evolution, it should be more of an beginning of life discussion. Was life created or did some type of life form come from some inanimate object. I feel neither one has any more evidence proving one or the other.

Creationists usually go out of their way to earn the epithets thrown at them. Very very few will honestly debate the science which is why people get mad at them. The problem with creationism or ID is that there is no scientific evidence for it, at all. Let me explain this to you. To have scientific evidence for an idea first that idea must be put in the form of a testable hypothesis. That mans it needs some sort of reasonable test that could show that it is wrong if it is wrong. I have yet to see a creationist form such a hypothesis for their beliefs. Now I can take a person's beleifs and make my own "test" for them and show how it fails. Of course then creationists tend to call that a strawman. Of course if one is not willing to create his own reasonable test he does not have valid grounds for complaint when others do so for them.

Find some evidence for your beliefs and you will probabaly get quite a few converts. If you merely rely on the Bible rational thinking people will laugh at your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many people go to Charles Darwin, to account for evolution. But yet these people do not know, That Charles Darwin also believed in God.
That in his personal life, he was studying to be a minister.
Charles Darwin was not out to bring disbelief in God.
But as Charles Darwin dug deeper and deeper into his Theory of Evolution, he begin to realize that nothing happens by chance.
Like taking play dough and laying it out in the sun and in the hopes after a Billion years or so, it will come alive.

Do I believe in evolution, sure.
I believe that one giraffe will evolve from another giraffe.

But as far as a human beings evolved from the apes, that is yet to be proven, without the link to connect them, You have nothing but mere speculation.
Many people have tried, but were found to be false, by trying to connect bones with other bones that were found to be false.

By finding the DNA of each bone did not match with each other.

First off you can't refute that which you do not understand. Evolution does not rely on chance. Second you are an ape. What makes you think that you aren't?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes... although in my neck of the woods, we encourage questions. We grow that way.

And yet, as I see it, if someone has a critical skepticism of any aspect of evoltuion, they are shunned and ostricized. Usually they are called ignorant.

Usually it has these types of comments:

It is usually because the questions are poorly formed and disingenuous. Honest questions are appreciated. Dishonest questions earn abuse.

 

[shunyadragon]

Many people go to Charles Darwin, to account for evolution.

Most definitely the contemporary science of evolution does not go to Darwin to account for evolution. Darwin was simply the first scientist to present a coherent theory of evolution based on the evidence he gathered on the trip on the Beagle, and other evidence gathered in the British Isles.

But yet these people do not know, That Charles Darwin also believed in God.
That in his personal life, he was studying to be a minister.

OK, but not the whole story of Darwin's relationship with his Christian belief he was raised with.

Charles Darwin was not out to bring disbelief in God.

Neither are the contemporary scientists in the fields devoted to evolution. The question of the existence God remains a separate philosophical/theological question and not a scientific one.

But as Charles Darwin dug deeper and deeper into his Theory of Evolution, he begin to realize that nothing happens by chance.

First, Darwin's views of the problems he saw unanswered by science cannot be used to measure the contemporary view of the science.

Actually, the contemporary science of evolution realizes that 'nothing happens by chance,' because Natural Laws are the only observed cause for anything happening in nature including evolution. Chance nor randomness is not observed in outcome of cause and effect events in nature, and it does not 'cause' anything. The observed variation in the outcome of cause and effect events is fractal not random, and the variation in the outcome still has no causal effect on the outcome.

Like taking play dough and laying it out in the sun and in the hopes after a Billion years or so, it will come alive.

True, but not relevant nor remotely related to nature of evolution nor the relationship between any cause and effect series of events and the outcomes,

Do I believe in evolution, sure.
I believe that one giraffe will evolve from another giraffe.

Simplistic Creationist foolishness and not remotely related to the science of evolution,

But as far as a human beings evolved from the apes, that is yet to be proven, without the link to connect them, You have nothing but mere speculation.
Many people have tried, but were found to be false, by trying to connect bones with other bones that were found to be false.

I will take this response that you reject the science of evolution. and actually these are false statements concerning the actual evidence that supports the science of evolution.

By finding the DNA of each bone did not match with each other.

To simplistic and in error to be meaningful.

Actually they have linked fossil DNA found in some bones in the fossils related to the evolution of species.

 

[Kenny]

Your neck of the woods?!? Encouraging questions can go many different ways, and needs a better explanation.

Maybe a better question could be presented for my understanding

False, I cannot say anything more unless you can document the above meaningless generalization. As I said before there there are very fallible human problems such as rivalries, funding issues, disputes, and turf wars in science as in every human venture, but the motivation to advance and change science in a positive direction is the long term result.

The evidence is clear in ancient religions there are many presuppositions on the nature of science that are not questioned, and lead to the rejection of the science of evolution and abiogenesis with prejudice,
]
Usually it has these types of comments:

Father Heathen does not represent science. Question: Was Heathen question change and advancements in science, or theistic opposition to science.

You are right... Father Heathen doesn't represent science.

And, yes, there are many times that people reject science solely on the basis of religion and that would be wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe a better question could be presented for my understanding.

There are of course discussion sessions of various kinds mostly theological. Centered on the topic of the thread. The question remains how does your church teach and discuss the questions of science and in particular the science of evolution.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes... that is why it is still hotly debated

Yeah, and whether or not the Earth is flat is still 'hotly debated'... among ignorant Flat Earth believers. But not among anyone else.

 

[Faithofchristian]

First off you can't refute that which you do not understand. Evolution does not rely on chance. Second you are an ape. What makes you think that you aren't?

Just because you believe that you came from a ape, does not mean that everyone else has to believe that nonsense.

You know actually you may have something there. Maybe that's why those people who believe they came from apes are less intelligence than those who do not believe that nonsense.

Hey thanks for bringing that to my attention. Wow never look at it that way before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because you believe that you came from a ape, does not mean that everyone else has to believe that nonsense.

You know actually you may have something there. Maybe that's why those people who believe they came from apes are less intelligence than those who do not believe that nonsense.

Hey thanks for bringing that to my attention. Wow never look at it that way before.

I don't believe, I know. There is a difference between mere belief, which is what religious beliefs are, and knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable. Now if a person refuses to learn there is no helping that person. So far I have yet to meet one creationist that dares to even learn what is and what is not evidence here. And I am sorry, but you are wrong about your claim of the intelligence of people. The world's most intelligent people tend to accept the theory of evolution. It is the uneducated and those lacking intelligence that oppose it. For example you falsely seem to think that pointing out that you are an ape is an assault on your intelligence. It is not, it is merely a fact.

So do you wish to learn? We could start on the concepts of evidence and the scientific method.

 

[David T]

Please vote.

A dog is an evolutionist so I suspect no is always the default. Darwin stated what was obvious 10,000 years ago its not remotely original just a something idiotic Europeans forgot due to literacy. The whole thing is Stupid arguing with stupid. Who cares.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Just because you believe that you came from a ape, does not mean that everyone else has to believe that nonsense.

You know actually you may have something there. Maybe that's why those people who believe they came from apes are less intelligence than those who do not believe that nonsense.

Hey thanks for bringing that to my attention. Wow never look at it that way before.

Anyone who thinks that evolution claims that human beings came from apes CLEARLY has not studied the ToE, because that is NOT what it indicates. You should really educate yourself before making wildly ignorant statements.

 

[osgart]

What's the best site for evidence on evolution?

Even if evolution is true, that doesn't mean that there is no intelligence behind it.