A poll for creationists

[shunyadragon]

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

It is not 'belief it is a matter of the objective evidence including genetic evidence that our relationship with apes is common decent, and no we did not come from an ape. Your response remains an emotional response based a religious agenda with no evidence to support your view.

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.

More emotional superstitious nonsense. Can you provide anything based on scientific evidence,

 

[shunyadragon]

What's the best site for evidence on evolution?

There would not be specific site on the 'evidence.' You would want a site that describes the science of evolution and go from there to study the evidence through reading he references.

I would start here.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

 

[osgart]

There would not be specific site on the 'evidence.' You would want a site that describes the science of evolution and go from there to study the evidence through reading he references.

I would start here.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

Thankyou!

 

[Kenny]

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.

For starters we teach them debate.. and debate tactics...

For an example, we know that this statement is wrong:

Question: Why should I believe the Bible?
Answer: Because the Bible says so.

Yet the pro-evolutionist use the same tactic:

Question: What evidence proves that life evolved from nonliving molecules?
Answer: Don't reject a scietific theory just because you have a religious prejudice.

(or other such statements)

Both are wrong and both are used and unless they understand foundational principles of debate, they will never find truth through the sharing of thoughts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For starters we teach them debate.. and debate tactics...

For an example, we know that this statement is wrong:

Question: Why should I believe the Bible?
Answer: Because the Bible says so.

Yet the pro-evolutionist use the same tactic:

Question: What evidence proves that life evolved from nonliving molecules?
Answer: Don't reject a scietific theory just because you have a religious prejudice.

(or other such statements)

Both are wrong and both are used and unless they understand foundational principles of debate, they will never find truth through the sharing of thoughts.

Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy too, and that is just what you did in this false accusation against those that accept the sciences. Just in case you did not know. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. If you want to know what the evidence is for abiogenesis you should ask.

 

[Kenny]

Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy too, and that is just what you did in this false accusation against those that accept the sciences. Just in case you did not know. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. If you want to know what the evidence is for abiogenesis you should ask.

stawman - you have been written off as offering anything constructive a long time ago.

 

[shunyadragon]

For starters we teach them debate.. and debate tactics...

For an example, we know that this statement is wrong:

Question: Why should I believe the Bible?
Answer: Because the Bible says so.

Yet the pro-evolutionist use the same tactic:

Question: What evidence proves that life evolved from nonliving molecules?
Answer: Don't reject a scietific theory just because you have a religious prejudice.

(or other such statements)

Both are wrong and both are used and unless they understand foundational principles of debate, they will never find truth through the sharing of thoughts.

Your presenting what you call the foundational principles of debate presents a picture that science expects laymen to accept the science of abiogenesis and possibly evolution on faith the same way the first proposition concerning the Bible, which is faulty, logic and science.

Science does not expect laymen to accept the science of evolution and abiogenesis on faith. The basis for understanding and accepting science is not the same as that of the Bible.

I believe your response is a dodge, and not addressing the questions of how the objective evidence based on the philosophy of science and Methodological Naturalism would be objectively discussed in your church.

You at present have not adequately answered the question and reflects the negative view toward science of your previous statement:

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

stawman - you have been written off as offering anything constructive a long time ago.

That was not a strawman, you need to learn how to use logical fallacies properly. I find it extremely humorous when creationists try to use logical fallacies. Believing in creationism cannot be done if one follows the rules of logic. They are almost guaranteed to shoot themselves in the foot.

By the way, you did make false accusations against others. A violation of the Ninth Commandment. You did use a logical fallacy. I am not the one that has nothing to offer.

 

[shunyadragon]

That was not a strawman, you need to learn how to use logical fallacies properly. I find it extremely humorous when creationists try to use logical fallacies. Believing in creationism cannot be done if one follows the rules of logic. They are almost guaranteed to shoot themselves in the foot.

. . . be a product of circular reasoning.

 

[Kenny]

Your presenting what you call the foundational principles of debate presents a picture that science expects laymen to accept the science of abiogenesis and possibly evolution on faith the same way the first proposition concerning the Bible, which is faulty, logic and science.

I always want to lay the foundation before one can move forward. Take the above statements.

Your statement states that the Bible is faulty. We expect people to challenge statements that don't have support... whether science or Bible.

Science does not expect laymen to accept the science of evolution and abiogenesis on faith. The basis for understanding and accepting science is not the same as that of the Bible.

We don't accept the Bible on the basis on the basis of "faith".

I believe your response is a dodge, and not addressing the questions of how the objective evidence based on the philosophy of science and Methodological Naturalism would be objectively discussed in your church.

Which you deduced from a position of thought that was not correct. So, as I mentioned before, we start from the basis of understanding debate. We also understand that science. Is that a science position?

You at present have not adequately answered the question and reflects the negative view toward science of your previous statement:

"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."

my statement was based on case study... though, as you said, it isn't always the case as Heathen was not a scientist which I accepted. I thought that I had acknowledged you were right.

But it comes from things like Danny Phillips, who years ago ewas a High-school junior in the Denver area, who challenged the statment that all life came form a tiny protozoan that went beyond the scientific evidence since it could not be confirmed by epxeriment or by historical studies of fossil record. It challenged the school's Nova program because of honest debate.

Darwainists were infuriated and flooded the city's newspapers with letter that were filled with vitriol which doesn't exemplify scientific thought and procedures.

That is what prompted my statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I always want to lay the foundation before one can move forward. Take the above statements.

Your statement states that the Bible is faulty. We expect people to challenge statements that don't have support... whether science or Bible.

That makes sense, but you do realize that the Bible is far from accurate when it comes to the sciences, don't you? If not we can go over the many errors in the Bible.

We don't accept the Bible on the basis on the basis of "faith".

Cool, so far that is all that I have seen. What reliable verifiable evidence do you have that supports the Bible? And I hope you do realize that the fact that the Bible is sometimes accurate does not mean that it is always accurate. That would be a hasty generalization fallacy.

Which you deduced from a position of thought that was not correct. So, as I mentioned before, we start from the basis of understanding debate. We also understand that science. Is that a science position?

So you claim. Now you put the burden of proof upon yourself. What evidence do you have that there is any scientific support at all for biblical beliefs.

my statement was based on case study... though, as you said, it isn't always the case as Heathen was not a scientist which I accepted. I thought that I had acknowledged you were right.

Really? Which "case study"?

But it comes from things like Danny Phillips, who years ago ewas a High-school junior in the Denver area, who challenged the statment that all life came form a tiny protozoan that went beyond the scientific evidence since it could not be confirmed by epxeriment or by historical studies of fossil record. It challenged the school's Nova program because of honest debate.

Oh my, now it appears that you do not understand how work is done in the sciences. Referring to a very confused high school student does not help your claims.

Darwainists were infuriated and flooded the city's newspapers with letter that were filled with vitriol which doesn't exemplify scientific thought and procedures.

For some reason I doubt your claims.

That is what prompted my statement.

You mean the one with the strawman argument. By the way, why didn't you support any of your claims? To date you have only made empty claims here and referring to a high school student clearly does not help your case.

 

[metis]

If I can jump in here-- if not, tough!

For an example, we know that this statement is wrong:

Question: Why should I believe the Bible?
Answer: Because the Bible says so.

Yet the pro-evolutionist use the same tactic:

And if one does, they shouldn't.

Question: What evidence proves that life evolved from nonliving molecules?

Just a clarification that this is a hypothesis, not a "gimme" in science.

Your statement states that the Bible is faulty. We expect people to challenge statements that don't have support... whether science or Bible.

Theologians more use the word "variations" as sometimes narratives don't exactly match up at times. "Faulty" is too strong a word for them.

We don't accept the Bible on the basis on the basis of "faith".

Actually you do to a large extent as the Bible is a book about "God", and yet there simply is no objectively-derived evidence that the "God", as depicted in the Bible, actually exists. However, any such beliefs are virtually unfalsifiable, which is why I can't ever prove that you're wrong-- but I just know you are!

But it comes from things like Danny Phillips, who years ago ewas a High-school junior in the Denver area, who challenged the statment that all life came form a tiny protozoan that went beyond the scientific evidence since it could not be confirmed by epxeriment or by historical studies of fossil record.

And he was correct in doing so.

Darwainists were infuriated and flooded the city's newspapers with letter that were filled with vitriol which do exemplify scientific thought and procedures

There ain't no such animal as a "Darwinist" except for Darwin himself, and he was not the first person to know that the evolution of life likely occurred, nor is he the last as there's more than ample evidence that this has happen.

The only real question is what you evolved from, and I have some hypotheses on that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aha! I found the source of the supposed "case study" of Danny Phillips:

Evolution - April 1998: The Danny Phillips Story


He incorrectly called a NOVA program "propaganda" when it was merely a short synopsis of scientific theory and hypothesis. A one hour show has a limited amount of rigorous science that can be shown. The fact is that the scientific evidence out there supports only the claim that life evolved from a single protozoan at this time. Perhaps the show glossed over that fact, but since it is the only concept supported by any reliable verifiable evidence at all the presentation was not unreasonable. Like I said, a single confused high school student is a very poor example to use.

 

[Kenny]

I

The only real question is what you evolved from, and I have some hypotheses on that.

I want to first address this issue as it is primeval and foundational to our future...

hahahaha
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA!



I'm at my daughters house visiting and she just asked me why I was laughing.

 

[Kenny]

Just a clarification that this is a hypothesis, not a "gimme" in science.

Do we, as Bible believers, get the same leeway?

Theologians more use the word "variations" as sometimes narratives don't exactly match up at times. "Faulty" is too strong a word for them.

As there are variations in hypothesis.

Actually you do to a large extent as the Bible is a book about "God", and yet there simply is no objectively-derived evidence that the "God", as depicted in the Bible, actually exists. However, any such beliefs are virtually unfalsifiable, which is why I can't ever prove that you're wrong-- but I just know you are!

HOWEVER,

YOU may be the evidence that we had it all wrong!

But, more seriously, is it objectively derived evidence or subjectively derived interpretation some times"

Take for an example... the placement (location) of eyes. Is it chance? Or is it God? If chance, do we have some with three eyes so that no animal can sneak up on you? (Survival)

So, IMV, much of it is subjective interpretation.

There ain't no such animal as a "Darwinist" except for Darwin himself,

I cannot dispute that position. I am correctable

and he was not the first person to know that the evolution of life likely occurred, nor is he the last as there's more than ample evidence that this has happen.
.

And the debate goes on

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do we, as Bible believers, get the same leeway?

If you can find some verifiable repeatable scientific evidence that supports you beliefs, why not?

As there are variations in hypothesis.



HOWEVER,

YOU may be the evidence that we had it all wrong!

But, more seriously, is it objectively derived evidence or subjectively derived interpretation some times"

Take for an example... the placement (location) of eyes. Is it chance? Or is it God? If chance, do we have some with three eyes so that no animal can sneak up on you? (Survival)

So, IMV, much of it is subjective interpretation.

All evidence is interpreted, so your question does not make much sense as asked. And in answer to your question about the placement of eyes the answer is "neither".

Your logical fallacy was the use of a false dichotomy. Only creationists seem to make the error thinking that evolution is random.

I cannot dispute that position. I am correctable


And the debate goes on

No, the debate was settle a long time ago. At this point in time there is no serious opposition to the theory of evolution.

 

[InChrist]

...and the debate will go on and on because it is so much more than a debate about evolution vs. creationism.

"Atheists want to avoid the question of origins. They talk about a sudden burst of energy that one critic named the "Big Bang," but they cannot tell us what energy is, where or why it was hiding, or why it suddenly showed itself in a cosmic explosion. Nor can they explain how life could spring forth from a universe that had experienced temperatures hotter than the interior of the hottest star. They can't tell us what life is or how it could be imparted to lifeless chemicals that the body comprises. Isn't it dishonest to talk about evolution without first of all facing certain foundational questions?


What is behind the diligent search for fossils all over the globe? What else than to find some evolutionary chain from microbes to man that would eliminate God? So it is with the exhaustive search through the human genome--to find an evolutionary link from lower creatures to man. We've already proven that man is more than his physical body, but that fact is avoided by atheists because it points to God.


Atheists are materialists. For them nothing exists except matter. Allegedly, man is no more than his physical body. The materialist thesis is easily disproved. Thoughts are not physical nor are ideas. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are filled with words for which there are no physical descriptions. What is the color of ethical? What does stupendous smell like? How much does remarkable weigh? Materialism is a stupid as well as a wicked philosophy. What is the texture of stupid, the sound of wicked, or the taste of philosophy, etc.?"
Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny (Part 1)

 

[Subduction Zone]

...and the debate will go on and on because it is so much more than a debate about evolution vs. creationism.

"Atheists want to avoid the question of origins. They talk about a sudden burst of energy that one critic named the "Big Bang," but they cannot tell us what energy is, where or why it was hiding, or why it suddenly showed itself in a cosmic explosion. Nor can they explain how life could spring forth from a universe that had experienced temperatures hotter than the interior of the hottest star. They can't tell us what life is or how it could be imparted to lifeless chemicals that the body comprises. Isn't it dishonest to talk about evolution without first of all facing certain foundational questions?


What is behind the diligent search for fossils all over the globe? What else than to find some evolutionary chain from microbes to man that would eliminate God? So it is with the exhaustive search through the human genome--to find an evolutionary link from lower creatures to man. We've already proven that man is more than his physical body, but that fact is avoided by atheists because it points to God.


Atheists are materialists. For them nothing exists except matter. Allegedly, man is no more than his physical body. The materialist thesis is easily disproved. Thoughts are not physical nor are ideas. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are filled with words for which there are no physical descriptions. What is the color of ethical? What does stupendous smell like? How much does remarkable weigh? Materialism is a stupid as well as a wicked philosophy. What is the texture of stupid, the sound of wicked, or the taste of philosophy, etc.?"
Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny (Part 1)

Your source makes the gross error of conflating accepting reality with atheism. And it is also a highly dishonest source. When the source you use starts with a lie in the very first sentence it makes the whole article void.

There are many Christians that accept the findings of science too. It tends to be the weak in faith and ignorant that abhor the theory of evolution.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

I definitely agree with you that it *is* possible to know that the theory of evolution is correct, at least with a level of confidence that is as high as we can get in any field outside of mathematics. However, I think creationists' failure to accept evolution relates less to lack of intelligence, and more to a weakened ability to not be self-deceptive. I know plenty of very intelligent creationists, and I also know many average-IQ (or lower) people who accept the fact of evolution. I think that some people are more easily prone to believing what they want to believe, and others are better at segregating what they *wish* to be true from what is actually true.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

But, would you believe in God if presented with enough evidence?

Yes.