tas8831
Well-Known Member
Nope.
Yet creationists routinely declare or imply that the claims of so-and-so are totally true.
Do they not?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution My ToE
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Yet creationists routinely declare or imply that the claims of so-and-so are totally true.
Do they not?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Do you think public debates are how scientific issues are decided?
If such debates were about finding truth, then Kent Hovind should have been abandoned by Christians decades ago, the first time he was exposed in public debate as a fraud and liar.
Public debates are about gotchas and zingers and soundbites.
This is not the 1700s. There are far better avenues to discuss scientific issues. Those on the losing end of issues prefer public debates over written exchanges or real scientific inquiry because they only have to impress their target audience or sway those that do not understand the material with their charm, and they can declare victory.
I saw a live Hovind debate about 20 years ago. He was charming, funny, entertaining, a showman. His opponent was an actual biologist, researcher. But was a poor public speaker and did not prepare much (he was a last-minute replacement, as I recall - the person that had originally agreed later found out what kind of person Hovind is and backed out). Hovind was caught in several lies, and many of us in the audience knew that most of his claims were bogus. Yet the audience consensus was that Hovind 'won.'
This is why creationists, religionists, alt-right characters, etc. prefer live, public debates (especially on college campuses, where they can 'bash' excitable yet underinformed students with their years of experience and produce highly edited 'so and so DESTROYS liberals' video clips) over interviewsd or written exchanges.
it is all a farce.
Audie
Veteran Member
Hoc also missed that "logic" and opinion are not the same.
For that matter so much of what really goes on as determined
by research, is profoundly counterintuitive.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Compare? What a marvelous suggestion!
The creos even have a real live paleontologist, Dr K Wise!
"if all the evidence in the universe turned against yec, I would
still be yec"
Instead of experts, lets compare juries!
How about we put hoc on trial for his life with a jury
that said, "if all the evidence in the universe says hoc
never done it, we will still say he is guilty"
I bet he'd pretty quick decide he like an honest jury better.
Audie
Veteran Member
You have "noted" them, have you? Do tell.
And as for your knowledge of peer review, there is a
saying, "Cobbler, stick to your last".
You are out of your pond, on matters of the ivory tower.
Now, to the main point.
Tenure exists for the purpose of protecting professors
with unconventional idea, challenges to the status quo.
Its a great system, if not perfect. For you to claim it is the
opposite is ignorant and ridiculous.
Here is the reason few do come out and "declare opposition" *
They cant give a reason. They dont have a reason.**
IF a person wants to "declare opposition"* to something,
it is well to have a cogent reason.
You are against traffic lights, but cant think of a reason?
You are against the new stadium, but can provide no data
of any sort to show its a bad idea?
Researchers are more than welcome to challenge
any aspect of anything in science they like. That is
a lot of how progress is made. It is now careers are
made Note the excitement if someone manages
to "show that Einstein was wrong"!
But if you just say you dont believe in and
have absolutely no data, no nothing, you are
putting yourself in a very foolish position.
There is no "censorship" such as you claim.
Telling falsehoods is foolish, against the rules
of the "god" you profess to follow, and, does
nothing but weaken any case you wish to present.
* "declaring opposition" is like what you do at a
school board meeting, its not how things are done
in research.
** unless they wish, that is, to declare total intellectual
dishonesty, a poor career move no matter in what field.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Science is simply not a "philosophy" whereas all opinions may be equal. It's based on objective study and analysis.
Secondly, the Bible is simply not a science book, so treating it as if it were one is really quite nonsensical.
Thirdly, it is really quite hypocritical to say "believe" in regards to science and not put forth the fact that one's religion is based exclusively on belief based on faith. I certainly have no problem with belief and faith, but it's simply not objectively derived.
Fourthly, if I was prone to having a blind "disposition", I still would be attending the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in that denied the basic science of the evolution of life forms. Thus, what I see in your response probably is best summed up with one word: "projection".
Fifth, there's substantial evidence to see movements of some organisms from sea to land and some from land to sea. Thus, let me recommend you get a real science book that covers the evolution of life forms and maybe actually start reading it. You clearly have not done that since you say there's no evidence where there actually is evidence.
Finally, one can use religious beliefs as a source of enlightenment or as a set of blinders to objective reality. I took my blinders off five decades ago as I studied and then taught anthropology for three decades. If you want to wallow in ignorance and delusion on this, that's your choice. Any religion or denomination that insists on ignoring reality must be bogus because the Truth cannot be relative.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Declaring opposition is great, but irrelevant if they cannot offer anything of substance.
Saying that they simply 'don't believe it', as many of them do, is a good reason NOT to voice your opposition, because it makes one look like petulant child.
Provide an example please.
You are aware, are you not, that peers that review creationist pubs are required to affirm that they will either never allow anything critical of creationism to see the light of day, or that they will only endorse pro-creation stuff (while these seem to be two sides of the same coin, they differ in their 'logic')?
Audie
Veteran Member
That for sure is where peer review fails and censorship rules.
Projection is strong with the creos.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
False.
Ever hear of "forensic science"? There are many people in prison on that basis alone. And anthropologists are often called in to help in this area as this is what we specialize in!
Yes, I believe they can, but what's a "miracle" versus what's "natural" is for another discussion.
The book of Hebrews, and the Bible in general, are not science books, so you are demonstrating why you know so little on the matter of science.
But another "species" is of different "kinds"-- that's what "species" deals with!
It's far more disturbing that you use your religious approach as a set of blinders. I left my old denomination because of this as the Truth simply cannot be relative. Not only does your approach use blinders, it also has led you to spout, or at least parrot, dishonesty. I don't believe that Jesus and God wants us to do that. Do you?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Deeje... nPeace... Shmogie....
All 'bullies'... All 100% wrong on their evolution claims. All put on ignore those that expose them.
Audie
Veteran Member
Integrity, intellectual and other honesty...
I am tiresome no doubt in reposting this, but it
so perfectly illustrates the problem...though this man
is educated in science, unlike our local heroes.
Dr K Wise, paleontologist
As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.
ZERO intellectual integrity!
But the creationists praise him for being honest
about his faith.
I say its equally praiseworthy if a bank robber
says yeah, I robbed the bank.
*** Mod Post ***
Please be reminded of rule 1:
1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.
Please be reminded of rule 1:
1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
No, it doesn't take any faith. It's just what the evidence indicates. If the evidence were to change, or new evidence were to come to light, then we'd go with that.
Unlike religious beliefs, acceptance of evolutionary claims aren't hinged on receiving eternal life after death or getting into some god's good favour or anything and so they can be amended according to whatever the evidence indicates. We're not stuck having to believe anything that the evidence doesn't indicate, as some who adhere to ancient texts seem to have to do.
Last edited:
dad
Undefeated
People can choose to believe in Jesus actually. Your ability to verify stuff is negligible at best.
I doubt you even realize you are a slave. He is so against people being that way He died to set us free.
What have you done for the oppressed?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Your view of evolution was inaccurate then (as it is now). Evolution doesn't posit that apes grew straighter over time and slowly turned into humans.
We are related to other apes, in the same way you are related to your cousins, even though you didn't descend directly from them - rather, you share a common ancestor with your cousins, as we share a common ancestor with the other apes (and humans are in fact, great apes).
dad
Undefeated
No. We don't. Mankind shares ancestry with mankind. You try to attach meaning to similarities with other creatures of other kinds that you interpret to mean there is a family relation.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
There is a ton of evidence verifying that evolution occurs. Evolution is a fact. It is a fact of life that there is change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.
It is the backbone of modern biology. It can and has produced testable predictions.
The theory of evolution is the comprehensive explanation of the processes and mechanisms involved in how evolution occurs. It is also supported by mountains of evidence.
There is a lot more involved in determining that some birds descended from dinosaurs than just declaring that "well they both have feathers so they must be related." (Though feathers are an important feature). Maybe give the people who spend their entire lives studying this stuff some credit, eh?
Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships
The origin of birds
Dinosaurs' Living Descendants | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
Birds and dinosaurs - the debate is over : Nature News
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Censorship?
If anybody could demonstrably falsify evolution they'd become world famous and win a Nobel Prize. It would be a big huge deal.