I guess this is the current state of creationism

[shunyadragon]

While I respect your career and the talents that you possess, your qualifications are irrelevant to me for this particular topic. We differ on what we perceive as major evolutionary change. Macro-evolution is a misleading term with many perceptions to it. I'm afraid many have taken advantage of the word "macro-evolution" to claim facts that are not facts. Regardless of what career you're in, how long you've been doing such.... the reality remains the same for certain elements there are absolutely no evidence for. Anyone can create/design mythological creatures using their imagination to get an idea of what said creature's fossils should look like in the transition of major evolutionary change and accept them as fact. I can label you and others a "Creationist" as well for doing such. But it's a fact that these creatures do not currently exist. You can have faith that they exist or will be discovered at some point, but to claim mythological creatures as fact is pseudoscience. The difference between me and other "evolutionists" is I'm not afraid to state the current fact of this.

My views are currently as to what is factual: everything evolves, land life evolves, sea life evolves, flying creatures evolve, human beings evolve, human animals evolve. They all don't have to come from one another to deny evolution. I haven't opened the known barriers for certain things and have stated them as facts like many seem to.

Never stated that natural selection was the only principle involved. I stated that there are a lot of issues with natural selection in its current state.

You have made a lot of challenges to the science of evolution, and evolution is based on very sophisticated Biochemistry, Biology, Genetics, and the various fields of Geology. To challenge and disagree with evolution when you are clueless as to the science involved is absolutely ludicrous. It is like asking a janitor to build a 747. Your argument totally lacks peer reviewed scientific articles to support this line of reasoning.

The argument for a difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is strictly a Fundamentalist Christian argument based on a religious agenda and not one remotely associated with science.

You are not being honest concerning your religious agenda in this dialogue.

 

[shunyadragon]

According to "science," my interpretation is accurate. According to how you perceive macro-evolution"- evolution over a long period of time, I suppose we can say yours is accurate too.

No it is not remotely accurate;

Without a reasonable academic background in science all you have to support your argument is a religious agenda.

 

[Profound Realization]

You have made a lot of challenges to the science of evolution, and evolution is based on very sophisticated Biochemistry, Biology, Genetics, and the various fields of Geology. To challenge and disagree with evolution when you are clueless as to the science involved is absolutely ludicrous. It is like asking a janitor to build a 747. Your argument totally lacks peer reviewed scientific articles to support this line of reasoning.

The argument for a difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is strictly a Fundamentalist Christian argument based on a religious agenda and not one remotely associated with science.

You are not being honest concerning your religious agenda in this dialogue.

This is the same predictable, redundant response one gets no matter what.. accusations.

You said clueless, please elaborate. I see a bunch of accusations but zero substance.

You said religious agenda, please elaborate. My agenda has been clear all along: I don't accept anything as fact unless it is fact.

No, it's like asking you to show me the facts and evidence of mythological creatures that don't exist. To claim they exist as fact is not science, that is religious agenda.

You also may not be aware of this but that's how science works... it challenges itself and questions itself.

I suppose maybe that you are right....if I have to believe in mythological creatures imagined up as facts to believe in evolution, then I don't believe in the evolution that you present.

You're doing nothing but assume on ones character with opinions, yet bringing zero substance and claiming science at the same time.

 

[Profound Realization]

No it is not remotely accurate;

Without a reasonable academic background in science all you have to support your argument is a religious agenda.

You do realize that what I stated was a scientific outcome regarding the matter correct?

Redundant and predictable response: plea to academic background or someone knows nothing and is all religious agenda. You know nothing on my background, yet another accusation.

 

[shunyadragon]

You do realize that what I stated was a scientific outcome regarding the matter correct?

Selective citation, incomplete with the purpose of justifying a religious agenda, and failure to comprehend the science and the complete literature on the subject.

Redundant and predictable response: plea to academic background or someone knows nothing and is all religious agenda. You know nothing on my background, yet another accusation.

You have avoided presenting your background on the subject, and obviously appeal to a religious agenda for justifying your view. Avoiding standing up and giving your background and qualification is an issue.

A good academic back ground in indeed a necessary qualification to make judgments concerning any field in science, particularly if you chose to challenge the whole of the science of evolution with incomplete information as you are doing. There is no religious agenda for may my view only science, Again 99% of all scientists in the related fields regardless of religious beliefs support evolution and do not make the distinction between micro evolution and macro evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've got an opinion based on many things, including science, for your information.

Nevertheless, it is mere opinion and is no better or worse than your wonderful guessing scientists.

Furthermore, God has proved Himself to me time and time again. I don't need any scientists' opinions.

No, it's definitely worse and less informed than people who study it for a living. Science isn't about opinions; it's about evidence.

 

[DavidFirth]

No, it's definitely worse and less informed than people who study it for a living. Science isn't about opinions; it's about evidence.

It's about their opinions concerning their evidence. There are Christian opinions concerning the same evidence and others are out there, too. The "evidence" draws no definite conclusions in and of itself.

 

[DavidFirth]

And what "basic beliefs" would those be?

The usual. Most all of them believe in abiogenesis, macro-evolution and billions of years just like you.

 

[DavidFirth]

No it is not remotely accurate;

Without a reasonable academic background in science all you have to support your argument is a religious agenda.

So since when does a person need a "reasonable academic background in science" to talk about science from those who are obviously biased that give degrees for "reasonable academic background in science"?

I don't feel that biased institutions should be able to tell me what a "reasonable academic background in science" means.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"A geologist studies earth processes such as earthquakes, landslides, floods, and volcanic eruptions to survey land and draw up safe building plans. When geologists investigate earth materials, not only do they investigate metals and minerals, but they also look into oil, natural gas, water and methods to extract these."

So you guys are the ones we have to thank for all the pollution....well done...you should all be so proud of yourselves....

That particular branch of science includes the methods of extracting uranium...right?

So...the world owes you......what? I think it needs an apology personally.

What are you talking about??

 

[jonathan180iq]

What are you talking about??

Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's about their opinions concerning their evidence. There are Christian opinions concerning the same evidence and others are out there, too. The "evidence" draws no definite conclusions in and of itself.

The evidence for evolution is drawn from multiple scientific fields, from multiple independent groups of scientists working all over the world over the last 150+ years. When all of the evidence points to the same conclusion, and none of the evidence contradicts it, the only logical conclusion one can come to is that the theory of evolution best describes the available evidence. This stuff is demonstrable. Creationists and/or anti-evolutionists have had at least 150+ years to falsify the theory of evolution and yet it is still the prevailing scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. If it's so flimsy and inconclusive, it should be extremely easy to overturn.

To deny that living biological organisms evolve over time is to deny reality.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So since when does a person need a "reasonable academic background in science" to talk about science from those who are obviously biased that give degrees for "reasonable academic background in science"?

I don't feel that biased institutions should be able to tell me what a "reasonable academic background in science" means.

Of course you feel that way when they don't agree with your position. Yet you accept biased institutions telling you what you think and feel about Evolutionary Biology when it's convenient because they share your religious affiliation and worldview, right? How is that any better?

Do you not see the contradictory position that you're arguing for?

"Bias is bad unless it's the bias I like" is not a sound logical foundation.

Here are a few simple questions:

• Why do you reject the current scientific literature on Evolutionary Biology?
• Why do you claim a distinction between Micro and Macro Evolution?
• What evidence do you have to support any of your conclusions which contradict well-established scientific disciplines?

Those aren't biased or swaying questions. They simply ask you to explain and support your current stance. If you can't answer those questions currently, then perhaps you should take another look at your own arguments.

 

[DavidFirth]

Of course you feel that way when they don't agree with your position. Yet you accept biased institutions telling you what you think and feel about Evolutionary Biology when it's convenient because they share your religious affiliation and worldview, right? How is that any better?

Do you not see the contradictory position that you're arguing for?

"Bias is bad unless it's the bias I like" is not a sound logical foundation.

Here are a few simple questions:

• Why do you reject the current scientific literature on Evolutionary Biology?
• Why do you claim a distinction between Micro and Macro Evolution?
• What evidence do you have to support any of your conclusions which contradict well-established scientific disciplines?

Those aren't biased or swaying questions. They simply ask you to explain and support your current stance. If you can't answer those questions currently, then perhaps you should take another look at your own arguments.

Opinion noted.

 

[Deeje]

What are you talking about??

I was talking to the person who boasted about being a geologist with 45+ years of experience (that wasn't you).....just confirming how much we have to thank those geologists for.....not much compared to the damage they have been responsible for....are they working on ways to clean up the mess they have made? How many of them have ever been heard to apologize for any of it?

Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia

This is just like 'perception management' then, isn't it? You think science can't be wrong? You think they don't know that their pet theory could all be overturned tomorrow? How embarrassing!

If the entire scientific community is led down a particular path by their teachers (who are in turn influenced by other teachers) and there is an agenda to uphold that is quite emotionally charged (as is clearly demonstrated on these threads) then pressure is exerted on the students by their professors (who also succumb to peer pressure) in a way that belittles anyone who disagrees or who questions the validity of their "interpretation of evidence". Who wants to be accused of being unintelligent or ignorant in any field of science?

You can see the arrogance shown in their posts.....as if they have the high ground on this topic. Egos the size of Texas pontificating about something that is not provable and has holes you could drive a Mack Truck through!
All they have is each others word in spite of the fact that there is no concrete evidence that evolution ever took place the way that they claim it...."must have"......"might have"...or "could have". Inference or suggestion cannot be called "fact" unless you have blinkers on....you know, like the ones you guys think we have. I believe yours are way bigger than ours. They appear to block out all common sense in their eagerness for God to go away.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's about their opinions concerning their evidence. There are Christian opinions concerning the same evidence and others are out there, too. The "evidence" draws no definite conclusions in and of itself.

The objective verifiable evidence is the basis of the scientific methods that have falsified the science of evolution. You have offered nothing coherent in response, but an emotional defense of your religious agenda..

 

[DavidFirth]

The objective verifiable evidence is the basis of the scientific methods that have falsified the science of evolution. You have offered nothing coherent in response, but an emotional defense of your religious agenda..

You offer evidence and trumped up theory only, no facts, only what you believe based on your faith in scientists.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

 

[Deeje]

"Bias is bad unless it's the bias I like" is not a sound logical foundation.

Science is as biased as they believe we are. Its the bias 'you' like.....and there is no sound logical foundation for it except from the musings of those bent on wanting it to be true, but with no real evidence.

Here are a few simple questions:

Why do you reject the current scientific literature on Evolutionary Biology?

Because it has no proof for any of its assertions about how life on this planet got to where it is now. It has no explanation for how life began, but all its efforts are concentrated on how life changed, as if that makes the bigger question unimportant. If life was created, then your whole theory is down the toilet.

Why do you claim a distinction between Micro and Macro Evolution?

Because there is a clear distinction between the two....one is provable...the other is based, not on facts, but on wishful thinking. It is like those people who believe that "if a little is good, a lot must be better".....they are almost always wrong.

What evidence do you have to support any of your conclusions which contradict well-established scientific disciplines?

By "well established" you mean held by consensus of the majority? Since the majority have been convinced by a minority who have a clear agenda and like to use emotional blackmail to coerce students and teachers alike to accept that the Emperor is wearing a magnificent suit that should impress everyone.....he hasn't noticed that many people are laughing at him parading around naked. The theory of evolution will never be a fact because science cannot prove that it ever took place.
It is something "assumed"....and with very flimsy evidence. Its time people started demanding some proof that doesn't involve "belief" or "faith" or assumption, because that is what is held against ID believers. You guys have nothing more than we have....a belief system. You just can't admit it.

Those aren't biased or swaying questions. They simply ask you to explain and support your current stance. If you can't answer those questions currently, then perhaps you should take another look at your own arguments.

I see from the responses of evolutionists on the various threads in this forum, that the best they can do is accuse their opponents of being "uneducated and ignorant" for not accepting their "evidence". To my way of thinking, if you cannot explain something in plain English, but have to resort to scientific jargon to carry your story even among those who speak your language, then what have you got really?

If I go to a surgeon and he tells me I need a complex operation to remedy a medical condition, he is not going to use the same jargon he would use with another physician is he? I would not understand anything he said. So that surgeon will explain as simply as possible how the procedure works and what it will accomplish....and I will understand without the need to learn his language....he speaks mine.

Now when evolutionists try to explain evolution in plain language, it becomes rather comical because the ridiculous things that they suggest only sound convincing if you shroud the assumptions in technical jargon. Take the jargon away and the Emperor is truly naked!

 

[Deeje]

The objective verifiable evidence is the basis of the scientific methods that have falsified the science of evolution. You have offered nothing coherent in response, but an emotional defense of your religious agenda..

Here is a classic example of the arguments....."objective verifiable evidence"

What does "objective" mean in this context?

"(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Who of any of the readers here believes that evolutionists are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions? That is the first thing we see....an emotional response....usually anger. How dare we question their educated guesswork! How dare we expose the fact that they have no facts!

The other term is "verifiable" which means "able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified."

So I am waiting for verification on the whole theory. None has been forthcoming, despite the protests that they have been provided. Nothing remotely convincing has ever been provided. Just more of the same ambiguous guesswork about what "might have" happened.

What are "scientific methods"?

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

What "empirical or measurable evidence" does science have for macro-evolution? What "reasoning" is used to verify their findings, other than the word of other biased scientists trying to support the same agenda?

What does it mean to "falsify" evolution?

"prove (a statement or theory) to be false." How on earth can you prove a theory is false, if you can't even prove that it is true?

What have you got apart from all the huffing and puffing? Not much......certainly not enough to even fulfill your own criteria.

 

[sayak83]

Here is a classic example of the arguments....."objective verifiable evidence"

What does "objective" mean in this context?

"(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Who of any of the readers here believes that evolutionists are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions? That is the first thing we see....an emotional response....usually anger. How dare we question their educated guesswork! How dare we expose the fact that they have no facts!

The other term is "verifiable" which means "able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified."

So I am waiting for verification on the whole theory. None has been forthcoming, despite the protests that they have been provided. Nothing remotely convincing has ever been provided. Just more of the same ambiguous guesswork about what "might have" happened.

What are "scientific methods"?

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

What "empirical or measurable evidence" does science have for macro-evolution? What "reasoning" is used to verify their findings, other than the word of other biased scientists trying to support the same agenda?

What does it mean to "falsify" evolution?

"prove (a statement or theory) to be false." How on earth can you prove a theory is false, if you can't even prove that it is true?

What have you got apart from all the huffing and puffing? Not much......certainly not enough to even fulfill your own criteria.

Every statement you make about evolution here is false as has been unambiguously demonstrated countless times before. That you choose to deliberately ignore this makes no difference to this objective fact, as any reader who is reading your responses will know. But please continue to talk to yourself.