Science ... NOT God ...

[Jollybear]

The biggest difference is that the scientists are legitimate authorities because they actually do the field or lab work to establish their positions.

Yea, and theres so much controversy, information, misinformation, inferences pushed as though there facts, ect, that how can you say the average evolution believer isnt in the same position as a religious person?

 

[Polymath257]

Yea, and theres so much controversy, information, misinformation, inferences pushed as though there facts, ect, that how can you say the average evolution believer isnt in the same position as a religious person?

Well, for one, looking to the AAAS as a source for reliable information is a good start as opposed to the religious authorities.

 

[Jollybear]

Well, for one, looking to the AAAS as a source for reliable information is a good start as opposed to the religious authorities.

You fail to realize theres many religious scientists. Yes, they claim theres evidence.

 

[gnostic]

They don't! Most atheists use science as an excuse/argument against religion

It wasn’t science that first made question the Bible and church teachings, and that made me agnostic.

It was the passage in Matthew 1:22-23 that changed my view, not physics or biology.

Originally when I read the Bible at 15, and read Isaiah’s sign (Isaiah 7:14), then the Matthew’s version of the sign, I had accepted the gospel’s interpretation and church interpretation that the sign relates to Mary’s pregnancy and the child being Jesus, as the sign of the messiah. I didn’t question these “Christian interpretation” and didn’t bother to double check it.

I was young back then, so I took anything I read at face value, and believing without double checking.

It wasn’t until 19 years later (I was 34 years old in 2000), that I bother to re-read both Isaiah’s passage and Matthew’s passage.

When I read the whole chapter of Isaiah 7, I came to realisation that the author’s interpretation was wrong. Wrong because Isaiah’s sign had nothing to do with Mary and Jesus. And wrong because it had nothing to do with any messiah.

Judah was at war with the Israel-Aram alliance, besieging Jerusalem at that time. Ahaz sent message to the Assyrian emperor, Tiglath-pileser to save his kingdom.

The sign had to do with Assyria’s intervention in the war.

There was more to the sign than just verse 14. When the boy reached certain age, the Assyrian army will invade and conquer both Israel and Aram, taking Samaria and Damascus.

The whole sign is this:

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

The sign is that Assyria will come (7:17), when the child (Immanuel) is old enough to eat curd and honey (7:15), but before the child could distinguish good and evil (7:16).

Who ever wrote the gospel of Matthew, had cherry-picked 7:14 to give new meaning to the sign. And it isn’t the only sign that the gospel had quoted from the Old Testament to be wrong.

To me, I now recognise the dishonest quotings, to be nothing more than propaganda.

It was this sign that made me reconsider the integrity of the gospels, not science, and certainly not evolution.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Everything was planned and executed perfectly.

Really? It is flawed from the top up; the nature of the universe, the nature of our planet, the plan for salvation, the very existence of the proposed "devil", numerous imperfections of the human body; there is nothing "perfect" about it.

Anything is possible with the Lord.

The phrase that seems to answer everything, but answers nothing.

However, if YOU can or are able to hold back and keep all of this about the subject and NOT me, i will go deeper into your questions.

If you can agree with that, sign on the dotted line. Signing does NOT mean you will be agreeing with my conclusions about said evidence.

I can agree to that. But keep in mind that there are communication barriers between you and I; if I use the word "delusional" or "irrational", for example, it is not meant as an insult as I do not consider such words "insults".

There is also the fact that when we are told we are wrong, especially about deeply held religious, political or philisophical beliefs, we human beings tend to perceive it as an attack on us personally. Neurologically, it activates the same areas of the brain as physical attacks:

So if you can remain calm in the phase of criticism, some of it personal, and attempt to refrain from perceiving an attack on the argument as an attack on the self, we can continue.

Though it does stray from the OP.

If you dont WANT to persuade me of your views and are just seeking intertainment out of my frustration, yea, thats trolling.

I have no hope of convincing one set in their beliefs towards my views. I do expect that my rebuttals will become a part of their experience, and maybe, in time .... (Think of the seed sower parable in the bible).

I also debate/discuss in hopes of convincing the unconvinced onlooker.

t is my own faith choice to reject evolution,

This is intellectual dishonesty:

Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia

Why do they choose to have "faith" in creationism over evolution? Why do YOU think they do?

• Indoctrination and upbringing,
• Not understanding the science or evidence behind it.
• Listening to the "smart sounding", convincing "teachers" such as Ham, Hovind and Comfort.
• Falling prey to misinformation.
• Trusting the word of those who sound educated and convincing.
• To reject any part of their scriptures as literally true is, to them, rejecting it as a whole.
• They are so invested in their worldview that the thought of losing it is simply too terrifying.

Ok, soooooo, if theres no evidence for creationism, why do they believe it then?

See above.

So, can the same be said of those who believe in evolution. Upbringing? And take the word of the scientists?

There are those who "believe in evolution" simply because they "take the word of scientists". These kinds exist. Then there are those who actually educate themselves on the phenomenon and gain some basis of understanding. These, like myself, have weighed the evidence and find evolution to be soundly supported by facts and evidence; and creationism lacking in both.

Yea, and theres so much controversy, information, misinformation, inferences pushed as though there facts, ect, that how can you say the average evolution believer isnt in the same position as a religious person?

Some are.
I am not.
Neither am I an expert, but I will do my best.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok, so hes saying he believes in evolution, so hes not consistent, which THAT makes him actually intellectually dishonest through the inconsistency.

Good grief, you can't even be honest about what he said! He said that that there is lost of evidence for evolution and then goes on to say that he rejects it for other reasons.

See, hes contradicting himself. How is that intellectually honest?

He doesn't contradict himself. You have just demonstrated your own (faith induced) blindness, in that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge what he is actually saying.

Faith huh? So im gonna beg the question here. Why do they choose to have "faith" in creationism over evolution? Why do YOU think they do?

Ok, so from your view, why does he choose faith in the bible then?

People choose faith for all sorts of reasons, often personal or cultural. The problem is when the teachings of a faith contradict clear evidence. Some people are clearly so attached to their faith that they refuse to accept the clear evidence and will do anything to deny it even exists.

You've just demonstrated the effect beautifully in falsely claiming that Todd contradicted himself.

BTW you never did say why you think nearly all the people in the world who study these things agree that evolution is beyond reasonable doubt and, of those that don't, almost all have a faith based vested interest...

 

[ratiocinator]

This is intellectual dishonesty:

Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia

Possibly. It's an odd situation when somebody openly admits that they are believing something by faith, despite the evidence. I find it hard to condemn them for dishonesty. It's certainly a refreshing change from the endless creationist nonsense about the evidence supporting them, how evolution is a religion, and so on.

 

[Jollybear]

I can agree to that. But keep in mind that there are communication barriers between you and I; if I use the word "delusional" or "irrational", for example, it is not meant as an insult as I do not consider such words "insults".

Ok, so, what if i use the word delussional and irrational toward you, of course your not going to believe you are delusional nor irrational. Likewise, i wont believe im irrational nor delusional when you call me those things, despite them not being "insults". You "informing" me that im these things will do no good, lol. Likewise, me "informing" you will do no good either.

The key is for either of us to show WHERE and WHY and HOW the other is delusional or irrational. Because if the WHERE and WHY and HOW is not shown, then how can the delusion and irrationality be dispelled from the person?

There is also the fact that when we are told we are wrong, especially about deeply held religious, political or philisophical beliefs, we human beings tend to perceive it as an attack on us personally. Neurologically, it activates the same areas of the brain as physical attacks:

So if you can remain calm in the phase of criticism, some of it personal, and attempt to refrain from perceiving an attack on the argument as an attack on the self, we can continue.

Though it does stray from the OP.

Ok, sure.

I have no hope of convincing one set in their beliefs towards my views. I do expect that my rebuttals will become a part of their experience, and maybe, in time .... (Think of the seed sower parable in the bible).

I also debate/discuss in hopes of convincing the unconvinced onlooker.

Fair enough.

Indoctrination and upbringing,

• Not understanding the science or evidence behind it.
• Listening to the "smart sounding", convincing "teachers" such as Ham, Hovind and Comfort.
• Falling prey to misinformation.
• Trusting the word of those who sound educated and convincing.
• To reject any part of their scriptures as literally true is, to them, rejecting it as a whole.
• They are so invested in their worldview that the thought of losing it is simply too terrifying.

There are those who "believe in evolution" simply because they "take the word of scientists". These kinds exist. Then there are those who actually educate themselves on the phenomenon and gain some basis of understanding. These, like myself, have weighed the evidence and find evolution to be soundly supported by facts and evidence; and creationism lacking in both.

Some are.
I am not.
Neither am I an expert, but I will do my best.

Ok. Well, what if i told you that i am to religion and science what you are to religion and science? In otherwords, im not that uneducated, unthinking, unresearched person, yet i have concluded different then you have.

In otherwords, ONE OF US has MISSED THE MARK.

 

[Jollybear]

Good grief, you can't even be honest about what he said! He said that that there is lost of evidence for evolution and then goes on to say that he rejects it for other reasons.

Your not paying attention to what i said.

Yes, he said theres lots of evidence for evolution. Granted. I achnoghledge he said that. But where im not comprehending you, is that you think hes intellectually honest despite the fact he contradicts this by forcing his mind to not believe it and then believe creation.

That inconsistency is what i call intellectually dishonest. You dont?

He doesn't contradict himself. You have just demonstrated your own (faith induced) blindness, in that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge what he is actually saying.

Your not listening. He IS contradicting himself. Define contradiction for me, please?

If for a hypothetical i say theres lots of evidence for no God, then i say theres a God. Im contradicting myself. If i say theres lots of evidence trees grow out of the ground, then say i believe trees dont grow out of the ground, i am then contradicting myself.

Yes, no?

People choose faith for all sorts of reasons, often personal or cultural. The problem is when the teachings of a faith contradict clear evidence. Some people are clearly so attached to their faith that they refuse to accept the clear evidence and will do anything to deny it even exists.

I noticed in your list one of those reasons are NOT that some have faith BECAUSE of evidence. Thats interesting and odd. But, ok.

So, why do they deny it exists? Why do they force there brain to deny it?

You've just demonstrated the effect beautifully in falsely claiming that Todd contradicted himself.

BTW you never did say why you think nearly all the people in the world who study these things agree that evolution is beyond reasonable doubt and, of those that don't, almost all have a faith based vested interest...

Does it even occure to you that there is a vested interest in the naturalistic worldview where no God exists?

 

[Polymath257]

Your not paying attention to what i said.

Yes, he said theres lots of evidence for evolution. Granted. I achnoghledge he said that. But where im not comprehending you, is that you think hes intellectually honest despite the fact he contradicts this by forcing his mind to not believe it and then believe creation.

That inconsistency is what i call intellectually dishonest. You dont?



Your not listening. He IS contradicting himself. Define contradiction for me, please?

If for a hypothetical i say theres lots of evidence for no God, then i say theres a God. Im contradicting myself. If i say theres lots of evidence trees grow out of the ground, then say i believe trees dont grow out of the ground, i am then contradicting myself.

Yes, no?



I noticed in your list one of those reasons are NOT that some have faith BECAUSE of evidence. Thats interesting and odd. But, ok.

So, why do they deny it exists? Why do they force there brain to deny it?



Does it even occure to you that there is a vested interest in the naturalistic worldview where no God exists?

In my mind, he's being intellectually honest by admitting he doesn't care about the evidence. He acknowledges that the evidence is strong, but basically says it is irrelevant because he chooses to have faith. Most people don't have the guts to admit that: they attempt to argue the evidence when, in the end, it isn't a matter of evidence for them. It is solely a matter of faith.

So, kudos to this guy for admitting it.

 

[Jollybear]

In my mind, he's being intellectually honest by admitting he doesn't care about the evidence. He acknowledges that the evidence is strong, but basically says it is irrelevant because he chooses to have faith. Most people don't have the guts to admit that: they attempt to argue the evidence when, in the end, it isn't a matter of evidence for them. It is solely a matter of faith.

So, kudos to this guy for admitting it.

Oh my god!

How in the world is it honest to KNOW something is true, yet bring yourself to say its not?

 

[Polymath257]

Oh my god!

How in the world is it honest to KNOW something is true, yet bring yourself to say its not?

But that isn't what he is saying. He is saying that evidence is irrelevant to his belief. This is actually quite common, but few people admit it. he admits the evidence for evolution is strong. But he doesn't see evidence as being relevant to his belief because he bases his belief on faith and not on evidence. He ultimately sees evidence as faulty when it comes to arriving at the 'truth', which requires faith.

 

[ratiocinator]

If for a hypothetical i say theres lots of evidence for no God, then i say theres a God. Im contradicting myself. If i say theres lots of evidence trees grow out of the ground, then say i believe trees dont grow out of the ground, i am then contradicting myself.

Yes, no?

No. Those things may be irrational and bizarre (as is creationism) but they aren't contradictions. A contradiction is when two statements are logically incompatible.

I noticed in your list one of those reasons are NOT that some have faith BECAUSE of evidence.

If you have evidence why would you need faith?

So, why do they deny it exists? Why do they force there brain to deny it?

Faith in the bible and denial of anything that contradicts it. Many "creation scientists" are on the record as saying that anything that contradicts their interpretation of the biblical account must be wrong.

To be fair, I think most creationists have been fed enough distortion, misrepresentation, and falsehoods (all of which you find on creationist websites) that they genuinely think it's an open question and that creationism is compatible with, or even supported by, the evidence - which it simply isn't. The people who create and disseminate this nonsense are the ones doing the doublethink (to give them the benefit of the doubt an assuming they aren't deliberately lying).

Does it even occure to you that there is a vested interest in the naturalistic worldview where no God exists?

1. Evolution, cosmology, archaeology, biology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy and all the other science creationists need to deny, do not question the existence of (most) gods. It isn't about there being "no God".
   
   
2. The people working on all these things are not (by a long way) all atheists - more so historically.
   
   
3. Creationism isn't theism - it's just a cult of extremist, literalists.

 

[Jollybear]

But that isn't what he is saying. He is saying that evidence is irrelevant to his belief. This is actually quite common, but few people admit it. he admits the evidence for evolution is strong. But he doesn't see evidence as being relevant to his belief because he bases his belief on faith and not on evidence. He ultimately sees evidence as faulty when it comes to arriving at the 'truth', which requires faith.

But, to say evidence doesent matter in what we believe, THAT is not honest. To let indoctrination guide our belief rather then letting evidence guide our belief, that is not honest. Its the equivalent to barrying our head in the sand. You call this having guts on his part? Its the total oposite of guts.

Wheres his guts at? Im not seeing honesty.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Whats your theory of why they choose faith in the bible over evolution?

Speaking specifically about the creationist, who chooses to believe the words of The Bible as to how humans were poofed into existence from clay/dirt, rather than developed over time (according to the scientific findings that more appropriately evidence their hypotheses) - I would say it has to do with a number of things:

1. Inability or fear of an inability to understand the scientific data/conclusions
2. The desire to unequivocally claim themselves "top dog" within the animal kingdom - this honestly seems to be a big deal to a lot of creationists I've spoken with. Not that they state it exactly like this, but most of them don't even want to be represented as an "animal" at all - as if it is some kind of insult. This is hubris in my opinion - something that a great many theists are not in short supply of (also opinion).
3. Believing what they are told by people they know and trust, versus experts who they don't know, and aren't sure they can trust.
4. Fear that evolution being correct also means there is no God. And if there is no God, then there is possibly no "everything happens for a reason", and there is possibly no one looking out for them in secret like they hope is the case, and there is possibly no one who loves them no matter what they do.

There are a lot of reasons I feel someone might choose to believe the creation account and eschew evolution. The above are just a few points I have come to after speaking with a lot of creationists, and hearing their arguments, and witnessing the poor modes of thinking they tend to share. #2 is, quite honestly, one of the biggest I've seen in play. People adamantly stating "I'm no ape!" and poking fun at that idea, and deriding and mocking those who do believe in evolution when they point out some of the more obvious and compelling evidence that displays our ape ancestry.

 

[Jollybear]

No. Those things may be irrational and bizarre (as is creationism) but they aren't contradictions. A contradiction is when two statements are logically incompatible.

So to say evolution has lots of evidence for it, but evolution is still not true, those two statements are not logically incompatible?

If you have evidence why would you need faith?

Exactly. But, you do realize, everyone has inferences, yes, no?

Faith in the bible and denial of anything that contradicts it. Many "creation scientists" are on the record as saying that anything that contradicts their interpretation of the biblical account must be wrong.

Ok, so, anything that contradicts evolution, is it a must that its wrong?

To be fair, I think most creationists have been fed enough distortion, misrepresentation, and falsehoods (all of which you find on creationist websites) that they genuinely think it's an open question and that creationism is compatible with, or even supported by, the evidence - which it simply isn't. The people who create and disseminate this nonsense are the ones doing the doublethink (to give them the benefit of the doubt an assuming they aren't deliberately lying).

"It simply isnt" isnt evidence for evolution though. "It simply isnt" isnt evidence against creation either. Yes, no?

Evolution, cosmology, archaeology, biology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy and all the other science creationists need to deny, do not question the existence of (most) gods. It isn't about there being "no God".

1. 
   
2. The people working on all these things are not (by a long way) all atheists - more so historically.
   
   
3. Creationism isn't theism - it's just a cult of extremist, literalists.

Eh, i see....im not gonna debate evolution vs creation YET. We cant even agree on what intellectual honesty is, how we gonna have any hope of debating creation, evolution with proper communication with eachother?

 

[ratiocinator]

So to say evolution has lots of evidence for it, but evolution is still not true, those two statements are not logically incompatible?

Actually they aren't, but my point was about people accepting that there is lots of evidence for evolution and not believing it because of faith.

Neither lots of evidence nor faith makes something necessarily true.

Ok, so, anything that contradicts evolution, is it a must that its wrong?

No - what gave you that idea? However, I have many good reasons to think anything posted on a message board by a creationist that purports to contradict evolution is likely to be wrong:-

1. Creationists on message boards (in my experience) are mostly ignorant of even basic science.
   
   
2. No such claim (in my experience) has ever stood up to scrutiny. Either it's based on a misunderstanding or misinformation, or it falls into the "but you haven't explained this detail (yet)" - which hardly dents the copious evidence in favour of the theory.
   
   
3. I've spent a lot of time in the past looking at creationist websites and they were invariably full of misrepresentation, distortion, and falsehoods. I stopped because I was sick of feeling like I needed a shower after every visit. If they had anything credible to say, why the dishonesty?
   
   
4. If there actually were credible evidence against it, it would be headline news.

"It simply isnt" isnt evidence for evolution though. "It simply isnt" isnt evidence against creation either. Yes, no?

No - of course me stating it, isn't evidence of anything but my view.

We cant even agree on what intellectual honesty is, how we gonna have any hope of debating creation, evolution with proper communication with eachother?

These debates are largely futile anyway, which was why I was asking you why you think almost all of the scientists who study these things thinks you are wrong. Are they stupid, taken in (by who and how?), are they lying, is it a conspiracy? Why is it that almost all the people who disagree have an obvious faith position to defend?

 

[Earthtank]

If anyone thinks science is here to replace God then, they do NOT understand science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If anyone thinks science is here to replace God then, they do NOT understand science.

Science does not need to replace God since there does not appear to be a need for God in the first place.

What is your evidence that a god even exists?

 

[Earthtank]

Science does not need to replace God since there does not appear to be a need for God in the first place.

What is your evidence that a god even exists?

The debating type always looking for someone talking about the existence of god if when he or she did not. Funny how the first thing out of an atheist's mouth is always "this or that about god"

I did not say god does or does not exist. Simply stating the difference between God and Science. If you want to talk about God go to your local church, temple, synagogue or any place of worship.