The Miracle of Water.

[Deeje]

Sure they would. Macroevolution, remember? Creationists say it's impossible.

That is not what I meant.....the point was to teach the theory as a theory, not as an established fact....which it isn't, and cannot be, but that is not the impression we get from the scientists who want all mention of an Intelligent Designer to be erased from discussion about the subject. Why is he a threat? What is achieved by implying that anyone who believes in an intelligent Creator has to be lacking intelligence? Why can't the evidence speak for itself....like creation does to us?

If people were aware of the number of assumptions that science likes to present as truth, it might motivate them to research outside the orthodox writings of biased sources and explore the alternative without being made to feel like a brainless moron. I would hope so at least.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Perhaps you can explain why the evolutionists here need to launch such strong and often demeaning defence for something they believe in without reservation? It seems to me when reading the responses of the evolution devotees that their 'religion' (beliefs) is being pitted against ours and with equal religious fervor. If it's proven beyond all doubt, then why the need to fill these forums with what often amounts to pure vitrol, demeaning accusations about educational qualifications, and very little actual evidence?

If you were all truly confident about your beliefs, why do you all go to such great lengths to defend it? Are you afraid that we might point out some obvious inconsistencies? It seems that way.



So why does it pretend that it can't be wrong? It evolution was taught as a "possible" explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, then no one would complain. It's the way it's promoted and the way it infiltrates the school system and the minds of young children without giving them any way or reason to question its validity. By the time they reach university age, they believe it without question....but it is not proven or even provable. It is an assumption based on other assumptions. If that truth was included, then perhaps, this conflict would be deemed unnecessary by both opponents. All we really need is the truth to be told.....both are belief systems. People should be free to decide for themselves based on the real evidence, not on what is supposed to be real.



The evidence is "consistent" not because it is conclusive, but because of the way it is interpreted....who interprets the evidence? What do you think the evidence will point to when interpreted by biased sources?



We have a belief system based on scripture and what we see in nature. We see purposeful creation, not an infinite series of fortunate accidents.
Science has a belief system too, but it cannot admit that is what it is.



See.....here is what always comes out in the conversation....insinuating that what comes from the past has to be outdated or the product of ignorant humans who thought the world was flat. Did it ever occur to you that when humanity was in its infancy, that the Creator would educate his human creation much like we educate our own children. We don't give them information that they can't process. As they gain knowledge and ability to comprehend deeper concepts, then the education is stepped up to the level achieved. It's a continual process.....you honestly think science has achieved all it knows any other way? Most of its scientific knowledge has been accumulated in the last couple of centuries.....compared to how long humans have existed, we still have a lot of growing up to do. We are still infants, with much to learn.



That is easy....all life has a common Creator who used the same basic materials in the creation of all things. He implemented many of the same basic skeletal frameworks too.

The environments were created long before the creatures that occupied them were brought into existence. That is just logical. We build a house with the intention of living in it. We include all we will need to make life comfortable. We purposefully put things in that house that we plan to use once we move in. The same is true when a builder builds a house for someone else. No one expects that a house will just naturally construct itself. Planning is required and those plans are given to a builder who follows the instructions given to him. The plans did not drop out of thin air, just as the code for our DNA did not drop out of thin air. Information of that complexity could never be an accident....unless you have a vivid imagination.

Life itself is a miracle. Unless you are blind? Can you not see why evolutionists run a mile when you mention abiogenesis.....eager to separate themselves from that inconveniently unsuccessful branch of science?

Perhaps the evolutionists need a lesson in logic.....and appreciation for what is the genius behind Intelligent Design?

The search for the truth can at times become very passionate. Evolution is not a religion. This is not one religious belief verses another. Conflating two completely separate things(scientific understanding and religious belief), is only a creationist's strategy. One is supported by facts, and the other is supported by belief. No matter how much you may believe that something is conceptually real, you will never make it perceptually real. All the "gap-filling", "begging the question", and "appeals to the Divine" arguments, will never be a valid substitute for facts, data, and evidence.

What makes you think that your ex-nihilo Intelligent Design myth is any more valid than any of the other culturally-created creation myths? Why is yours correct and theirs's incorrect? Critical thinkers and skeptics don't have to demean or insult creationists and ID followers. All they have to do is ask questions that require specific answers. Since creationist and ID people can't provide rational answers to rational questions, they will always appear irrational in their attempts.

I'm not going to address all your subjective, conceptualized presuppositional gish. Because, I would need you to uncover your ears and open your eyes. But this would be impossible, since it would threaten and expose your level of understanding of what physical reality really is. Therefore, let me say that it would be almost impossible for life NOT to have occurred somewhere in the Universe. For example, do you think that the odds of one person winning lotto, is greater or lesser than the odds of winning for a billion people betting on lotto? Do you think the odds are greater or lesser, that our solar system could form from a ocean of other galaxies, stars, and materials in the Universe, or simply form on its own in an empty Universe in 14+ Billion years? Is it possible that out of billions of other planets, that life may also have started on other planets? Probability is based on time, frequency, and events. Out of all the billions of billions, of billions of near-earthlike, near-life sustaining planets, surely one would have come into fruition? Why is there a need to label all natural events as having a supernatural origin? Or, are you just trying to defend your particular creation myth?

If you wish to ignore that everything we see is based entirely on cause and effect, then you are just asserting your beliefs. The obvious question would then be, who designed the designer? And so on, ad infinitum.

We have a belief system based on scripture and what we see in nature. We see purposeful creation, not an infinite series of fortunate accidents.
Science has a belief system too, but it cannot admit that is what it is.

The evidence is "consistent" not because it is conclusive, but because of the way it is interpreted....who interprets the evidence? What do you think the evidence will point to when interpreted by biased sources?

The evidence is based on a consensus/convergence of interpretations. So, the average who, are thousands of critical thinkers from various disciplines, essentially trying to disprove the Theory. The evidence supporting Evolution is certainly conclusive, but it is not absolute. Nothing is. We are here not because of some divine intervention, but because we are the convoluted cause/effect result of an evolving Universe. Nothing more, nothing less.

So the basic, "God did it all", label is all the pseudo-science necessary to satisfy the minds of the ignorant. I guess if it was enough to satisfy the minds of people in the Dark Ages, why not give it a go now? From this labeled proposition, you can assert(without evidence) anything you want. And, since, "God did everything" is unfalsifiable, you're safe to make any claim you like. But from only inside the choir. I suppose it is much easier to read the words in a foreign man-made, man-compiled, man-edited, man-contracted, and man-written book, designed to excite the mind of children, and control the mind of adults. But to actually put in the years of sacrifices, research, disappointments, and revelations, associated with academic studies, now seems like a waste of time. Why make the sacrifices searching for verifiable answers, when it is clear that "God did it". You won't mind if we just try to understand HOW He did it? You stay comfortable with your idea of truth, and I will stay comfortable with the truth that I can objectively verify.

You are correct. Life could not exist without a planet. Something could not come from nothing. Science certainly doesn't know everything. But everything that it does know, it knows for certain. Might I suggest that you not teach your kids anything that you can't objectively verify for certain. Don't let them repeat your logical mistakes. Just tell them, you just don't know. It is the honest truth, not your beliefs. Give them the chance to learn for themselves. We do not need to add more to the "dumbing down" process in America. Considering that 42% of Americans believe in the Genesis myth literally.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That is not what I meant.....the point was to teach the theory as a theory, not as an established fact....which it isn't, and cannot be, but that is not the impression we get from the scientists who want all mention of an Intelligent Designer to be erased from discussion about the subject. Why is he a threat? What is achieved by implying that anyone who believes in an intelligent Creator has to be lacking intelligence? Why can't the evidence speak for itself....like creation does to us?

If people were aware of the number of assumptions that science likes to present as truth, it might motivate them to research outside the orthodox writings of biased sources and explore the alternative without being made to feel like a brainless moron. I would hope so at least.

All mention of ID should be left completely out of any science classroom. You clearly don't understand the difference between a Theory and a theory. The first is capitalized and contain many "established facts" to support it. The other theory is not capitalized, and is an assumed hypothesis, or an unproven assumption. I wonder which definition creationist use? ID should be taught in comparative religions, or cultural myths classes, but not in science classes. America is known and respected for its academic excellence throughout the world. Can you imagine how Germany and Japan would react, knowing that MIT(Dolph Lundgren, Kofi Annan), CIT, or UC Berkeley, were now teaching that "God did it", in all of their Biology studies(biochemistry, biophysics, neurobiology, microbiology, immunology, etc.)? We would quickly become a laughing stock in science by the rest of the world. Just to accommodate for the ignorant, and the intellectually laziness of others. With over 50% of Americans believing in Creationism, why is there zero objective evidence to support it? Where are the peer reviewed research papers presented? Nothing but, just take my word for it.

It is very difficult to have an informed opinion about anything, when confirmation bias only allows you to parrot what other feed into your self-serving narrative. Knowledge feeds on facts. Beliefs feeds on ignorance. Why don't you go to any science conference and present your case? Because you have nothing to offer, and understand even less.

 

[nPeace]

I'm an atheist. I don't need a god.

You are an atheist, but not because you don't need god, but because you don't want a particular god. Remember, a god does not only come in the form of a deity, but takes many other forms - one's stomach, materialism, sex, money, 'powerful', 'brilliant' or famous persons, etc. etc.
People choose to worship creation, or things, rather than the creator.

I asked you to provide your argument and evidence. All I got was the claim that you had already done that. So, that discussion died in the womb.

That wouldn't matter to me. I'd have to see that evidence myself. I keep hearing about it, but it's never produced.

This certainly is a marvel.
I create a thread, 'Evidence God Is'.
You ask for an argument for the evidence God is, and you repeatedly complain than you never get any, even when pointed to it.... you never responded to the thread - not even once, and that's not even half of what you got. That's funny.
Why not just admit that you have made up your mind what you will or will not accept, without considering what you won't accept?

Sure they would. Macroevolution, remember? Creationists say it's impossible.

I think you missed the point. 1. It's not taught as just a possibility. 2. Everyone has (should have) a right to say it's impossible - without people calling them stupid.

Not that I am complaining about that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm sorry that you believe being on a forum for years somehow gives you special knowledge, or understanding. Perhaps that's due to the techniques you learn from the crowd you keep. So I understand that rules out admitting that you are wrong.

I see. So, can you explain what you think a Gish Gallop is?

It's as I said above. Those several people seem to be doing the same thing you have been doing from day one, I met you.
However, I understand why you say you haven't got an answer.

What answer am I supposed to have? This is about you not answering the questions posed to you.
Questions that would elucidate and actually possibly back up your claims. Yet again, you've failed to answer them and have decided instead to attempt to put me down.

So, I guess that no answers will be forthcoming from you.

Perhaps you can show me where I Then let's start there.

I'm not letting you drag me down that road again because you are seemingly unable to follow posts. It was in the very last post that you wrote, that I responded to. I'm sure you can find it.

Since I did not make an argument from personal incredulity, as you again wrongly claim, then these words are really not necessary. So why use them?
Perhaps you can also point out where I made an Let's deal with that too.

Again, you did that in your very last post. All of your arguments so far have been from personal incredulity. And not only did you make an argument from personal incredulity, you then insisted that it was rational to do so!

And since you won't answer any questions about your claims, I guess they are going to stay that way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not what I meant.....the point was to teach the theory as a theory, not as an established fact....which it isn't, and cannot be, but that is not the impression we get from the scientists who want all mention of an Intelligent Designer to be erased from discussion about the subject. Why is he a threat? What is achieved by implying that anyone who believes in an intelligent Creator has to be lacking intelligence? Why can't the evidence speak for itself....like creation does to us?

If people were aware of the number of assumptions that science likes to present as truth, it might motivate them to research outside the orthodox writings of biased sources and explore the alternative without being made to feel like a brainless moron. I would hope so at least.

The evidence does speak for itself.

Once again, evolution is a fact. That organisms evolve over time, is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation that explains that fact.
The same way that the existence of gravity is a fact, while gravitational theory explains how gravity works.

This isn't really that complicated.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

.the point was to teach the theory as a theory, not as an established fact

The theory is taught as a theory. It's even called a theory.

At this point, the theory of biological evolution is too firmly established and too useful to not be correct or to be ignored to make room for a faith-based idea - creationism - that really can't be used for anything even if correct.

the scientists who want all mention of an Intelligent Designer to be erased from discussion about the subject.

Scientists have no need of an intelligent designer. As explained earlier, that hypothesis won't be seriously entertained until evidence surfaces better accounted for by invoking an intelligent designer. That's how rational skeptics and empiricists evaluate what is true about the world.

What is achieved by implying that anyone who believes in an intelligent Creator has to be lacking intelligence?

My argument is usually of the form that faith-based thinking cannot be a path to truth, and, as we saw with the ID movement and with alchemy and astrology, that nothing derived from a faith-based premise can be any more valid than the premise.

Do you find that offensive? Do you hear your intelligence being attacked? Sorry, but while I'll try to remain polite to you, that doesn't include not assessing your claims or finding fault with them and the means by which they were arrived at. If that's not OK, there are DIRs for those unwilling to subject their ideas to the marketplace of ideas. This would not be the place for those who take offense at having their means of processing information critiqued.

You are an atheist, but not because you don't need god, but because you don't want a particular god.

No, I'm an atheist for the reason I gave, not the reason you gave. I've learned to live without gods - developed a worldview that neither contains them nor needs them - and now, I do fine without leaning on such a concept. I've learned to accept that the universe might be godless, that we might be all that there is for light years, that nobody created me or is answering prayers. I'm fine with the idea that I may not be watched over or loved by any but a handful of creatures on one planet. I'm fine that I may my consciousness may cease to exist forever sometime soon

What can belief in a god add to that? Nothing. I don't need a god for any of the things that believers say their god belief does for them. I've resolved those matters by turning to nothing more than reason, compassion, and evidence. Adding faith can't make any of that better.

People choose to worship creation, or things, rather than the creator.

Worship is beneath a free, autonomous citizen.Nothing that needs or demands to be worshiped is worthy of respect.

I create a thread, 'Evidence God Is'. You ask for an argument for the evidence God is, and you repeatedly complain than you never get any, even when pointed to it.... you never responded to the thread - not even once, and that's not even half of what you got. That's funny. Why not just admit that you have made up your mind what you will or will not accept, without considering what you won't accept?

Were you expecting me to go to another thread to see your argument for an intelligent designer? That's unrealistic. Make your arguments here so that I can reply to them. The arguments need not be more than a few sentences each, and you don't need to include them all if you prefer. Just give me your three best. I can give you an argument for why the god of the Christian Bible cannot possibly exist in a handful of sentences. You should be able to do the same with your arguments.

But don't trouble yourself if you prefer. I'm fine with not seeing whatever it is that you claim that you have posted elsewhere. Its unrealistic to expect others to read an entire thread in search of your arguments.

Everyone has (should have) a right to say it's impossible - without people calling them stupid.

Why? If an idea that you believe is not stupid is called stupid, you are free to explain why you disagree.

Why is this such an issue? Aren't you used to this by now? I am. I see creationists attacking science, implying that there is nothing there but assumptions and guesses. I'm not personally offended. And conservatives are frequently telling me how bad liberal thought is. Once again, how's that offensive?

 

[ecco]

It evolution was taught as a "possible" explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, then no one would complain.

Yet when scientists couch their comments with things like: It appears; We believe; Research shows, Fundies use that "prove" that scientists really don't KNOW.

Danged if ya do, danged if ya don't.

BTW, evolution is not taught as a "possible" explanation for the diversity of life on this planet for the same reasons that gravity is not taught as a "possible" reason for thrown balls falling back to earth.

But I guess it could be little invisible angels.

 

[ecco]

The evidence is certainly consistent with the Theory of Evolution. What evidence can you posit that falsifies the Theory?

The evidence is "consistent" not because it is conclusive, but because of the way it is interpreted....who interprets the evidence? What do you think the evidence will point to when interpreted by biased sources?

You have a very bad habit of not answering questions. As a distraction, you post questions.

Try answering Truly Enlightened's question: What evidence can you posit that falsifies the Theory?

 

[Deeje]

The evidence does speak for itself.

Just depends on your lens, doesn't it? We each think the other fellow's viewpoint is based on fantasy....but if you examine the evidence carefully, you will see as much faith demonstrated in both camps as each other. But only one admits to their view being based on evidence (different interpretation) as well as faith. The other calls supposition "evidence". The fact is, we are all supposing and we could both be wrong.....I choose faith in God because I see intelligent design everywhere in nature, too many times to be convenient accidents of evolution.

You can have faith in science's interpretation of their evidence, but I know what makes logical sense to me. Design requires planning and planning requires intelligence and a concept of the future, with the design achieving a pre-conceived purpose. In human experience, this is always the case. Only in evolution do we see this departure from what science "knows" to what it "believes" could be true.

Once again, evolution is a fact.

But it isn't. A fact is provable...macro-evolution is not provable. Adaptation is provable, but there is no way to prove that "micro" can slide right into "macro" with no real evidence that it ever happened.

That organisms evolve over time, is a fact.

Yes they can....but science has only ever observed minor changes in one class of organisms or creatures that never stepped outside their taxonomy. There is no proof that they can.
That is an uncomfortable fact.

The theory of evolution is the explanation that explains that fact.
The same way that the existence of gravity is a fact, while gravitational theory explains how gravity works.

No, I'm sorry but that is an assumption. The "explanation" is a suggestion about what "might have" happened but retold as if it "must have". Science has nothing substantive.

Gravity is not hard to prove. Using gravity to back up the ToE is actually not telling the truth, but like suggesting that "micro" can become "macro" when there is nothing to back it up. It's a disguised suggestion....and that is called marketing.

This isn't really that complicated.

You're right....having an Intelligent Designer just makes perfect, uncomplicated sense.....but only to those who use their logic based on what science can actually prove. I know the "p" word is inconvenient, but that is what it takes to make something a fact....not demeaning accusations about people's intelligence or education.

Suggestions can't masquerade as facts without challenge. But the challenge is never met with anything but excuses for why there is no "proof"...and why I theory isn't really a theory when science owns it.

Science's "evidence" is their explanation....not to be confused with truth or facts. Suggesting that something "might have" or "could have" happened, doesn't mean it did.

 

[ecco]

Can you not see why evolutionists run a mile when you mention abiogenesis.....eager to separate themselves from that inconveniently unsuccessful branch of science?

Nonsense. Actually, that is an untruthful statement. When Fundies incorrectly conflate abiogenesis with evolution, rational people point out that they are two different branches of science.

We would do the same if you would confuse astrophysics with aeronautics.

Also, abiogenesis is not an unsuccessful branch of science. There is still much to learn, as with any branch of science. Atomic theory has been around for over one hundred years. Yet until the middle of the last century, quarks had not been discovered.

All you are doing is making the stale old Fundie argument: Ya cain't prove everything - that proves ya don't know nuttin.

 

[ecco]

You can have faith in science's interpretation of their evidence, but I know what makes logical sense to me.

If believing in a religion that has incorrectly predicted the return of Jesus at least five times makes logical sense to you, then I wouldn't place much credence in your "logical sense".

 

[nPeace]

If an idea that you believe is not stupid is called stupid, you are free to explain why you disagree.

Why is this such an issue? Aren't you used to this by now? I am. I see creationists attacking science, implying that there is nothing there but assumptions and guesses. I'm not personally offended. And conservatives are frequently telling me how bad liberal thought is. Once again, how's that offensive?

Did I say anything about someone calling an idea stupid?
Did I say I had an issue with, or was offended by someone calling an idea stupid? Where?

 

[nPeace]

Just depends on your lens, doesn't it? We each think the other fellow's viewpoint is based on fantasy....but if you examine the evidence carefully, you will see as much faith demonstrated in both camps as each other. But only one admits to their view being based on evidence (different interpretation) as well as faith. The other calls supposition "evidence". The fact is, we are all supposing and we could both be wrong.....I choose faith in God because I see intelligent design everywhere in nature, too many times to be convenient accidents of evolution.

You can have faith in science's interpretation of their evidence, but I know what makes logical sense to me. Design requires planning and planning requires intelligence and a concept of the future, with the design achieving a pre-conceived purpose. In human experience, this is always the case. Only in evolution do we see this departure from what science "knows" to what it "believes" could be true.



But it isn't. A fact is provable...macro-evolution is not provable. Adaptation is provable, but there is no way to prove that "micro" can slide right into "macro" with no real evidence that it ever happened.

I think some persons get mixed up with the use of terminologies. I'm not sure if this is @SkepticThinker's problem with her use of the word fact, which is different to scientific fact, just as theory is different to scientific theory, and law is different to scientific law, and evolution is different to biological evolution.
Isn't it interesting how modernized science have kidnapped and twisted, imo everyday words. Kinda leaves no doubt in my mind on the grand scheme of things.

I have even seen some changes in other words too.
As far as I am concerned, there is science, and there is science.
One thing is for certain - there is no scheme that will ever conquer common sense.

 

[Deeje]

All mention of ID should be left completely out of any science classroom.

I don't recall suggesting that ID be taught in a science classroom. But I did suggest that it be taught for what it is.....suggested possibilities for the explanation of the diversity of life. Let's not mention abiogenesis though. And it would be good if scientists were honest enough to say we can't prove macro-evolution ever happened. We just interpret the evidence to suggest that it did.
They say if you repeat a lie often enough and with confidence, people will believe anything because of who says it.

You clearly don't understand the difference between a Theory and a theory. The first is capitalized and contain many "established facts" to support it.

LOL....when did science change the definition of a well known word?....but more importantly, why? A hypothesis is an idea and remains so until someone provides "evidence" to back it up. The evidence relies on the interpretation....so who is the interpreter?
Why should I be confident about the interpretation when it is bound to be skewed towards evolution as it always is by those who seem desperate to promote it? Why the desperation? Post after post after post.....is there an 'ecco' in here?

The other theory is not capitalized, and is an assumed hypothesis, or an unproven assumption. I wonder which definition creationist use?

We use one definition because in the big scheme of things, that is all there really is. If it was a proven fact, then there could be no argument. I believe that science backs up the Bible and the Bible confirms true science.....not their imaginative theories, but their known facts.

It all fits quite neatly when you understand that JW's do not believe in YEC.

ID should be taught in comparative religions, or cultural myths classes, but not in science classes.

Why not? As long as kids are getting a rounded out view of who we are and how we got here, any information that gives kids a wider view is OK by me.

America is known and respected for its academic excellence throughout the world. Can you imagine how Germany and Japan would react, knowing that MIT(Dolph Lundgren, Kofi Annan), CIT, or UC Berkeley, were now teaching that "God did it", in all of their Biology studies(biochemistry, biophysics, neurobiology, microbiology, immunology, etc.)?

America is known for a lot of things....so let's not go there.....

Strange as it may seem, if the Creator proves himself at some time in the future, then all the science that supports evolution will be flushed down the proverbial toilet.

You see that phrase "God did it" seems to convey the idea that the big magician in the sky just poofed things into existence in 7/ 24 hour days just a few thousand years ago....but that is not what Genesis says. You see misinterpretation on both sides of this story allowed the truth to be lost.

Genesis allows for an ancient earth and a slow and deliberate process of creation over millions of years. The living creatures described in the biblical account are the sentient beings, but the microscopic creatures may well have been the first life forms to appear.

We would quickly become a laughing stock in science by the rest of the world

And therein lies the heart of the problem......peer pressure dictates so much of how science interprets its evidence, because if they don't come up with what fits in the evolution box, their intelligence will be questioned and their credibility will be shot to pieces. Their careers in tatters.
I see the problem....do you?

Just to accommodate for the ignorant, and the intellectually laziness of others. With over 50% of Americans believing in Creationism, why is there zero objective evidence to support it? Where are the peer reviewed research papers presented? Nothing but, just take my word for it.

"Peer review"...?

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Is that what you rely on? That's the fox guarding the hen house.

If 50% of Americans believe in creationism which basically leaves all scientific evidence out of the equation, then what percentage believe in evolution? If you even have to ask that question, you are pitting one belief system against another. What percentage just don't know what to believe?

It is very difficult to have an informed opinion about anything, when confirmation bias only allows you to parrot what other feed into your self-serving narrative.

But of course people such as yourself don't fit that description at all ......do you hear yourself?

Knowledge feeds on facts. Beliefs feeds on ignorance. Why don't you go to any science conference and present your case? Because you have nothing to offer, and understand even less.

I know enough and understand enough to identify a clever snow job when I see it. Knowledge feeds on facts....but since science is in short supply, what is feeding the scientists is imagination, not real science at all. Science believes the findings of other scientists who all feed at the same table. Falsification cannot be presented because there is nothing real to disprove. How do you disprove something that never happened?

Science functions on the belief that if a little is provable, a lot must necessarily follow.....but there is no concrete evidence to substantiate any of it. So you yourselves are feeding on beliefs and your own brand of ignorance....apparently.

You are free to believe whatever you wish....just stop pretending that you have facts to prove your position. Evolutionary science relies on belief just as much as ID does.

 

[Deeje]

The theory is taught as a theory. It's even called a theory.

I beg to differ. It is not taught as a theory in the true sense of the word, but in the scientific sense it means "beyond rational thinking to deny it". Who wants to be accused of not thinking rationally? Who wants to be seen denying all that "overwhelming evidence" ? But, its not until you investigate all the "overwhelming evidence" that you realize that it is mostly underwhelming speculation and guesswork backed up by other underwhelming guesswork.

At this point, the theory of biological evolution is too firmly established and too useful to not be correct or to be ignored to make room for a faith-based idea - creationism - that really can't be used for anything even if correct.

Yes I see your point....but that doesn't mean its correct. However, I am not a promoter of YEC, and I never have promoted creationism. (i.e. he world and everything in it was created in 7 literal days)

If you build a skyscraper on a flimsy foundation, its not going to stand for very long. Everyone is looking at the impressive architecture, but no one seems to notice that the foundations are made of matchsticks.

Scientists have no need of an intelligent designer.

Yes I know. Would it surprise you to learn that the Intelligent Designer has no need of scientists?

What's good for the goose....ya know.

My argument is usually of the form that faith-based thinking cannot be a path to truth, and, as we saw with the ID movement and with alchemy and astrology, that nothing derived from a faith-based premise can be any more valid than the premise.

Since I do not practice alchemy or astrology (both actually forbidden in the Bible) what are you inferring? Lumping those things together does not put them on the same level. Is Darwin's theory any more than a premise that goes beyond what science can actually prove? He highlighted the ability of the creatures he observed to adapt to their marine environment.
Why could this process not be programmed into the DNA of all species to facilitate their survival in a changing environment with a different food souse? It reflects intelligence, not a blind mechanism that has no concept of what it is doing or why that change is necessary.

Do you find that offensive? Do you hear your intelligence being attacked?

Seriously, if I was one bit worried about being "attacked", I would not be in this forum, nor would I have chosen to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I just think its a desperate act when certain ones have to attack their opponent with insinuations about questionable intelligence and lack of education just to make themselves appear to be more intelligent and better educated. They are self identified on these threads....many have no degrees in science, but like to sound as if they have. I am not impressed by credentials if the people who issued them are as misled as their students. Who taught the teachers? Go back far enough and you will see how falsehood creeps in at a slow pace, getting people to accept things, little by little. Science has slowly built itself into an empire with Emperors ruling their subjects as self important men are want to do. However, I believe that the Emperor has no clothes....he is just too vain to admit it.

there are DIRs for those unwilling to subject their ideas to the marketplace of ideas. This would not be the place for those who take offense at having their means of processing information critiqued.

I don't back down from awkward topics, though I have not chosen to respond to every post if I have said it all before. I repeat myself enough.

The fact that we get the kind of responses we do on these topics (as well as the number of views) is proof enough that we have touched a nerve. That is all that is necessary for some to be motivated to investigate the subject further....and from other sources. It pays to consider both sides of this issue before making a decision about it. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.....

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I don't recall suggesting that ID be taught in a science classroom. But I did suggest that it be taught for what it is.....suggested possibilities for the explanation of the diversity of life. Let's not mention abiogenesis though. And it would be good if scientists were honest enough to say we can't prove macro-evolution ever happened. We just interpret the evidence to suggest that it did.
They say if you repeat a lie often enough and with confidence, people will believe anything because of who says it.



LOL....when did science change the definition of a well known word?....but more importantly, why? A hypothesis is an idea and remains so until someone provides "evidence" to back it up. The evidence relies on the interpretation....so who is the interpreter?
Why should I be confident about the interpretation when it is bound to be skewed towards evolution as it always is by those who seem desperate to promote it? Why the desperation? Post after post after post.....is there an 'ecco' in here?



We use one definition because in the big scheme of things, that is all there really is. If it was a proven fact, then there could be no argument. I believe that science backs up the Bible and the Bible confirms true science.....not their imaginative theories, but their known facts.

It all fits quite neatly when you understand that JW's do not believe in YEC.



Why not? As long as kids are getting a rounded out view of who we are and how we got here, any information that gives kids a wider view is OK by me.



America is known for a lot of things....so let's not go there.....

Strange as it may seem, if the Creator proves himself at some time in the future, then all the science that supports evolution will be flushed down the proverbial toilet.

You see that phrase "God did it" seems to convey the idea that the big magician in the sky just poofed things into existence in 7/ 24 hour days just a few thousand years ago....but that is not what Genesis says. You see misinterpretation on both sides of this story allowed the truth to be lost.

Genesis allows for an ancient earth and a slow and deliberate process of creation over millions of years. The living creatures described in the biblical account are the sentient beings, but the microscopic creatures may well have been the first life forms to appear.



And therein lies the heart of the problem......peer pressure dictates so much of how science interprets its evidence, because if they don't come up with what fits in the evolution box, their intelligence will be questioned and their credibility will be shot to pieces. Their careers in tatters.
I see the problem....do you?



"Peer review"...?

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Is that what you rely on? That's the fox guarding the hen house.

If 50% of Americans believe in creationism which basically leaves all scientific evidence out of the equation, then what percentage believe in evolution? If you even have to ask that question, you are pitting one belief system against another. What percentage just don't know what to believe?



But of course people such as yourself don't fit that description at all ......do you hear yourself?

I know enough and understand enough to identify a clever snow job when I see it. Knowledge feeds on facts....but since science is in short supply, what is feeding the scientists is imagination, not real science at all. Science believes the findings of other scientists who all feed at the same table. Falsification cannot be presented because there is nothing real to disprove. How do you disprove something that never happened?

Science functions on the belief that if a little is provable, a lot must necessarily follow.....but there is no concrete evidence to substantiate any of it. So you yourselves are feeding on beliefs and your own brand of ignorance....apparently.

You are free to believe whatever you wish....just stop pretending that you have facts to prove your position. Evolutionary science relies on belief just as much as ID does.

One thing that I have noticed about most religious believers, is the lengths they will go to avoid presenting their own ID, Creation-specific evidence. Their only goal seems to be to discredit, insinuate, undermine, or cast aspersions on Evolution, and no other scientific Theory, by simply denying their validity. Why Evolution, and not any of the other Scientific Theories(General Relativity(Gravity), Quantum, Cell and Disease, Special Relativity, Information, Oxygen, etc.)? Why don't you also ignore the mountains of facts that support these Theories as well? Macro Evolution is the cumulative result of Micro Evolution. Small imperceptible changes over time, will produce large perceptible changes in the end. Or, did you think that speciation happened instantly, and not because of small changes in DNA over time? What is your alternative explanation?

I suppose if I listed all the facts, evidence, and common sense supporting Evolution, you would simply dismiss them all as just my belief? Or, just the interpretation of the facts by the experts in the field? Including the consistent interpretations, and corroboration by other experts in related fields? It is all just their beliefs, right? And one belief is no better than another belief, right? Evidence for evolution. Trying to equate my knowledge claims, that is based on at least some factual evidence(DNA, protein synthesis, biochemical processes, morphology and anatomy, etc.), to a belief claim that is based on zero evidence, is just intellectually dishonest, and nonsense apologetics. Therefore, if I throw a ball in the air, it will only be my belief(not a fact) that it will return to earth? You even go one step further. You claim that even the facts supporting the interpretation of the evidence are based on beliefs. In your reality there is no clear connection between cause and effect, or inductive and deductive reasoning. In my world if reality doesn't fit my beliefs, I toss out the belief. In your world, if reality doesn't fit your beliefs, you toss out the reality. Then you self-ingratiate your ego, and call it "keeping the faith". It is delusional and obsequious.

It is easy to find faults in anything when you hide behind ignorance and absolutes. It is easy to convince yourself that something isn't perfect when nothing is. It is easy to assert facts that are not in evidence, when the assertions are unfalsifiable. It is easy to claim that some aspect of science is wrong, when you don't have to demonstrate and defend that position. Science can only provide a certain level of certainty, consistency, and validity. What do you provide? Nothing. What evidence can you substitute for science? Nothing. What objective evidence supports your beliefs? Nothing. What other objective method can you posit to vet scientific claims, other than peer review of the scientific method? None. What evidence can you posit to falsify Evolution? None. There are many easy ways to falsify Evolution, but so far zilch and nada. You are merely a flea biting the back of an elephant. Not enough to bother the elephant, but just enough to think you are.

Feigning knowledge is not the same as having knowledge. Who would think that there is no difference between a Scientific Theory, and a personal theory about who will win the Kentucky Derby? The one thing that all creation stories have in common, is that they were created by their own culture, and not by the evidence. Maybe we should include the other thousands of creation myths, as an alternative to scientific facts. Unfortunately, science demands facts to keep it objective. Otherwise, it too would become a belief like religion.

So, rather then keep providing you with more evidence to dismiss, because of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, just present your own evidence that can support your narrative. What is the evidence for ID? Why is the ToE false? Why is your creation story correct, and the rest not? Or, should we just teach you belief, until we can disprove it? Oh, I forgot it's unfalsifiable, so it can never be disproved. I'm beginning to smell a scam. So, teach something that is totally consistent with the facts, or teach something that has no facts at all. Ummm, which one? I sincerely think you should leave science to scientists, and superstitions and myths for yourself. ​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I think some persons get mixed up with the use of terminologies. I'm not sure if this is @SkepticThinker's problem with her use of the word fact, which is different to scientific fact, just as theory is different to scientific theory, and law is different to scientific law, and evolution is different to biological evolution.
Isn't it interesting how modernized science have kidnapped and twisted, imo everyday words. Kinda leaves no doubt in my mind on the grand scheme of things.

I have even seen some changes in other words too.
As far as I am concerned, there is science, and there is science.
One thing is for certain - there is no scheme that will ever conquer common sense.

One thing is for certain - there is no scheme that will ever conquer common sense.

There is one thing that conquers common sense. It is called, Religion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think some persons get mixed up with the use of terminologies. I'm not sure if this is @SkepticThinker's problem with her use of the word fact, which is different to scientific fact, just as theory is different to scientific theory, and law is different to scientific law, and evolution is different to biological evolution.
Isn't it interesting how modernized science have kidnapped and twisted, imo everyday words. Kinda leaves no doubt in my mind on the grand scheme of things.

I have even seen some changes in other words too.
As far as I am concerned, there is science, and there is science.
One thing is for certain - there is no scheme that will ever conquer common sense.

Yeah, we're the ones messing up the terminology.
Wow.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I beg to differ. It is not taught as a theory in the true sense of the word, but in the scientific sense it means "beyond rational thinking to deny it". Who wants to be accused of not thinking rationally? Who wants to be seen denying all that "overwhelming evidence" ? But, its not until you investigate all the "overwhelming evidence" that you realize that it is mostly underwhelming speculation and guesswork backed up by other underwhelming guesswork.

What nonsense. It is literally called the Theory of Evolution.

I just have to ask you again, what kinds of science classes have you attended? What have you actually "investigated?"