Why I believe evolution has a problem with Creationism

[bobhikes]

Creationism runs afoul of many scientific studies. I am going to just mention 2 Geology and Astrophysics. You never hear Geologists or Astrophysicists challenge creationists and more people support their theories than Evolutionary theory.

Why
Geologists typically speak in scientific terms. Most of there theories are not understandable to the general public. Plate tectonics, Vulcanism, or Radiometric dating. People understand this to be scientific and not religious. Their theories are typically boring to anyone but a geologist so don't come off as made up stories.

Astrophysics use a lot of scientific terms but create artist renditions of the universe. People can't go there. They have nothing to go against what they are showing and saying. They are using the most advanced technologies that lead to things we use daily. People are somewhat awed.

Evolution Problems
First they use everyday terms to describe evolution. Ancestor's, Cousins, Tree of Life and etc. Even if Dinosaurs evolved into Birds. Birds are not Ancestor's as we think of them from Dinosaurs. All Birds Ancestor's produce birds or mutations. The mutations are not Birds. Dinosaurs can not produce birds. No species is any species cousin they are separate species cousins can only be from the same species same family.

Second television is constantly showing dinosaurs with humans or they give dinosaurs human traits to entertain, even the scientific shows. My kids love dinosaurs so I've seen more than a few. There are several shows where they time travel to see the dinosaurs with the scientist escaping at the nick of time. There was this actual documentary where they had a Utah raptor running on a treadmill to show how fast he was. This sends a mixed message.

Third they seem to allow money to lead them. I've seen all the Jurassic Parks and there are 1000's of error's but I can only remember 2 that were pointed out by scientists. The Raptor's were to big and the dilophosaurus did not spit acid, really that was all that was wrong. The movies even indicate they use biologists to make the dinosaurs as real as possible. I am not well educated in geology but I laughed my way through 2012. I remember scientists crushing it as completely inaccurate.

Fourth they tell stories, educated descriptions of how this animal evolved or of how the eye was made. Yes they are based on scientific knowledge of the day but they still read as stories. People can tell they are stories and we like stories but we don't buy them 100% and people that support evolution keep telling us it is 100% accurate. All people know 100% accuracy is not possible from humans some believe it is possible with God but only God. Some of us assume that Evolutionists(people that support evolution) believe they are god or better than a God.

The Summary, Stop using everyday human terms to describe evolution, Be more critical of TV's representation, Choose respect over money, Stop saying evolution is 100% accurate.

Conclusion, Nothing will change and it will always be Evolution Vs Creationism. Money talks and kids love dinosaurs.

 

[bobhikes]

Helpful Changes

Ancestor = Genetically mutated link

Birds could be 3 genetically mutated links from dinosaurs

Tree = Progression

Branch = Linear mutated progression

Family = mutated commonality linked

I'm sure we could make them even better my science terminology is pretty limited but you get my point. When science talks family, tree, branch and Ancestor it doesn't really feel like science.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Careful. Dihydrogen Monoxide is poisoness. You can tell I'm right by how sciency I talk.

 

[Bunyip]

I think that it is much simpler than you imagine. The theory of evolution came not long after the emergence of the science of geology and the discovery that the earth was far older than Usher's chronology suggested.
It was seen as the last nail in the coffin of blblical literalism and whilst the great age of the earth was relatively easy to invent an apologetic for, the notion of humanity evolving from earlier mammals was not. If humans evolved, then there was no Adam and Eve, and thus no fall, no original sin and nothing for us to seek salvation from.

Evolution is complex, so complex that popular misconceptions could be exploited in order to deny the obvious ramifications.

 

[bobhikes]

Careful. Dihydrogen Monoxide is poisoness. You can tell I'm right by how sciency I talk.

You can get people to believe what you saying today, even though its been shown on the internet many times. If you said water how many people would buy it. Using familiar terms allows for familiarity.

 

[bobhikes]

I think that it is much simpler than you imagine. The theory of evolution came not long after the emergence of the science of geology and the discovery that the earth was far older than Usher's chronology suggested.
It was seen as the last nail in the coffin of blblical literalism and whilst the great age of the earth was relatively easy to invent an apologetic for, the notion of humanity evolving from earlier mammals was not. If humans evolved, then there was no Adam and Eve, and thus no fall, no original sin and nothing for us to seek salvation from.

Evolution is complex, so complex that popular misconceptions could be exploited in order to deny the obvious ramifications.

Astrophysics is far newer than Evolution and has none of its problems.

 

[Bunyip]

Astrophysics is far newer than Evolution and has none of its problems.

Astrophysics, like geology and most other fields of science refutes YEC just as effectively as does biology. Creationist propogandists do in fact attack astrophysics just as they attack biology, it is just something the average person is less interested in and the implications are less obvious.

Creationists (Hovind for example) tend to respond by simply lumping astrophysics, geology, biology, chemistry, archeology and everything else they take issue with including communism, humanism, socialism etc etc etc into a single improbable edifice called 'evolutionism'.

My point is that you do get astrophysicists, chemists, geologists and so on challenging creationist propoganda, but they are all labelled 'evolutionists'.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not seeing how that could help, Bob.

Ultimately, it is a matter of convincing people not to be scared of finding out the truth.

 

[Alceste]

Creationism runs afoul of many scientific studies. I am going to just mention 2 Geology and Astrophysics. You never hear Geologists or Astrophysicists challenge creationists and more people support their theories than Evolutionary theory.

Why
Geologists typically speak in scientific terms. Most of there theories are not understandable to the general public. Plate tectonics, Vulcanism, or Radiometric dating. People understand this to be scientific and not religious. Their theories are typically boring to anyone but a geologist so don't come off as made up stories.

Astrophysics use a lot of scientific terms but create artist renditions of the universe. People can't go there. They have nothing to go against what they are showing and saying. They are using the most advanced technologies that lead to things we use daily. People are somewhat awed.

Evolution Problems
First they use everyday terms to describe evolution. Ancestor's, Cousins, Tree of Life and etc. Even if Dinosaurs evolved into Birds. Birds are not Ancestor's as we think of them from Dinosaurs. All Birds Ancestor's produce birds or mutations. The mutations are not Birds. Dinosaurs can not produce birds. No species is any species cousin they are separate species cousins can only be from the same species same family.

Second television is constantly showing dinosaurs with humans or they give dinosaurs human traits to entertain, even the scientific shows. My kids love dinosaurs so I've seen more than a few. There are several shows where they time travel to see the dinosaurs with the scientist escaping at the nick of time. There was this actual documentary where they had a Utah raptor running on a treadmill to show how fast he was. This sends a mixed message.

Third they seem to allow money to lead them. I've seen all the Jurassic Parks and there are 1000's of error's but I can only remember 2 that were pointed out by scientists. The Raptor's were to big and the dilophosaurus did not spit acid, really that was all that was wrong. The movies even indicate they use biologists to make the dinosaurs as real as possible. I am not well educated in geology but I laughed my way through 2012. I remember scientists crushing it as completely inaccurate.

Fourth they tell stories, educated descriptions of how this animal evolved or of how the eye was made. Yes they are based on scientific knowledge of the day but they still read as stories. People can tell they are stories and we like stories but we don't buy them 100% and people that support evolution keep telling us it is 100% accurate. All people know 100% accuracy is not possible from humans some believe it is possible with God but only God. Some of us assume that Evolutionists(people that support evolution) believe they are god or better than a God.

The Summary, Stop using everyday human terms to describe evolution, Be more critical of TV's representation, Choose respect over money, Stop saying evolution is 100% accurate.

Conclusion, Nothing will change and it will always be Evolution Vs Creationism. Money talks and kids love dinosaurs.

Well, I have to say I very much appreciate you sharing your issues with evolution. I know I asked you for this in another thread, now I need to dwell on it for a while.

Suffice it to say, I'm not the biggest fan of Barney or Jurassic Park, but I've never before considered the possibility that these fantasies might be taken as advocacy of evolutionary theory.

 

[McBell]

Creationism runs afoul of many scientific studies. I am going to just mention 2 Geology and Astrophysics. You never hear Geologists or Astrophysicists challenge creationists and more people support their theories than Evolutionary theory.

Why
Geologists typically speak in scientific terms. Most of there theories are not understandable to the general public. Plate tectonics, Vulcanism, or Radiometric dating. People understand this to be scientific and not religious. Their theories are typically boring to anyone but a geologist so don't come off as made up stories.

Astrophysics use a lot of scientific terms but create artist renditions of the universe. People can't go there. They have nothing to go against what they are showing and saying. They are using the most advanced technologies that lead to things we use daily. People are somewhat awed.

Evolution Problems
First they use everyday terms to describe evolution. Ancestor's, Cousins, Tree of Life and etc. Even if Dinosaurs evolved into Birds. Birds are not Ancestor's as we think of them from Dinosaurs. All Birds Ancestor's produce birds or mutations. The mutations are not Birds. Dinosaurs can not produce birds. No species is any species cousin they are separate species cousins can only be from the same species same family.

Second television is constantly showing dinosaurs with humans or they give dinosaurs human traits to entertain, even the scientific shows. My kids love dinosaurs so I've seen more than a few. There are several shows where they time travel to see the dinosaurs with the scientist escaping at the nick of time. There was this actual documentary where they had a Utah raptor running on a treadmill to show how fast he was. This sends a mixed message.

Third they seem to allow money to lead them. I've seen all the Jurassic Parks and there are 1000's of error's but I can only remember 2 that were pointed out by scientists. The Raptor's were to big and the dilophosaurus did not spit acid, really that was all that was wrong. The movies even indicate they use biologists to make the dinosaurs as real as possible. I am not well educated in geology but I laughed my way through 2012. I remember scientists crushing it as completely inaccurate.

Fourth they tell stories, educated descriptions of how this animal evolved or of how the eye was made. Yes they are based on scientific knowledge of the day but they still read as stories. People can tell they are stories and we like stories but we don't buy them 100% and people that support evolution keep telling us it is 100% accurate. All people know 100% accuracy is not possible from humans some believe it is possible with God but only God. Some of us assume that Evolutionists(people that support evolution) believe they are god or better than a God.

The Summary, Stop using everyday human terms to describe evolution, Be more critical of TV's representation, Choose respect over money, Stop saying evolution is 100% accurate.

Conclusion, Nothing will change and it will always be Evolution Vs Creationism. Money talks and kids love dinosaurs.

Seems to me you forgot Pokemons.
I have lost count of the number of times I have read on RF some creationists asking if someone has evr observed a {insert animal here} giving birth to {insert different animal here}.

 

[johnhanks]

Some of us assume that Evolutionists(people that support evolution) believe they are god or better than a God.

Show us a quote of an evolutionist comparing him/herself to a god, and some of us might start taking you seriously.

The Summary, Stop using everyday human terms to describe evolution...

Terms like "ancestor"? How is it dishonest or misleading to refer to chains of genetic descent as ancestry? It's true that when biologists describe, say, chimps and humans as "cousins" they are stretching the term, but since we are related through descent to all primates it's a harmless way of emphasising the closeness of that particular relatedness.

Be more critical of TV's representation
... Money talks and kids love dinosaurs.

Are you seriously suggesting that people pick up their ideas on evolution from cartoon dinosaurs?

Stop saying evolution is 100% accurate.

Not sure what you're objecting to here. Biologists will justifiably say (something like) "evolution is 100% accurate" if they are referring to the theory's ability to explain the diversity, form and functioning of living organisms. But in the case of your "educated descriptions of how this animal evolved or of how the eye was made", again you will need to link us to a biologist declaring that these descriptions are 100% accurate if you wish to be taken seriously. Otherwise you are tilting at a straw man.

 

[bobhikes]

Not seeing how that could help, Bob.

Ultimately, it is a matter of convincing people not to be scared of finding out the truth.

Truth is subjective and much harder to find when not clarified.

 

[bobhikes]

Astrophysics, like geology and most other fields of science refutes YEC just as effectively as does biology. Creationist propogandists do in fact attack astrophysics just as they attack biology, it is just something the average person is less interested in and the implications are less obvious.

Creationists (Hovind for example) tend to respond by simply lumping astrophysics, geology, biology, chemistry, archeology and everything else they take issue with including communism, humanism, socialism etc etc etc into a single improbable edifice called 'evolutionism'.

My point is that you do get astrophysicists, chemists, geologists and so on challenging creationist propoganda, but they are all labelled 'evolutionists'.

I have yet to see a science vs creation thread on any religious forums or in any news or science article. Its always evolution vs creationism.

 

[bobhikes]

Show us a quote of an evolutionist comparing him/herself to a god, and some of us might start taking you seriously.

Its simple they refuse to admit there could be any problems with evolution it is 100%. For most humans 100% knowledge is only equivalent to God.

Terms like "ancestor"? How is it dishonest or misleading to refer to chains of genetic descent as ancestry? It's true that when biologists describe, say, chimps and humans as "cousins" they are stretching the term, but since we are related through descent to all primates it's a harmless way of emphasising the closeness of that particular relatedness.

It is not dishonest at all it is confusing to the common person. They already have a valid personal definition for those terms.

Are you seriously suggesting that people pick up their ideas on evolution from cartoon dinosaurs?

Not just cartoon dinosaurs but actual scientific documentaries. They will time travel to the past and interact will the dinosaurs to impress the kids watching. As I said one documentary had a Utah raptor running on a thread mill. They'll have a tyrannosaurs Rex bite at the screen just before going to commercial. Yes the common person tends to believe what they see on TV and the Internet.

Prehistoric Park Supercroc Pt. 1 - VidoEmo - Emotional Video Unity

Not sure what you're objecting to here. Biologists will justifiably say (something like) "evolution is 100% accurate" if they are referring to the theory's ability to explain the diversity, form and functioning of living organisms. But in the case of your "educated descriptions of how this animal evolved or of how the eye was made", again you will need to link us to a biologist declaring that these descriptions are 100% accurate if you wish to be taken seriously. Otherwise you are tilting at a straw man.

Nothing is 100% accurate by the scientific method all theories and laws are testable forever.

 

[bobhikes]

Well, I have to say I very much appreciate you sharing your issues with evolution. I know I asked you for this in another thread, now I need to dwell on it for a while.

Suffice it to say, I'm not the biggest fan of Barney or Jurassic Park, but I've never before considered the possibility that these fantasies might be taken as advocacy of evolutionary theory.

These are not my issues with evolution these are new thoughts after the last thread. Instead of trying to get all people to take biology courses stop giving them mixed messages.

 

[bobhikes]

Seems to me you forgot Pokemons.
I have lost count of the number of times I have read on RF some creationists asking if someone has evr observed a {insert animal here} giving birth to {insert different animal here}.

So do you agree?

 

[Alceste]

These are not my issues with evolution these are new thoughts after the last thread. Instead of trying to get all people to take biology courses stop giving them mixed messages.

I don't think scientists or teachers are responsible for entertainment that features dinosaurs. I think the entertainment industry simply figured out that kids love dinosaurs.

I also think fiction is not giving mixed messages. It's fantasy, and we all understand that it is.

There's only one camp that persistently shows humans and dinosaurs together and claims this is a truthful depiction of our ancient history, and it's not us.

 

[johnhanks]

Its simple they refuse to admit there could be any problems with evolution it is 100%. For most humans 100% knowledge is only equivalent to God.

So any scholar who is convinced that a certain proposition is true is setting him/herself up as god? A physicist who is 100% certain that gravity exists? A historian who is 100% certain that Napoleon was once Emperor of France?

It is not dishonest at all it is confusing to the common person. They already have a valid personal definition for those terms.

You seriously underestimate the common person if you think (s)he will be confused by extending the idea of ancestry from a few generations to many.

Not just cartoon dinosaurs but actual scientific documentaries. They will time travel to the past and interact will the dinosaurs to impress the kids watching. As I said one documentary had a Utah raptor running on a thread mill. They'll have a tyrannosaurs Rex bite at the screen just before going to commercial. Yes the common person tends to believe what they see on TV and the Internet.

Prehistoric Park Supercroc Pt. 1 - VidoEmo - Emotional Video Unity

Your video link is to a show imaginatively reconstructing how certain extinct animals lived. The bits I saw do not address their evolution at all - presumably those fossilised animals existed even if the ToE is false. Again, you must have a low opinion of "the common person's" intellect if you think cgi dinosaurs are going to mislead them about evolution.

Nothing is 100% accurate by the scientific method all theories and laws are testable forever.

At last we find something we can agree on. Yes, like the rest of science the theory of evolution is under constant scrutiny. At present, it is sufficiently robust for biologists to treat it as the central paradigm of their discipline; but no-one has declared it exempt from future testing.

 

[bobhikes]

So any scholar who is convinced that a certain proposition is true is setting him/herself up as god? A physicist who is 100% certain that gravity exists? A historian who is 100% certain that Napoleon was once Emperor of France?

Does gravity exist in a vacuum, Is a historian certain in dates, times and locations. If you just said Napoleon could you be certain it is the emperor of France. 100% doesn't exist in Reality.

You seriously underestimate the common person if you think (s)he will be confused by extending the idea of ancestry from a few generations to many.
Your video link is to a show imaginatively reconstructing how certain extinct animals lived. The bits I saw do not address their evolution at all - presumably those fossilised animals existed even if the ToE is false. Again, you must have a low opinion of "the common person's" intellect if you think cgi dinosaurs are going to mislead them about evolution.

Why do you think theory of evolution has a problem. Do we need to educate the whole population. How much training does the average person get in Astrophysics or Geology. What is the biggest complaint you hear for evolution. My ancestor is not a monkey. Yes it is wrong but even saying it is something else is not more correct. Creationists say dinosaurs and dragons lived with humans. If you show it on TV how much harder is it to discredit them. I don't think people are stupid but I do believe they are lazy.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't think scientists or teachers are responsible for entertainment that features dinosaurs. I think the entertainment industry simply figured out that kids love dinosaurs.

I also think fiction is not giving mixed messages. It's fantasy, and we all understand that it is.

There's only one camp that persistently shows humans and dinosaurs together and claims this is a truthful depiction of our ancient history, and it's not us.

Fine what about the misleading terms. Is a Dinosaur really the ancestor of a Bird. Are we families to other species. Is it really a tree.

What about this 100% or nothing view. It does not exist in science, it does not exist in reality. Only God is 100%.