Evolution vs. Creationism[W:2571, 3239]

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

It can be. However, not everyone understands or can follow the scientific method, or evaluate evidence in a proper and logical manner.

Not everyone can follow a true Faith Believers logic not everyone can answer Faith Believers question logically.
I have examples if you want.eace

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Not everyone can follow a true Faith Believers logic not everyone can answer Faith Believers question logically.
I have examples if you want.eace

For a question to be answered logically, the question has to be logical in the first place.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Okay,

Anyway, that is the evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. While there is no evidence to support the religious "god" concept.

Let me get this straight you are asking me to believe the universe started because of accident a big Bang to have an explosion you must have matter energy and a detonator these came from a vacuum of nothing ? Then you ask me to believe after that living tissue just happened to be laying around to start evolution to create the most complex organ on this planet "the human brain" all this from the nothing of a vacuum.? bit thin ain't it?
Yet if I say an unexplained phenomenon might be a miracle that's different , If I say God set up the universe and evolution but don't know how that's different.
No the Difference is my Faith belief has questions that I seek to answer, However there is no questions to be answered in your belief you say this is what happened you know.
Question How do you know read a book, watched a movie maybe you was an eye witness, nah not that old so how do you know for certain.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

OK.

Seeing how we're obviously in two completely different and unrelated conversations, I'll end mine here.

I merely responded to your post ,
However if you prefer to leave , TA TA.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

The most intellectually honest position is to say there is evidence for the Big Bang Theory, but there is also significant reason to question it's validity.
Backlash to Big Bang Discovery Gathers Steam - Scientific American

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

Likewise, the most honest approach to the god question is to simply state whether or not one believes in them or not. It is a safer bet intellectually than saying there is no god, which of course cannot be verified.

I agree with your post Faith Believers such as my self are the first to say we have no proof God exist , nor do we have proof that the Big Bang didn't happen we search for knowledge to find out with an open mind, but we keep our Faith in God but that is personal.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

For a question to be answered logically, the question has to be logical in the first place.

Examp0le are all theories fact? that seems like a logical question , be careful how you answer for facts require proof iron clad proof.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Perhaps if you had been less circuitous in your disquisition, the meaning would have been more obvious. In what way is a crazy trial about the teaching of the fact and theory of evolution related to your "Darwinism" word? (Scopes was found not guilty on appeal, but the Butler act he was tried under was fatally wounded and driven extinct.)

Seems like it was obvious to me the first time I heard the words Monkey trial i knew what it meant . What are they gonna do put an actual monkey on trial. For someone that knows Darwinism but don't know the first court trial about Darwinism I would question your authority on Darwinism.eace

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Examp0le are all theories fact? that seems like a logical question , be careful how you answer for facts require proof iron clad proof.eace

This sentence does not seem to have good sementic value. Please clarify your though processes and try to make sense.

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

There is no limit to meaningless garbology, true.

Pardon me there sir , but that is no explanation on how these things came to be if you want to rebuke my statement, Alas only another insult that's the best ya got.eace

 

[presluc]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

This sentence does not seem to have good sementic value. Please clarify your though processes and try to make sense.

Ah, the old dodge trick I haven't seen that since the 90's.kinda out dated.
Are all theories fact or fiction?
Make it multiple choice pick one.eaceeace

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Pardon me there sir , but that is no explanation on how these things came to be if you want to rebuke my statement, Alas only another insult that's the best ya got.eace

The statement was a garbled misrepresentation of a warped reality. The rebuke was my response, since rebuttal is not needed.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Seems like it was obvious to me the first time I heard the words Monkey trial i knew what it meant . What are they gonna do put an actual monkey on trial. For someone that knows Darwinism but don't know the first court trial about Darwinism I would question your authority on Darwinism.eace

Darwinism is a word used by ignorant creationists to describe the fact and theory of evolution. Try Wallace-ism for a change.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Ah, the old dodge trick I haven't seen that since the 90's.kinda out dated.
Are all theories fact or fiction?
Make it multiple choice pick one.eaceeace

This is what is known as a false dicotomy, since it is not a either or question. DO you know what a scientific theory is? Can you give a definition?? Your question does not seem to show an understanding of what a scientific theory is.

Just to cut the b.s... let's define things. A scientific theory is a model to explain a set of facts. When it comes to evolution, The Theory of Evolution is the model the explains WHY evolution happens.

Let's level set your knowledge.

Can you give the scientific definition of what biological evolution is? (I am being precise, since I don't want the logical fallacy of equivocation to occur).

After we level set, so we are taking the same lanaguage and using the same definitions, then I will answer. Your question is showing a lack of knowledge.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Seems like it was obvious to me the first time I heard the words Monkey trial i knew what it meant . What are they gonna do put an actual monkey on trial. For someone that knows Darwinism but don't know the first court trial about Darwinism I would question your authority on Darwinism.eace

It seemed obvious to you, but obviously not to others. Darwinism is your word for what most call the fact and theory of Evolution. The trial was about killing off a stupid law. It did. It was nicknamed the "Monkey Trial" because the defence made a monkey out of the prosecution.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

What would lead you to such a fatuous conclusion?[/QUOTE.

Read post #2006 have ya that's your post,seems like ethnic background was mentioned in it.eace

My post 2006 has no such reference.

 

[mbig]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

First let me say I believe evolution is fact not theory

That would probably make you the only person on the planet, on either side of the debate, who denies that there IS a Theory of Evolution.
Some agree with it, and some of them including me, understand it, and ALSO that it is a fact.
But No one on either side, Except YOU denies there is a Theory of Evolution. (for silly semantic argumentation purpose)

Second you would be hard pressed to breed with a neanderthal in today's society although there have been rumors. lol

My post/Answer still stands Untouched.
The fact the some humans have some Neanderthal blood is Not, In and of Itself, proof of evolution.
It's evidence some interbred.
Again, I posted the much larger and Coherent case (for the whole Plant and Animal Kingdoms) in which this is just an asterisk.

Well I guess my interrogative sentence was a bit to hard to answer.
.Let my try something more simple.
Did Human Beings evolve and are they still evolving" although at a slow pace"? interrogative sentence That' requires a yes or no answer shouldn't be to hard for an intellectual like yourself.

Everything you post is easy to answer/Refute/Destroy... and full of Funny Premise errors. (see above)
This is another easy one for Anyone who understands evolution.
EVERY living species is and has always been evolving. There are no 'end products'/'ultimate creations.' The only alternative is extinction for those unable to adapt fast enough.

Fossils really how do we know where and when these fossils come from another prediction, another theory?

We know where they come from because the scientists/Anthropologists/Paleontologists tell us. These aren't secrets.
You can even go on a dig/volunteer if you like.
If you don't believe where fossils came from, you shouldn't believe evolution is a fact. Ooops.

The Big Bang is a theory is it not theories are unproven your words. So what I'm supposed to take the Atheist word for the Big Bang happening ?

Big Bang is a Scientific Theory, NOT an "Atheist Theory'
And please Don't take anyone's word for anything, but DO try and educate yourself.
It's so easy these days!
ie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
Big Bang Theory
[.....]
5. Observational Evidence

5.1 Hubble's law and the expansion of space
5.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation
5.3 Abundance of primordial elements
5.4 Galactic evolution and distribution
5.5 Primordial gas clouds
5.6 Other lines of evidence​

So I say I have faith in God most Atheist say prove your God exist I can not I have no proof. they say so there is no God.
Atheist say the Big Bang theory started the universe. I say prove it , everybody gets upset.eace

It's not just who has "Proof".
We have EVIDENCE. Lots of it
You and god have NONE/Zero.

 

[William Rea]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

That was the point I was trying to make, Some , well a majority of people think if you have faith in God you must belong to organized religion , or an agnostic.
Personally I never was one for labels I merely have faith in God or intelligent design if you wish , If I must where a label it would be Faith believer.
As I have said I seek knowledge through religion, science, history biology and anything else as for physics too much talk not enough action for me , too many this might have happened that might have happened or lets change the rules. in physics for my taste anyway . In my humble opinion physics should be more of this will work and less of this might work.eace

I think that you are mistaking your lack of understanding of Physics for actual Physics itself. This is not an uncommon situation so you are not alone but, it is a ridiculous situation in this modern age when pretty much all the Physics that there ever has been can be found FOR FREE, on the same media that you are now reading this message on.

Regarding Evolution and ToE, you can go to an online archive that I have linked below and see images of Darwins work or you could type 'Modern Synthesis Evolution' into a search engine or you could research the scientific method yourself. The alternative is to go onto forums and embarrass yourself with 'fine tuning', 'Darwinism', 'Monkey Trials' or whatever brand of incredulity you might choose to adopt in your posts.

Darwin Online

It is dull, bordering on mind numbing to repeatedly read the same PRATTs that disseminate from people that believe that they have suddenly come across some kind of original insight into apologetics after reading a 'Creationist' website, and that no one else on the internet will ever have heard of it. The, 'well what about...' crowd should take a step back from the brink and perhaps seek out the numerous sites that have been created to specifically address the PRATTs; Perhaps we could then all stop having to 'act out' these arguments in forums.

 

[calamity]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I think that you are mistaking your lack of understanding of Physics for actual Physics itself. This is not an uncommon situation so you are not alone but, it is a ridiculous situation in this modern age when pretty much all the Physics that there ever has been can be found FOR FREE, on the same media that you are now reading this message on.

Regarding Evolution and ToE, you can go to an online archive that I have linked below and see images of Darwins work or you could type 'Modern Synthesis Evolution' into a search engine or you could research the scientific method yourself. The alternative is to go onto forums and embarrass yourself with 'fine tuning', 'Darwinism', 'Monkey Trials' or whatever brand of incredulity you might choose to adopt in your posts.

Darwin Online

It is dull, bordering on mind numbing to repeatedly read the same PRATTs that disseminate from people that believe that they have suddenly come across some kind of original insight into apologetics after reading a 'Creationist' website, and that no one else on the internet will ever have heard of it. The, 'well what about...' crowd should take a step back from the brink and perhaps seek out the numerous sites that have been created to specifically address the PRATTs; Perhaps we could then all stop having to 'act out' these arguments in forums.

So, evolution discussions belong in the Conspiracy Theory forum?

 

[William Rea]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So, evolution discussions belong in the Conspiracy Theory forum?

Not always but mostly because, the starting point is often an underlying and misplaced distrust of science.

 

[Quag]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Sad to think this debate is still going on

 

[mbig]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

shock:

Well, yeah! Hooo boy. READ!
[COLOR="FF "]1. Nearly 50% of scientists [ SIZE =5]identify with a religious label.[/SIZ]

2. 14% of scientists [B[SIZE= 5]have some doubts[/SIZE][/U][/B], but believe in God.
3. 9% of scientists SIZE=5]have no doubt[/SIZE] [/U]of God's existence.
[/ COLOR][/B]
How do you understand #1?

I understand #1 (2/3) to be a spun question by a Biased Pollster who is Sponsored by a Religiously sympathetic organization.
ie
Even though I'm an Atheist, In that poll, I might "Identify" as Jewish for Cultural Reasons.
Her polls are raging spun BS.

Another Vapid Effort to Claim that Science and Religion Can Get Along
https://newrepublic.com/article/117...cience-religion-are-compatible-why-theyre-not
JERRY A. COYNE
March 19, 2014

Sociologist Elaine Ecklund from Rice University is known for her constant stream of publications and talks promoting the compatibility of science and religion. Her work is, of course, funded by the John Templeton Foundation, whose goal to show that science and faith are mutually supportive. Ecklund’s spinning of her survey data to emphasize interdisciplinary comity—even when the data doesn’t really show it—is getting quite tiresome. I’ve often written about Ecklund’s spin-doctoring, which always yields conclusions congenial to Templeton’s mission, but the distortions just keep on coming. Templeton dispenses some $70 million a year to get its soothing message out.

Now we have another article on Ecklund’s latest research: “New survey suggests science & religion are compatible, but scientists have their doubts.” This the third piece that the Huffington Post has published on this study since February 16 (the others are here and here), implying that this “compatibility” is of great interest to somebody. ...​

Elaine Ecklund is still pretending that science and religion are compatible
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...ing-that-science-and-religion-are-compatible/

For years, sociologist Elaine Ecklund has made a career at Rice University ... Twisting her survey data to show that science and religion are compatible. Science are “spiritual,” she says, and there are surprisingly more religious scientists than we think. .And she has pretended that her agenda is neutral: that she has no overt objective. After all, a sociologist must assume the mantle of objectivity when doing such surveys. But I suppose that’s hard when one is funded by the John Templeton Foundation, as is Ecklund. Templeton, after all, wants certain results.

But now Ecklund’s totally dropped the mantle of objectivity...​

Elaine Ecklund still taking Templeton cash to show that science and religion are compatible
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...how-that-science-and-religion-are-compatible/

Oh Lord, Elaine Ecklund is at it again. And by “it,” I mean “taking money from the Templeton Foundation, making a survey, and then interpreting the data to show what Templeton wants: a finding that science and religion are in harmony.”

Ecklund’s .. (The Rice University blurb, from where Ecklund works as a professor of sociology and director of the Religion and Public Life program, notes that Templeton funded this research.) And the upshot of Ecklund’s research (i.e., data masaging) is that evangelical Christians don’t reject science as much as we think they do...​

Ecklund is framing again
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/ecklund-is-framing-again/

I’m getting weary of Elaine Ecklund’s frenetic framing. As you may remember, Ecklund did a study on the religious views of American scientists, a study that showed, by and large, that those scientists are far more atheistic than is the American public at large. Her research, which of course was funded by the Templeton Foundation, was published as a book..
[.....]
Ecklund did her study at “elite” universities, but if you look at “elite scientists,” i.e., those who have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences,
the degree of disbelief is even higher: 72% are flat-out Atheists and another 21% are doubters or Agnostics, with only 7% accepting a personal god. (The NAS data are from an independent study.)

What else can one conclude but that American scientists are far more atheistic and agnostic than the American public, and that the more elite the scientist, the weaker the belief in God?

Well, Ecklund doesn’t conclude that, or, if she does, she buries it under her grand conclusion: scientists are far more religious (she also uses the weasel-word “spiritual”) than we previously thought! ....
​

 

[mbig]

Some data from REAL/Unspun questions.

Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor, 11 Jun 2008
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' - Telegraph

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed. But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics. Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3% believed in God - at a time when 68.5% of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

A separate poll in the 90s found only 7% of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."...​

 

[Critter7r]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Whether they go to church or not, is not the criteria for that. A lot of self-proclaimed Christians don't go to church.....but that doesn't mean they don't believe that God doesn't exists.

If you say you're a Catholic or a Mormon or a Muslim....of course you believe in the existence of God at the very least, even if you doubt that it's the God that your religion says it is, otherwise why identify with religion at all? And a specific religion at that?

When you identify with a religious label - that means you're religious.
If you identify with the religious (even to a minimal degree)....of course you're saying you believe in the existence of God!

No, it doesn't. If they believed, then they would have answered in the "I believe, but have my doubts" category.

If you are presented with this questionnaire ...


Please check the box that most closely aligns with your station in life :

[ ] I identify with a religious label

[ ] I believe there is a God, but I have my doubts

[ ] I am certain there is a God


Now, if you believed in God - however feebly - you'd check box number 2, right?

Yet, somehow, 50% of scientists checked box number 1. Which leads me to believe that they don't believe there is a God. If they did, even just a little, they'd have checked box number 2.

Otherwise, you and I are wrong, and numbers 2 and 3 really are subsets of number 1.

 

[Critter7r]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Your statement doesn't make any sense. It's convoluted.

You can't assume that just because a person isn't aligned with any particular religion, that he must be agnostic! Period.
Some people don't want to have anything to do with organized religion....or they have their own understanding of God.....etc.,

Bye, Roguenuke.

What's convoluted is that you can assume that because they identify with a religion, that they do believe, but if they don't identify with a religion, no one can assume that they don't believe.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

What's convoluted is that you can assume that because they identify with a religion, that they do believe,

If someone identifies with a religion (as in saying, "I am a Catholic"), why would you assume the person doesn't believe that God exists?
He may have doubts about Catholicism.....but, that's not the same as saying he does not believe in God!
You don't have to identify with an organized religion to be a believer (or a Christian either)! Some churches will baptize you too, even if you don't belong as a member! We did that at our church. The important thing is that the person had accepted Christ!

UNLESS the person gives an indication that he does not believe in the existence of God.....of course he believes that He exists!
If a person labels himself as a believer- he is IDENTIFYING HIMSELF as a believer!
It's only reasonable to assume that he does believe in God!

but if they don't identify with a religion, no one can assume that they don't believe.

If they don't identify with a religion - you can make your own assumption! But surely, you just don't make assumptions without having
anything to base it on, do you?

If they say that they don't identify with any religion, but that they do believe in God - why would you think they don't believe in God? Some admitted that they have doubts - who hasn't been assailed by doubts at some point in their life - and yet, they believe. That's what some of the scientists had explained to the researcher!

If they say they believe in God, of course you'll have to accept that as it is! After all, you're not them!