Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 61 of 147 (445966)
01-04-2008 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by TheDarin
01-04-2008 2:47 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
TheDarin writes:
Science cannot prove how old the earth is - yes, your arguments and dating methods are compelling, and I know that to a scientist the failure of the creationist to concede that your dating methods are accurate is utterly frustrating.
I don't think anyone finds rejection of modern dating methods frustrating. No one really cares that certain conservative Christian sects reject much of modern science. It only becomes frustrating when they insist that their religious beliefs are science that should be taught in public school science classrooms.
You do seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of science, and it might be worth exploring those to see if they lie at the root of creationist inability to engage in scientific reasoning. For example, you say:
All I can say is this - I am not willing to trade my soul in for a test tube.
No one is asking you to trade in your soul. All science requires is following the evidence where it leads.
Science simply does not have a truth-batting record worth betting eternity on.
If by "truth" you mean the types of truths that are timeless and eternal, then science doesn't deal in truth at all. Science is tentative, after all.
But if by "truth" you mean formulating tentative theories about the natural world based upon evidence gathered through observation and experiment, then science has an excellent track record, the best method ever discovered for figuring out how the universe works.
Science cannot fathom the processes that God used to create the earth... so it says to those that believe He did, that they are crazy.
Science doesn't say that people who believe God created the world are crazy. It does say that the evidence supports the theory that the world formed through natural processes about 4.56 billion years old.
That its perspective, math, and methods are rock solid, complete, and beyond refute.
Science doesn't say this, either. Science is tentative. If science weren't tentative then old ideas could never change and new ideas could never be introduced, leaving us stuck with the science of Archimedes and Aristotle.
So I guess the key question is why, sticking with dating as an example, creationists hear about verifications of Exodus or fulfillment of prophecy and conclude that this makes it more likely that science is wrong and the earth is young. To anyone thinking scientifically this seems the height of scientific irrationalism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by TheDarin, posted 01-04-2008 2:47 PM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by TheDarin, posted 01-06-2008 7:51 PM Percy has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 62 of 147 (445987)
01-04-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by TheDarin
01-04-2008 2:25 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
On the Eyelid thing...no good responses have shown up; just snide remarks - no one seems to be coming forth to correct this "badly confused version of evolution." that I have.
I think it a mistake to refer to the responses as "snide remarks". They didn't look that way to me. But perhaps they were not written in a way that was easy for you to understand. I think there are now some better (more detailed) responses, which I hope you have found helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by TheDarin, posted 01-04-2008 2:25 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 63 of 147 (446005)
01-04-2008 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by TheDarin
01-04-2008 2:47 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
All I can say is this - I am not willing to trade my soul in for a test tube.
There is no risk to your soul.
Unfortunately, you seem to be a member of a man-made cult, invented in America in the 20th century. The Wiki entry gives a date of around 1961 for the invention of this cult by Henry Morris and others. Before that time, people had no difficulty with evolutionary biology. For example, C.S. Lewis, much admired and often referenced by evangelical Christians, was a theistic evolutionist. That is, he saw evolution as God's way of design living things in this world.
As a child, I attended what I considered to be an evangelical church. That was before the invention of the Young Earth Creationism cult, and we had no difficulty accepting science. Being born and raised in Australia, I was familiar with kangaroos, wallabies, quokkas, echidnas, platypus, koalas and other exotic animals. It was pretty obvious to all that none of these exotic animals had ever been on Noah's ark. We took the view that the flood was a localized flood, that perhaps flooded the world known to the people of that era. Some people took the Genesis creation stories as allegorical, and some people took the days of Genesis 1 as eras rather than days. Nobody in our church questioned that the earth was old - as Australians we celebrated the age and the fact that the age was apparent in the flora and fauna of Australia. Nobody suggested that we were trading our souls by recognizing what was obvious - that the earth was old.
I am greatly troubled that so many American children are being indoctrinated into this 20th century cult. They are being told deliberate lies about science and scientists. They are being taught a strawman version of evolution, so that evolution can be ridiculed. The leadership of the creationist cult seems to have found how to use this indoctrination as a form of mind control, to dissuade people from thinking for themselves and examining the science for themselves. I consider what they are doing to be dishonest, and clearly immoral. What they are doing is not the Christianity that I learned as a child.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by TheDarin, posted 01-04-2008 2:47 PM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 9:41 AM nwr has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 64 of 147 (446048)
01-04-2008 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
01-04-2008 3:00 PM


Jar is confused
Nonsense and a Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Science shows us "How God Did It!" To deny the evidence God left us is to limit God.
We know this is intentionally false for two reasons:
1. Science (Jar's intended meaning of the word) says reality shows no signs or evidence of God. That is why Materialism is the accepted philosophy of science since Darwin.
2. Since no Atheist member of EvC Forum blasted Jar for this deliberate falsehood, this confirms that they understand that Jar is attempting to convert the undecided to evolutionism. If a real Creationist had said what Jar said then there would have been an outcry by the Atheists making the first point above.
Come Judgement Day it will be the Biblical Creationists that get to join the Goats when Jesus tells them "'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Imagine that; according to Jar God is going to send you to hell for not accepting the theory that says Genesis chapters one and two is false!
How do we explain such a perversion of objective fact and scripture?
How do you expect to get accurate information and representation of the Bible from an evolutionist, that is from a person who believes the same origins theory that all Atheists believe?
I would say that Jar's beliefs about Science and the Bible correspond to a confused person, unless, like I said, he is intentionally attempting to convert the undecided by misrepresentation.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 3:00 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-04-2008 9:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 65 of 147 (446056)
01-04-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by macaroniandcheese
01-04-2008 1:37 PM


Darwin: bow to me
nobody is asking anybody to "worship" science.
Yes, the evolutionists are....same net effect. Whatever has preeminence is the object of worship. Evolutionists, like Antiochus Ephiphanes (name means "God with us"), allows you to worship as you please as long as you bow to (him) or their (anti-God is Creator) ideas as representing reality - first.
The Maccabean rebellion started by saying that they will kill every man, woman and child that bows to Antiochus Ephiphanes for any reason.
Creationists refuse to bow to Darwin despite the fact that Antiochus Ephiphanes, in the form of Science, Higher Education, Law and Media persecute us daily through laws and slander for not doing so.
The same spirit that controlled Antiochus Ephiphanes (Satan) controls the four reigns of society just mentioned. That is why Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of this world and the promise that he would hand them over if Jesus would just bow down and worship him.
Like Jesus, we refuse.
Evolution is an assumption based on pro-Atheist philosophy (Materialism) that does not allow any other explanation or conclusion.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-04-2008 1:37 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-04-2008 8:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 66 of 147 (446077)
01-04-2008 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object
01-04-2008 7:53 PM


Re: Darwin: bow to me
wooooeeeeeeeooooooooo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-04-2008 7:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 147 (446089)
01-04-2008 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object
01-04-2008 7:01 PM


We know this is intentionally false for two reasons:
1. Science (Jar's intended meaning of the word) says reality shows no signs or evidence of God. That is why Materialism is the accepted philosophy of science since Darwin.
2. Since no Atheist member of EvC Forum blasted Jar for this deliberate falsehood, this confirms that they understand that Jar is attempting to convert the undecided to evolutionism. If a real Creationist had said what Jar said then there would have been an outcry by the Atheists making the first point above.
So much of what you post seems to be about the whacko fantasies you have about your opponents that you seem totally disconnected from reality.
I suppose indulging in these sad, silly fantasies is easier than finding some sort of evidence supporting creationism, but do you really find it an emotionally satisfying substitute?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-04-2008 7:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
TheDarin
Member (Idle past 5690 days)
Posts: 50
Joined: 01-04-2008


Message 68 of 147 (446640)
01-06-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
01-04-2008 3:20 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
Percy,
Where many folks in here will say that the creationists have this distorted view of EVO - creationists too believe you have a distorted view of us...
For the record, most of the Christians I know buy speciazation and mutation and natural selection. There is however, great debate within Christianity as far as the literal 6-days is concerned. There is no debate or question however that God created.
The attitude we have for the EVO group is that you are almost always against the ID - you are against us. You oppose that ID should be taught alongside of EVO. Therefore we see you clearly as anti-God. The EVO group frustrates Christians and ID folks becuase you are not just FOR EVO, you are AGAINST even the notion of ID
EVO is a religion taught in our schools - it preaches that religion has no place in reality. I say this becuase, again, EVO is not just for EVO, EVO groups OPPOSE ID.
EVO is in the ID box. But ID is not even permitted to be near the EVO box.
I think I've seen what I was expecting to see in here, and I'm too busy to debate further - it's just tiring and sad for me, not sport as it is for most of those in here.
Proverbs 2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 01-04-2008 3:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 01-06-2008 8:04 PM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 70 by nwr, posted 01-06-2008 8:14 PM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 71 by Rahvin, posted 01-06-2008 8:45 PM TheDarin has replied
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2008 2:03 AM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 01-07-2008 8:47 AM TheDarin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 69 of 147 (446643)
01-06-2008 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by TheDarin
01-06-2008 7:51 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
Sorry but ID is not just piss poor science, it is even worse theology. As a Christian I can tell you that the current ID movement makes god Inept, Incompetent, Idiotic, Ignorant, Ineffective and Illogical.
EVO is a religion taught in our schools - it preaches that religion has no place in reality. I say this becuase, again, EVO is not just for EVO, EVO groups OPPOSE ID.
And, as a Christian, I say you are absolutely wrong. Evolution is not a religion in any shape or form. However, thank GOD folk oppose ID. It is nothing but the latest lie of the Creationists.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TheDarin, posted 01-06-2008 7:51 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 70 of 147 (446647)
01-06-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by TheDarin
01-06-2008 7:51 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
For the record, most of the Christians I know buy speciazation and mutation and natural selection. There is however, great debate within Christianity as far as the literal 6-days is concerned. There is no debate or question however that God created.
Then there is no reason to object to evolution. There are many Christians who are evolutionists, and who believe that God created.
You oppose that ID should be taught alongside of EVO.
We oppose teaching ID as science, when it clearly is not science. We oppose the dishonesty of it masqerading as science. I once believed that Christians were opposed to dishonesty, but now they seem to be promoting it.
Therefore we see you clearly as anti-God.
There is nothing anti-God in evolution. The theory of evolution does not mention God, just as physics does not mention God. Both are compatible with their being a God.
EVO is a religion taught in our schools -
No, it is science, not religion.
- it preaches that religion has no place in reality.
No, it says nothing about religion.
I say this becuase, again, EVO is not just for EVO, EVO groups OPPOSE ID.
They oppose ID being taught in the science class, because it is not science.
The people promoting ID are not doing the kind of research that would be needed if ID is ever to become a science. And even if it did become a science, the normal thing is for new sciences to first be introduced in graduate school, later into the undergraduate program, and finally (after it becomes a fully fledged and widely accepted science) into the high schools.
So what do we have with ID? We have a pretence of science. We have the use of politics in an attempt to force this into the schools against the best scientific judgement. We have, in short, a deliberate effort to force religion into the science class where it does not belong. This is wrong. This is dishonest. This is unChristian.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TheDarin, posted 01-06-2008 7:51 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 71 of 147 (446655)
01-06-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by TheDarin
01-06-2008 7:51 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
The attitude we have for the EVO group is that you are almost always against the ID - you are against us. You oppose that ID should be taught alongside of EVO. Therefore we see you clearly as anti-God. The EVO group frustrates Christians and ID folks becuase you are not just FOR EVO, you are AGAINST even the notion of ID
Scientists say only that science should be taught in science class, and that which is not science has no place there. ID has not passed even the most generous definitions of what is science as opposed to what is not. It's an untestable bare assertion without evidence - it has nothing to do with science, and so does not belog in a science classroom.
None of us are against the concept of a designer. Many of us don;t believe in one, but there are many who do - we all simply agree that it's not science, and so doesn't belong in a science classroom.
EVO is a religion taught in our schools - it preaches that religion has no place in reality. I say this becuase, again, EVO is not just for EVO, EVO groups OPPOSE ID.
No, it's not. The Theory of Evolution doesn;t even have the most basic of similarities with a religion. It's a scientific theory, liek the Theory of Gravity. Is gravity a religion, TheDarin? Evolution makes exactly zero moral suggestions, and has nothing to do with how we should lead our lives. Its the most accurate description of observed natural processes we have to date. That's literally all it is - just like the Theory of Gravity or any other scientific theory.
EVO is in the ID box. But ID is not even permitted to be near the EVO box.
Irrelevant. Evolution does not compeltely discount a designer, even. It just doesn't mention one, because it's really not relevant.
Think of it like this: evolution is like running. The starting point is irrelevant to the actual biomechanical process of running. The ending point is irrelevant. The guy that shoots the gun that starts the race is irrelevant. None of it matters when studying the process of running. Similarly, the starting point of life, questions like why, and who (if anyone) kicked off the process is irrelevant to modeling the observed process by which life changes over multiple generations.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TheDarin, posted 01-06-2008 7:51 PM TheDarin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 9:14 AM Rahvin has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 72 of 147 (446750)
01-07-2008 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by TheDarin
01-06-2008 7:51 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
quote:
The attitude we have for the EVO group is that you are almost always against the ID - you are against us. You oppose that ID should be taught alongside of EVO. Therefore we see you clearly as anti-God. The EVO group frustrates Christians and ID folks becuase you are not just FOR EVO, you are AGAINST even the notion of ID
Ao others have said, as a religious belief ID should not be taught alongside evolution in science classes. To do so is both to damage education and to promote a particular group of religious beliefs (against the U.S. Constitution). Are you really saying that God is opposed to both a good science education and the U.S. Constitution ?
quote:
EVO is a religion taught in our schools - it preaches that religion has no place in reality. I say this becuase, again, EVO is not just for EVO, EVO groups OPPOSE ID.
ID is a dishonest, religiously-motivated PR campaign aimed at subverting the U.S. Constitution and damaging science education. Aren't there enough reasons to oppose it just there ?
And what about the Christians who oppose ID ? - like Francis Collins and Ken Miller ? Are you accusing them of saying that religion has no place in reality ? Are their books just lies to cover up a secret rejection of religion ? Or could it be that you are wrong ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TheDarin, posted 01-06-2008 7:51 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 73 of 147 (446789)
01-07-2008 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by TheDarin
01-06-2008 7:51 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
There've been plenty enough replies to this, and they all seem to be making correct points, so I'm going to look at your post solely from the perspective of whether it represents an example of creationist inability to connect evidence to valid conclusions.
  1. TheDarin: You oppose that ID should be taught alongside of EVO. Therefore we see you clearly as anti-God.
    Many people who accept evolution believe in God. I find it impossible to believe you're not aware of this, so obviously there is a significant disconnect between evidence and conclusions.
  2. TheDarin: EVO is a religion taught in our schools - it preaches that religion has no place in reality
    This is just an accusation with no attempt made to connect evidence to conclusion. The rebuttal is obvious and has been made so many times here I won't repeat it.
  3. TheDarin: I say this because, again, EVO is not just for EVO, EVO groups OPPOSE ID.
    Again, there's no attempt to connect evidence to conclusion. This is just an unsupported accusation. In essence you're declaring that anything that opposes ID is therefore an opposing religion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by TheDarin, posted 01-06-2008 7:51 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
TheDarin
Member (Idle past 5690 days)
Posts: 50
Joined: 01-04-2008


Message 74 of 147 (446794)
01-07-2008 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Rahvin
01-06-2008 8:45 PM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
Think of it like this: evolution is like running. The starting point is irrelevant to the actual biomechanical process of running. The ending point is irrelevant. The guy that shoots the gun that starts the race is irrelevant. None of it matters when studying the process of running. Similarly, the starting point of life, questions like why, and who (if anyone) kicked off the process is irrelevant to modeling the observed process by which life changes over multiple generations.
I like the way you communicate. Thanks. I like the running metaphor.
The thing is though. EVO, like it or not, is in the business of expertise on the issue or origins of man. It's like a pro-athlete looking into the camera and saying "I am not your hero - so don't look to me as one." When in fact, like it or not, he is a hero and a role model to MANY. In the same way, while you say you are only in this argument to discuss running(EVO), you are also the very group that holds the keys (very vocally I might add) to the opposing argument to ID.
EVO has taken on not only the case for "running:, but you have settled quite nicely into the role of subject matter experts on the topic of "where the race began" and "who/what pulled the trigger."
Secondly, science has not proven EVO as it relates to origins of man or monkey to man. Yet you flaunt your monkey to man charts as if they are science. Monkey to man is as much theory as ID; and you have no problem allowing the monkeys and big bangs into the textbooks.
Edited by TheDarin, : No reason given.
Edited by TheDarin, : No reason given.
Edited by TheDarin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Rahvin, posted 01-06-2008 8:45 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 01-07-2008 9:36 AM TheDarin has not replied
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 01-07-2008 12:07 PM TheDarin has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 75 of 147 (446804)
01-07-2008 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by TheDarin
01-07-2008 9:14 AM


Re: The Belief Stops Here
I'm going to continue to try to maintain focus on the topic:
TheDarin writes:
Secondly, science has not proven EVO. Yet you flaunt your monkey to man charts as if they are science. Monkey to man is as much theory as ID; and you have no problem allowing the monkeys and big bangs into the textbooks.
This isn't so much an example of inability to connect evidence to conclusions as it is an example of unawareness of any evidence whatsoever, or even basic information. Here's a brief set of explanations of the pieces of misinformation contained above:
  • TheDarin: Secondly, science has not proven EVO.
    Theories are not proven. They become accepted after a lengthy and intense period of review and replication finds them to be an accurate way of interpreting a body of evidence, not only to understand it, but also to make predictions about new phenomena.
    This indicates a lack of understanding of the nature of scientific theories.
  • TheDarin: you flaunt your monkey to man charts as if they are science.
    "Monkey to man charts" *are* science because they are supported by evidence and experiment.
    This indicates a lack of understanding of the nature of science itself.
  • TheDarin: Monkey to man is as much theory as ID...
    ID is not a scientific theory because it has none of the qualities of scientific theories.
    This indicates a lack of awareness of the complete lack of effort on the part of ID supporters to actually *do* science.
The parts of the post I commented on are actually just a bunch of unsupported assertions, and as such aren't really examples of inability to draw valid conclusions from evidence. It's actually indicative of a far worse problem, drawing conclusions from personal feelings and opinions while ignoring existing knowledge and even the basic definitions of terms, and not even taking note of the absence of any chain of evidence leading to the conclusion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by TheDarin, posted 01-07-2008 9:14 AM TheDarin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024