|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The consequences of "Evolution is false" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
God doesn't NEED to do anything, and all your own speculations about what's a good design are irrelevant, being purely your own subjective opinion. And you did not explain what you meant by a failed design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4080 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public I haven't read the whole thread, but the direct replies to the OP as well as the OP itself suggests that YEC's are hesitant to say that scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public. I don't think that's true. John Morris is one of the most popular speakers against evolution. I believe he's the head of the Institute of Creation Research. He certainly writes their Q&A section. In it, at Just How Well Proven Is Evolution? | The Institute for Creation Research, you'll find:
quote: He adds, "However, most evolutionists are evolutionists because they are victims of the wrong teaching of others," but really this changes nothing. All this means is that these "others" are purposely deceiving their victims with wrong teaching. saying that the victims outnumber the false teachers doesn't change the fact that ICR is saying it is likely that at the heart of evolution is purposeful deception. This doesn't seem uncommon to me. Robert Congelliere on Dr. Dino's (Kent Hovind) web site (http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=105), says:
quote: While this suggests that evolutionist teachers are mistaken due to rejecting the supernatural, the suggestion is that they are purposefully ignoring the supernatural and so must cling to evolution against the evidence. Bruce Malone, on the same web site at http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=41 writes:
quote: Again, the accusation is purposeful deception. It's based on bias, yes, but a purposeful rejection of any dating method that gives young earth dates is charged. On another web site (http://www.geocities.com/...yjordan/EvolutionisaBIGLIE3.html} I found:
quote: No, not all anti-evolutionists say that evolution is a purposeful deception, but many do. Others who won't say that "evolutionists" (whoever they are) are purposefully deceiving will say that the devil is purposefully deceiving the evolutionists. Either way, all the quote mining that anti-evolutionists do is designed to say that evolutionists know that their theory doesn't hold water. If that's true, then doesn't it follow that they are deceiving on purpose? Personally, I'd say that purposeful deception--by the evolutionist leaders themselves or by satan--is the accusation that the majority of anti-evolutionists would and do level against scientists. That all said, I hope it's known that I don't believe the quotes above. I believe evolution happened. Edited by AdminJar, : fix quote code
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Faith writes:
My mistake. I thought you were referring to the judeo-christian creation myth. If you believe that all creation "possibilities" should be treated equally and taught equally, I agree. At a quick glance it appears to be a list of creationist possibilities, which supports what I said anyway. To tell you the truth, I do not support teaching evolution in school at all, but that's another story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public 2) Scientists are incompetent at doing science OK, I will say for the umpteenth time that I do NOT think there is a scientific conspiracy to defraud the public, or any form of deception at all, except perhaps in some cases simple unconscious self-deception. And I do not think scientists are incompetent. Why I should have to keep saying this over and over again is beyond me. So perhaps some creationists think such things, I don't. I used to believe in evolution, I now don't think the reasoning behind it hangs together, but that doesn't mean I suspect fraud. I haven't really thought out my own explanation for people's commitment to evolution, but I suppose there is a complicated combination of notions involved. The first I'd name is anti-supernaturalism, which is quite honestly held, and atheism. Although there are theistic evolutionists, I think atheism is the preponderant philosophical mindset underlying support of evolution, and even theistic evolutionists don't necessarily accept supernatural explanations for anything. Then I'd add a collection of bits of evidence that are taken to be definitive, concerning how ideas of the flood were originally historically overthrown, for instance, plus the plausibilities found in Darwinism, and add to all that the ability to rationalize most data into fitting into the theory. And cap it all with a complete lack of motivation to question anything connected with the ToE. Ordinary fallible human intellect in other words. No intent to deceive. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My mistake. I thought you were referring to the judeo-christian creation myth. If you believe that all creation "possibilities" should be treated equally and taught equally, I agree. Well, no, I don't believe that. I was merely saying that if evolution is shown to be false, there are no alternative possibilities other than some form of creationism.
To tell you the truth, I do not support teaching evolution in school at all, but that's another story. That's interesting. I don't support teaching creationism in the public schools myself. Want to start a thread on it? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I was merely saying that if evolution is shown to be false, there are no alternative possibilities other than some form of creationism. Except, of course, for the phrase, "I don't know."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Faith, first let me thank you for that brief explanation. I have never seen you say anything as detailed as that before, although I do admit I haven't read everything you've written, so you may well have spelled it out like that before. However, your opening caveat that you haven't really thought it out suggests this is the first time you've explained it this well.
I'm curious, where would you disagree with the following paraphrase of your statement? Paraphrasing:
I haven't really thought out my own explanation for people's commitment to [creationism], but I suppose there is a complicated combination of notions involved. The first I'd name is [pro]-supernaturalism, which is quite honestly held, and [fundamentalism]. ... I think [fundamentalism] is the preponderant philosophical mindset underlying [attacks on] evolution... . Then I'd add a collection of bits of evidence that are taken to be definitive, concerning how ideas of the flood were originally historically [supported], for instance, plus the [im]plausibilities found in Darwinism, and add to all that the ability to rationalize most data into fitting into the theory. And cap it all with a complete lack of motivation to question anything connected with the [creationism]. Ordinary fallible human intellect in other words. No intent to deceive. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm curious, where would you disagree with the following paraphrase of your statement? I haven't really thought out my own explanation for people's commitment to [creationism], but I suppose there is a complicated combination of notions involved. The first I'd name is [pro]-supernaturalism, which is quite honestly held, and [fundamentalism]. ... I think [fundamentalism] is the preponderant philosophical mindset underlying [attacks on] evolution... . Then I'd add a collection of bits of evidence that are taken to be definitive, concerning how ideas of the flood were originally historically [supported], for instance, plus the [im]plausibilities found in Darwinism, and add to all that the ability to rationalize most data into fitting into the theory. And cap it all with a complete lack of motivation to question anything connected with the [creationism]. Ordinary fallible human intellect in other words. No intent to deceive. "Fundamentalism" is too general, but believing the Bible is the predominant basis of creationism in this country and of anti-evolutionism. I don't think supernaturalism can be isolated in this context as it can in the atheist context. We are supernaturalists because we are Bible believers, but anti-supernaturalists acquired that position supposedly from science. The history of flood explanations is definitely NOT a factor in current creationism. Few are aware of the history for starters, and the early notions about what constituted evidence for the flood were too unsophisticated to be taken seriously now by anyone. In fact, the evolutionist arguments against the flood on the basis of the early notions being overturned don't hold water for this very reason. The flood arguments were indefensible then and they are indefensible now. We have better understanding of what constitutes evidence for the flood now. I'd say that the implausibilities in Darwinism do play a part in creationist thinking in general. I was already very put out at the treating of mere imaginative scenarios as evidence for evolution that I kept encountering well before I became a Christian. I'd try to track down support for evolution and the trail would just vanish after a point. I'd raise questions that evolutionists would only answer with "You have to assume a lot more time" as if time would make up for a sheer impossibility. As for rationalizing the data into creationist theory, this is what we try to do, but it isn't easy and the evos have a big head start. And yes, we have a lack of motivation, and probably let it affect our arguments too much, but we also have good reason for our lack of motivation in the knowledge that the Bible was given by God Himself, whereas evos have no excuse because they claim to be neutral and committed to truth no matter where it leads. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminFaith Inactive Member |
I'm going to officially ban myself from this thread. I do not want to keep forgetting and posting on science threads when I've said I'm not going to and my participation on them is treated with hostility.
This is definitely my last post on this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But isn't that what you asked for back on page 1 when you wrote:
quote: Crash is discussing exactly the sort of "particulars" you said you wanted to be provided to you in order for the discussion to make sense. Faith, what you seem to have been suggesting is that scientists can do science in isolation from theory, or even from the work of other scientists, past or present. How do you suggest that a Biologist just starting out today figure out what to study and how to study it, if she doesn't refer to theory, or to the work of those who have come before her? Just what is your understanding of the role of theory in the work of research scientists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminFaith Inactive Member |
See Message 39
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It's because you frequently write things like this:
link to message #14 quote: I know that you were making a comment upon the notion that religious ideas were based upon fallacies, but you made it quite clear that you believe both the ToE and the above mentioned idea about religions to be void of facts and merely an "imaginitive construct". You have claimed that the ToE, which is the theoretical foundation, the very bedrock of all of the life sciences, is a mere "factless imaginative construct" and scientists are utterly unconcerned with this lack of factual basis. If you believe that the ToE is nothing more than a "factless imaginative construct", it must be true that any scientist who accepts it must be incompetent at doing science, or else they would have seen that it was false, wouldn't they? Every single time I see that you've made this claim, I promise you that I will ask you to explain why it is that you believe that scientists are utterly incompetent at doing science, or are maybe just dunderheaded simpletons.
quote: According to you, scienctists accept evolution because: They can't compensate for bias at all, which is what scientists are trained to do in experimental design. They aren't motivated to question assumptions or find weaknesses in theories, which is what scientists are trained to do. They simply accept certain bits of information as true instead of investigating and testing to see if they really are correct, which is what scientists are trained to do. They refuse to allow their personal spiritual beliefs in God to be included in empirical research, simply because science is not designed to detect or utilize any supernatural "stuff". All of this adds up to scientists being really terrible at doing science, according to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Creationists have often made the claim that Evolution is not based upon facts or is not well-supported by the evidence. I see several logical consequences to this situation, and I'd like our Creationists to address them. 1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public 2) Scientists are incompetent at doing science You are promoting the idea that a proper conclusion to the statement:Evolution is false, and is not supported is that Scientists are liars, and imcompetent. This is of course flawed on many different levels. I will attempt to outline all that I can see. Firstly, it seems that you put words in the mouths of certain creationists, without citing any examples or evidence. Generalizations fail to accurately gauge any level of validity pertaining to the opinion of a group of individuals, Creationists. You fail to cite the many creationists, who ascribe to a non-fundamental approach. You fail to cite creationists who reject science as worldly and meaningless. You fail to cite creationists who believe that science is a valuable tool, and scientists utilize valid methods of research, but find fault in evolutionary theory, as well as the evidence that is presented. You also fail to describe on any level what "doing science" entails. This is a subjective term, as doing science can be reached at various standards of comparison.
One thing I have never seen a Creationist address adequately is the fact that science, including Biology, as an endeavor is cumulative and progressive. That is, all current scientific work is based upon past work. Anecdotal evidence is usually never ample enough in dealing with discussions and debate. For I have seen many creationists argue that because of science's quality of being cumulative, that textbooks change every 5-10 years, sometimes dramatically, that science may be unreliable. This is usually contrasted with the long-standing ideals which have been put forth and remain, in the Bible. Ideas about existence, which seem to apply to every year, and every human. But what I "saw" or "heard" is usually not enough to produce a persuasive argument.
If the Theory of Evolution is completely false and not supported by any evidence whatsoever (only "speculation and wishful thinking"), then how is it that the study of Biology has been able to progress at all in the last 150 years? The ToE is utterly foundational to all of the life sciences and much medical research, so if it was so very wrong, all predictions based upon it should fail. You fail to provide any evidence in support of the claim that the 'Theory of Evolution' is "utterly foundational" to life sciences, and medical research. Your first claim then, is irrelevant to the discussion. Your comments which present arguments without evidence are seeming very similar to the rhetoric of politicians on FOX News. Cite these elusive "predictions based upon it". Or is it "Common Knowledge"? That simply won't float. .................................................................. Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
lol
can't believe I just wrote that crap dumb stuff this all is o well Edited by prophex, : ss Edited by prophex, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
wassup, Charlie? meet me in chat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024