Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 8:49 PM
37 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,928 Year: 4,965/19,786 Month: 1,087/873 Week: 443/376 Day: 74/46 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
Faith
Member
Posts: 30925
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 210 (359082)
10-26-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
10-26-2006 3:30 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 10-26-2006 3:30 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2006 11:28 AM Faith has responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2165 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 32 of 210 (359087)
10-26-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
10-25-2006 6:07 PM


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 http://www.icr.org/article/2605/, you'll find:

quote:
It makes you wonder if evolutionists really believe what they say or if they are purposively trying to mislead. I suspect there are some of both.

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:
He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural.

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:
Furthermore, there is a strong bias to reject any dating method which does not allow enough time for evolution to have happened....In the other hand there are many dating methods which indicate that the earth is quite young, then evolution is obviously a myth and creation becomes the only logical alternative. Could this be the primary reason that only those methods which seem to indicate very old ages are acceptable?

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/davidjayjordan/EvolutionisaBIGLIE3.html} I found:

quote:
32. YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE CHOSEN SOME VERY LONG AND DIFFICULT-TO-PRONOUNCE NAMES FOR THEIR "MISSING-LINKS", the foundation stones, or bones, on which their faith is built. Doing this sort of thing envelopes it all with a shroud of mystery and even puts a little superstitious awe into the minds of the average laymen. Like many other religious authorities, the high priests of the "sacred cow" of false-science has done this to give credence to their faith and to gain reverence for themselves!

...

34. However, THE SCIENTISTS SOON FOUND IT IMPOSSIBLE to reconstruct a halfway believable evolutionary chain showing man rising from the ape family, so they had to cook up a new theory--which they promptly did!


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 10-25-2006 6:07 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1397 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 33 of 210 (359092)
10-26-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
10-26-2006 3:07 PM


Re: Some obvious consequences
Faith writes:

At a quick glance it appears to be a list of creationist possibilities, which supports what I said anyway.


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.

To tell you the truth, I do not support teaching evolution in school at all, but that's another story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 3:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 4:55 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30925
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 210 (359094)
10-26-2006 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
10-25-2006 6:07 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 10-25-2006 6:07 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 10-26-2006 5:41 PM Faith has responded
 Message 42 by nator, posted 10-26-2006 8:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30925
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 35 of 210 (359096)
10-26-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taz
10-26-2006 4:46 PM


Re: Some obvious consequences
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 10-26-2006 4:46 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dan Carroll, posted 10-26-2006 5:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 210 (359100)
10-26-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
10-26-2006 4:55 PM


Re: Some obvious consequences
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."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 4:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 66 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 37 of 210 (359103)
10-26-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
10-26-2006 4:53 PM


Just toying about a bit
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 4:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 8:14 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30925
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 38 of 210 (359152)
10-26-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by subbie
10-26-2006 5:41 PM


Re: Just toying about a bit
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 10-26-2006 5:41 PM subbie has not yet responded

    
AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 210 (359153)
10-26-2006 8:18 PM


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 276 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 210 (359155)
10-26-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
10-26-2006 2:47 PM


quote:
Let's not turn this thread into a discussion of scientific specifics.

But isn't that what you asked for back on page 1 when you wrote:

quote:
Also, for this to make sense, you have to provide particulars.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 2:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by AdminFaith, posted 10-26-2006 8:26 PM nator has not yet responded

    
AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 210 (359159)
10-26-2006 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by nator
10-26-2006 8:19 PM


See Message 39
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 10-26-2006 8:19 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 276 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 210 (359170)
10-26-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
10-26-2006 4:53 PM


quote:
And I do not think scientists are incompetent. Why I should have to keep saying this over and over again is beyond me.

It's because you frequently write things like this:

link to message #14

quote:
And your entire theory is nothing but a coulda woulda cognitive exercise, an imaginative construct like so much that goes on in evolutionist thinking. Not a fact to be found, nor apparently of any concern.

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:
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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 10-26-2006 4:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 43 of 210 (359189)
10-26-2006 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
10-25-2006 6:07 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 10-25-2006 6:07 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by joshua221, posted 10-26-2006 10:51 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 46 by FliesOnly, posted 10-27-2006 11:16 AM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 44 of 210 (359190)
10-26-2006 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by joshua221
10-26-2006 10:50 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by joshua221, posted 10-26-2006 10:50 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 10-26-2006 11:01 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 64 by nator, posted 10-27-2006 6:33 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12243
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 45 of 210 (359194)
10-26-2006 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by joshua221
10-26-2006 10:51 PM


wassup, Charlie? meet me in chat
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by joshua221, posted 10-26-2006 10:51 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019