Evolution is a Religious Issue

No. In the arena of science, we have disproven YEC. The problem is that YEC goes outside science to make untestable statements. There is no conflict, except in the mind of someone who has been ideologically indoctrinated to accept poorly presented arguments.

quote:

---

Keep in mind I am not a YEC and am not even that concerned if common descent is true or not.

---

Oh, great. Another evolution basher who won't take a stand on anything.

quote:

---

Even if true, I would feel the same way about how it is presented.

---

Well, if all you read is Evolution/Creation forums and YEC literature that is how one would be forced to feel.

quote:

---

I think the approach of evolutionists suggests to me something quite darkening to the mind, and not reflective of a search for truth.

---

Welcome to the dark side... The evil evolutionist conspiracy grows stronger each passing day. It is useless to resist...

quote:

---

That may be harsh, but that's my assessment.

---

Hey, everyone has an opinion. I don't see it as harsh. Simplistic and misguided, perhaps, but not harsh. You clearly haven't heard some of our resident YECs take up the gauntlet yet.

quote:

---

I realize some will just dismiss it, but it's quite common to hear guys, like Jar here, go as far as to even say they do not even need to understand their critics because their critics are wrong.

---

Well, it goes back to the analogy of reinventing the wheel. Why go back over arguments that have been refuted so many times that they should be embarrassing?

quote:

---

I know not all are like that, but it's such a large strain within those passionate about common descent, that it does suggest to me that indoctrination is what is going on, not education.

---

I understand your point here. However, my point is that an EvC message board is hardly where real science is done. In the real science world, few people actually care about this on a day to day basis. You are not getting a true cross-section of science or scientists.

Yes, and the point here is that YEC has been shown to be scientifically incorrect about the age of the earth.The problem now becomes the YEC asserton of the 'appearance of age' brought about by a supernatural agent. Ooops! We just left scienc behind! We are now in the untestable regions. And how is this different from what evolution says? The point here is that YEC needs definitive, diagnostic evidence that not only supports it but is not supportive of evolution. What you present does not favor YEC over evolution. Lots of YECs have this problem, but don't worry, it's reversible. Yes, and in every case YEC has been scientifically disproven. It is the appeal to supernatural processes that cannot be disproven by any method. For instance, prove to me that the entire universe was not created last Thursday with the appearance of age and false memories included. I am appealing to the supernatural here, just as YECs do. While you can scientifically prove me wrong, you cannot prove that my scenario is untrue. And the problem with that is what? How do you perceive the past? Why is your method better than the evolutionists'? Of course it's unprovable in the strictest sense, especially to an absolutist such as you may be. What do you expect? I can say that it is proven as far as I am concerned and that would be true, would it not? And if I am strident enough in attempting to convince you, would you not also say that I am a fanatic? And wouldn't it be convenient for you to classify me as ideologically indoctrinated? Wouldn't that give you some feeling of intellectual superiority that you would then enjoy becaues you are clearly NOT ideologically indoctrinated?

Well, I suppose it depends on where you get your information. I suggest mainstream science journals. Perhaps you have some specifics? It easy to make general statements about what someone else said, but often hard to document them. I have seen no hysteria in academics over this. Animated discussion and the discarding of non-competitive ideas, sure. And maybe some anger at the constant harping on a particular subject, but that gets to be a personal problem.

quote:

---

I found the attempts to denigrate the article incredibly biased and wrong-headed. It's not that the article was amazing or some such, but it was OK for what it was.

---

Ah, then you are a judge of scientific merit. My compliments. If I were in your shoes, I would tell people what I actually think about the origin of the diversity of life on earth. Then it would be possible to have an discussion in good faith.

Usually, this is because of new data. In some cases, we are not certain of where a fossil hominid, for instance, fits into the scheme of things. Most actual dates are considered tentative until a level of cofirmation is reached. Once again, perhaps you could provide an example? So a robust theory that can explain so much must be wrong? Your problem is that the theory of evolution is so robust that it can accomodate large amounts of evidence and put it all into a coherrent picture. Maybe you could show us where a principle of some kind has been violated in putting an evolutionary explanation together. That would go a long way toward supporting your argument. Better yet, perhaps you could give us an alternative...

Well, then, you should consider the fact the evolution has already done this. THat is why it is the overwhelmingly accepted theory on the origin of the diversity of life. Yeah, kind of obvious, wasn't it? The point here is that if you want to beat the champ, you need to win decisively. YECs still haven't figured this out yet. Ah, you have an alternative then. Very good. I'm looking forward to reading it. Well, not yet. You have to present something. But I am waiting. I have never done this. Yeah, speciation is a specious argument. Please find where any evo here has said that speciation 'proves' evolution. Now, it may be compelling evidence to that person, but 'proof'??? I think most of us know that proof is for math and alcohol. Hmmm, humor must be the main course for anti-evos this week... Actually, as far as I know, the numbers haven't really changed all that much in the last several decades. Do you have a poll or something to support your assertion?By the way, what are you selling? Do you employ unsound, illogical and wild overstatements? But then you might have to tell us what you actually believe! Silly me!Added by edit: this has been fun, but I do have things to do tomorrow. Ciao!This message has been edited by edge, 05-29-2005 11:30 PM

An example, please. Give us the textbook the time and the place where speciation have been given as proof of evolution. I can say, yes, it is used as evidence, but not proof. I think I speak for every evolutionist here in saying that science is not about proof.By the way, it is also incorrect that we use microevolution as proof of evolution. Evolutionists almost never even use this term. Sure, let's redefine all of the terms we use, just to satisfy randman and the YECs. Sorry, but I think we all know what we mean when we talk about evolution.

We do? Please document this statement from someone here. Please quote Schraf or someone saying, 'this proves evolution!'. I know of no such instance. Please give a concrete example. Rand, you are very adept at making assertions, but you have yet to support them. Well, what do you think we are discussing here? You are simply playing semantics: the last refuge of a YEC. Is there an echo in here? I think I read this once before. I am still waiting for documentation. Until then, this is simply substance-free rhetoric. I'm glad you are so well-informed of evolutionist motivations. Too bad that you are incorrect. In fact, most evolutionist don't really care what you believe. They do, however, believe in teaching what is the best known and supported science on the issue. If you don't like it there are alternatives. Well, that cop-out tells us nothing. Come on, be honest. Tell us what you really believe. So you are willing to take gratuitous shots at someone else's ideas, but you won't put your own up for review. I find that intellectually cowardly."...we don't really know yet..." Face it Rand, there will never be enough information for you to make an explanation of the data. But don't worry, you are completely safe that way. Don't worry, we understand. You don't have to explain yourself here. I don't either. But you have told us exactly nothing over the last three paragraphs, except some lame excuses for not having a viewpoint.