Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

I think that we should all ask Jet to tell us about the research he does for the "Arizona Independent Research Center for Creation and Evolution Studies".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B]I think that we should all ask Jet to tell us about the research he does for the "Arizona Independent Research Center for Creation and Evolution Studies".

​

What part of "NO" do you not understand? Is it the "N" or the "O"?
I am not surprised that you continue to press me for information from our little, yet growing organization. I have repeatedly denied you any access to this organization via a P.O. Box, Fax Number, Address, or E-mail. I have also stated my reasons to you several times.[/QUOTE]

​

Well, those reasons are unjustified. I have even offered to provide you MY address so you could send me information about your organization with no return address on it if you wish, and yet you refuse.

​

You made the claim that you do research for the "Arizona Independent Research Center for Creation and Evolution Studies". This is a claim which I think is reasonable to have verified. Why is the organization such a big secret?

​

quote:

---

Our resources are not such that we are willing to deal with the continued harrassment that we received in the past when this information was made available. We have had our E-mail address overwhelmed with spam so we changed it. Our fax and phone lines, limited as they are, which were spammed during off hours to the extent that our message center was inundated with bogus letters and recorded messages, most of which were a single worded letter and an inflamatory recorded message, called in hundreds of times, from the same group of individuals.

---

​

Oh dear, I am sorry that this happened to you. What does this have to do with me?

​

quote:

---

As I stated to you in the other club, a point which you seem unable to grasp, is that I would not post any information without permission from my superiors, ( which they have already denied me), not to mention that nothing I am involved in at the Research Center is any of your business.

---

​

Well, you made it sound like the research you and others at your organization were doing was relevant to this debate. Look, YOU are the one who brough up your involvement in this, "Arizona Independent Research Center for Creation and Evolution Studies". If you didn't want me or anyone else to know about your involvemment, why did you bring it up? Did you think we would not ask questions and ask for specifics? What kind of science do you do at this place if nobody is allowed to see it, anyway?

​

quote:

---

As one of my superiors pointed out to me, your continued harrassment on this issue is a very strong indication that you are indeed one member of that group of individuals that bombarded us with spam messages before, which caused us to initiate this policy in the first place.

---

​

Oh, for heaven's sake, now you have gone off the deep end.

​

Have the MIB started to visit you recently, or do you spend time in your tool shed trying to break codes for the govenment?

​

quote:

---

You may continue your fruitless attempts to gain information but until I actually post evidence that has been presented by our Research Center, I feel no need whatsoever to allow you even the slightest amount of exposure to our studies, research, or our organization. You may not like our policy but in the immortal words of Rhet Butler, that great character in the "Gone With The Wind" movie...........................................................

​

""FRANKLY, MY DEAR, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN""

​

Something tells me you still will be unable to grasp the concept that "NO MEANS NO!", so when you get the urge to continually ask for that which has continually been denied you, as it is none of your business,

---

​

If the "center" is so secret, and it is none of my business, then you certainly made a really big mistake in telling us about it on the Yahoo club, didn't you?

​

[QUOTE]and your relentless desire to access us is undoubtedly so that you and your group can once again begin spamming us, and seeing as how none of our research would be offered in a froum such as this, not at any time, nor for any reason, please refer to the quotes above for clarification on why your requests are continually ignored and denied.
[/b]

---

Paranoid much?Look, Jet, why don't you just admit that you made up the "Arizona Independent Research Center for Creation and Evolution Studies" to make yourself sound qualified and important in the discussion? I would understand. It's hard work debating science, and it's even harder (for a lot of people) to admit that they maybe don't know something. Wouldn't it be better to just come clean and then get on with the debate?I am very persistent, it's true. It's one of my most endearing qualities, and very, very useful in debates.My offer of providing an address so you can send me info still stands.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
jet--

​

where are these neo-nazi hitlerian evilutionists? what is there next plot? how can i protect me and my family? are my teachers part of the plot too? i'm really alarmed... i've locked all the windows... I think they're watching me... a man in a long white coat was following me last night... wait........ there's a noise... someone's in the house... oh pleasse.... no! no! ahhhhh!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
[b]I recently invited some friends from the old club to participate in the many debates here. When they came in and saw that Percy and Larry were running the place and schraf and the old gang were just as obstinate as ever, they decided to find a more evenly balanced club where some real honest debate is occurring without the evo's "holier than thou" condescending attitudes that are so prevalent within this old group. I can't say I blame them. Believe it or not, there are actual debate groups where evo's are willing to acknowledge scientific work despite the fact that the scientist might be a christian.[/QUOTE]

​

I don't care what religion a scientist is. It's when the scientist uses a religious book to decide what evidence to consider valid that I have a problem. Call me crazy.

​

quote:

---

Most even accept creation science as the true science that it is.

---

​

Then they don't know very much about science.

​

Look, Jet, you have been pleaded with to provide positive evidence, testable hypothese, and potential falsifications for Creation 'science', because these are the hallmarks of the scientific method, yet you have not done so.

​

Do you think that saying "creation 'science' is science" over and over again will make it true?

​

Stop being such a weenie and put up or shut up.

​

[QUOTE]It's a shame that not all evo's are as honest and willing to debate without the attitude shown by some of the evo's in here. More's the pity![/b]

---

Waaaaaa, poor Jet!Spealing of honesty, Jet, perhaps you would like me to provide an address to you so you can send me information on the Arizona research organization you are "involved" with?Oh, and this club just had about 5 new members start to participate in the last week or two, so I'm not too worried that it will whiter away and die just because you and possibly your friends can't seem to manage to engage in debate without calling people liars and invoking conspiracy theories every five minutes.Of course, I am accusing you of lying, but I think I am on pretty firm ground with all of that.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JSinclair:
Hello, allright, well i'm a creationist, but i think that evolution has obviouslly occured...why else do you think there's black people in africa, and brown people in india, and chinese people in china, and white people in western europe...if there was no such thiing as evolution, there would be only one human race. I believe in evolution, just i don't believe the whole "man came from monkey's" rubbish....if you say man came from monkey's you could just as easily say that monkey's came from man...
so sum up what i just said, there is evolution, just only within a certain specie....

​

sorry if what i said is like totally wrong, im just a young dude, but that's what i think.

---

Well, it is good to not believe that "humans came from monkeys" because we didn't, and Evolutionary theory has never said that we did.This is a common misconception. Apes and humans have a common ancestor. Apes went branching in one direction, and humans went in another direction.Have a look at this information. It might help you understand a bit better: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.htmlEnjoy!

QS, just in the interest of accuracy, humans did not evolve from apes.Humans and apes share a common ancestor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
did i say i didn't believe that? if you did, i must not have been clear.

---

Well, you implied that apes humans came from apes.In your reply to the person who said "I don't believe that humans came from monkeys", you said, "well, where did we come from then?"I think I know what you think, but since this is such a common misconception, I thought I would make things abundantly clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Please stay on topic and let the moderator deal with the rest. Thanks!

​

--Percy (EvC Forum Administrator)

---

All right, all right.I suppose my use of the word "weenie" is not exactly on-topic.

[QUOTE]I refer to the crimes against little children, kidnapped, raped, and then brutally murdered, their bodies discarded like yesterdays trash. If that is the kind of world that you, or anyone else, truly desires to put your faith in then I pity your kind most above all creatures. I would not care to believe in such a world of lawlessness where there is no true consequence of action. That is why I must ultimately reject and totally deny any acceptance of such an inhumane concept as the theory of evolution. Perhaps it is the way I was raised, though I seriously doubt that is the reason I feel this way. In fact, despite my upbringing, I have far too much empathy in my being to ever pay homage to such a barbaric concept as the Godless theory of evolution. There is a reason some people refer to this concept as "EVILUTION"! No thanks, I hold to a belief that offers Hope! I'll Stick To The Word! I fully expect, and rightfully demand, judgement for the wicked! Enough Said!!! [/B][/QUOTE]OK, if you think that the reason little kids are victimized is because of the ToE, you are really, truly a nutcase.It's nice to know that the reason you are a Christian is because you have a strong desire for revenge.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by thatstretchyguy:
[b]My answer to the question of why god doesn't take away suffering is that this would be taking away our freedom as human beings with free will. The only reason there is suffering in this world is because humans (Adam and Eve) were created with the POSSIBILITY of suffering by god, which they ACTUALIZED when they ate the forbidden fruit. When they chose to sin, the consequences were suffering. Suffering isn't punishment, it is a natural consequence of the choice to sin.[/QUOTE]

​

Don't you think that it is quite a bit more likely that the Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden story was made up to explain why there is suffering in the world?

​

quote:

---

And think about this. If god takes away the suffering of one person, he must take away the suffering of everybody, regardless of whether or not they thank him for it, or deserve it.

---

​

Why doesn't God take away the suffering of little children, then, who couldn't have possibly sinned yet?

​

quote:

---

He can't just take away a little of the suffering, because where do you draw the line? This is like saying, "It's ok if five jews die in a holocaust but not six, or 50,000 but not 50,001." When you take the statement "a little" and apply it to real-life examples like this, you begin to see how absurd it is.

---

​

Your God sounds less and less powerful, and more and more spiteful, egotistical, and petty, the more you write about him.

​

quote:

---

The reason people often equate evolution with atheism is because if life came about by chance,

---

​

The ToE doesn't deal with the origin of life. It deals with life once it got here.

​

quote:

---

then there was no need for an outside creator to intervene, and if there is no outside creator, then there are no morals, no universal truths, no right and wrong.

---

​

This is a common logical mistake.

​

Here is a logic exercise for you:

​

Could God declare it a moral act to rape and pilliage at will?

​

If you say no, then morals, by definition, do not come from God, because if they did, then God could declare ANYTHING moral.

​

Morals come from humans, not God.

​

Also, if it was true that a lack of belief in God meant a lack of morals or a sense of right and wrong, then we should find the prisons packed with Atheists. Guess what? They are filled with believers, not Atheists.

​

[QUOTE]Everybody's politically correct, everybody's views are just as good as somebody else's. Most evolutionists have no intention of breeding such a lawless school of thought, but it often inadvertently does.[/b]

---

Uh, I don't think so, and I don't think you can back any of your claims up with evidence. I have yet to hear of roving bands of lawless evolutionist/Atheists raping and pillaging throughout the land.Look, most Americans don't even understand the ToE AT ALL, and most Americans believe in God, so I don't understand where you get your idea that immoral behavior stems from a single, extremely well-supported theory of Biology which seeks to explain the diversity of life on this planet.You have an inaccurate cartoon-image of the ToE. I suggest doing a bit of reading to familiarize yourself with the basics of evolutionary biology before you attempt to criticize it. Here are some links to help you: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.skepdic.com/science.html
http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Schraf writes:
OK, if you think that the reason little kids are victimized is because of the ToE, you are really, truly a nutcase.

​

***You got that from reading my post and you think "I'M" the nutcase? Whatever dear. Believe whatever makes you feel comfortable.***

​

Shalom

​

Jet

​

---

Jet wrote:"I refer to the crimes against little children, kidnapped, raped, and then brutally murdered, their bodies discarded like yesterdays trash. If that is the kind of world that you, or anyone else, truly desires to put your faith in then I pity your kind most above all creatures. I would not care to believe in such a world of lawlessness where there is no true consequence of action. That is why I must ultimately reject and totally deny any acceptance of such an inhumane concept as the theory of evolution."Um, please tell me how I am supposed to take this statement other than, "Little children are brutally murdered and tortured as a consequence of the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution."There is no ambiguity here, Jet, in what you meant.I can't wait to see how you try to explain this one away.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-12-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
[B]About the PRIMORDIAL SOUP (forming of a cell from small molecules) nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!! [/QUOTE]You are confusing Abiogenesis with the Theory of Evolution.Abiogenesis is the theory that life was naturalistically formed from non-life.The Theory of Evolution explains what happened to that life once it got here, not how it got here.Also, if you have decided to flat out not accept evidence if it would mean accepting any scientific theory, no matter how overwhelming, then you are thinking dogmatically, not scientifically, and you can talk about proteins and mutations all you want but it is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Schrafinator:

​

The Theory of Evolution explains what happened to that life once it got here, not how it got here.

​

Z: And what would probably happen to that life if it got there.

---

Huh? Sorry, I do not understand what this means.

quote:

---

riginally posted by schrafinator:

​

Also, if you have decided to flat out not accept evidence if it would mean accepting any scientific theory, no matter how overwhelming, then you are thinking dogmatically, not scientifically, and you can talk about proteins and mutations all you want but it is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

​

Z: No, I accept the evidence!

---

You just said that NOTHING could ever be presented to you that would convince you that Evolution occurs. This means that you will not ever accept any evidence which would convince you, right?Are you now changing your mind, and there is some evidence, if it came to light, which would convince you? If so, please explain.

quote:

---

Z: Talking about proteins and mutations is to think scientifically, not dogmatically.

---

Um, no, not necessarily. Talking about proteins or whatever, yet all the while being unwilling to budge one inch WRT the evidence and how you view a scientific theory, no matter what evidence comes before you, means that you are not thinking scientifically.To think scientifically, you must always be willing to change your views if the evidence suggests that you do so. Science is evidence-driven, not driven by religious or dogmatically-held views. You have already stated that you are not willing to do this. Therefore, you are not thinking scientifically. It doesn't matter how much you talk about proteins; you aren't doing so with a scientific mindset. What you are doing is deciding ahead of time what is "true" and attempting to pick and choose what evidence confirms your ideas and ignoring the rest. Science is conducted by gathering the evidence first, then theories are built around that evidence.You have things backwards.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

quoteriginally posted by schrafinator:

​

You just said that NOTHING could ever be presented to you that would convince you that Evolution occurs. This means that you will not ever accept any evidence which would convince you, right?

​

Are you now changing your mind, and there is some evidence, if it came to light, which would convince you? If so, please explain.

---

"You totally misunderstood me. The evidence I mentioned is that abiogenesis is impossible."Well, the topic is about what evidence would convince you that Evolution has occurred, not Abiogenesis.

​

My apologies if I musunderstood. Now, what evidence in favor of Evolution would you accept, if it existed?

quote:

---

quoteriginally posted by schrafinator:
Um, no, not necessarily. Talking about proteins or whatever, yet all the while being unwilling to budge one inch WRT the evidence and how you view a scientific theory, no matter what evidence comes before you, means that you are not thinking scientifically.

​

To think scientifically, you must always be willing to change your views if the evidence suggests that you do so. Science is evidence-driven, not driven by religious or dogmatically-held views. You have already stated that you are not willing to do this. Therefore, you are not thinking scientifically. It doesn't matter how much you talk about proteins; you aren't doing so with a scientific mindset. What you are doing is deciding ahead of time what is "true" and attempting to pick and choose what evidence confirms your ideas and ignoring the rest. Science is conducted by gathering the evidence first, then theories are built around that evidence.

---

"Im the one whos willing to change my view."You just said, in your opening post, that you weren't willing to change your view! I congradulate you if you have suddenly had a change of heart, but surely you must understand my confusion at this complete turnaround."Creationists see the facts as they are."Don't you mean, "Creationists see the facts as filtered through your particular interpretation of a particular religious book?" I mean, if you didn't have the religious training first, would you be a Creationist?"We dont dogmatically think every organism descend from the same ancestor."Neither do scientists. Common descent is heavily supported by abundant evidence found in nature, with converging lines of evidence from many different sources."We do research about it."Great. Let's see this research, preferably that which is published in peer-reviewed professional journals."You just assume all organisms have a common descent."No, the evidence in nature overwhelmingly suggests common descent. I don't assume anything. See:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurs5.html "You adapt your view of the age of the earth so that evolution might be possible."This is quite a claim. You seem to be saying that there are huge flaws, or even outright fraud involved in the various aging methods. This a very serious charge and I do hope you are prepared to back it up with specific evidence. Please, show us exactly how all of the various dating methods are unreliable, and also show us evidence of widespread fraud among Geologists and Physicists."I and many creationists adapt the age of the earth by researches."Great. Show us this research."And about scientifically thinking. I youre gonna get to the truth you must rely on both scientifically and supernaturally thinking."Are you suggesting that science should allow the supernatural as an explanation for phenomena? How would this be a benefit to inquiry?

​

Remember, science is about finding naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena. It is not meant to provide any kind of "ultimate truth", morality codes, rules for aesthetics, or other such philosophies.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quoteriginally posted by schrafinator:
Now, what evidence in favor of Evolution would you accept, if it existed?"Z: Yes. If it existed."No, you misunderstand. The topic is asking what specific piece of evidence you would accept. Would it be the evidence of the genetic and morphologic trees of life matiching? Or would it be the observed observation of speciation? Would it be a transitional fossil?

​

What specific evidence would convince you?quoteriginally posted by schrafinator:You just said, in your opening post, that you weren't willing to change your view! I congradulate you if you have suddenly had a change of heart, but surely you must understand my confusion at this complete turnaround."Z: As soon as I say that Im open to facts I mean realistic ones. And since facts points against evolution, they DO, I see evolution as being wrong."What facts? Are you deciding if the facts are "realistic" or not by if they already agree with what you want to believe? This would be biased thinking, not scientific thinking, and would not be "open to changing your views" at all.

​

Please list the evidence here. All the facts I have ever studied point overwhelmingly towards the reality of allele frequencies changing over time. Considering we have actually observed evolution occurring, I fail to see why you think it doesn't happen.

​

You will have to a lot better than, "Evolution doesn't happen because I say so." if you want to be taken seriously. Why should I believe you if you don't present any real evidence; just because you are earnest?quoteriginally posted by schrafinator:Neither do scientists. Common descent is heavily supported by abundant evidence found in nature, with converging lines of evidence from many different sources."See some of my arguments in the topic "Definition of created kind"I saw them. How do they address your claim that scientists assume anything?quoteriginally posted by schrafinator:Great. Let's see this research, preferably that which is published in peer-reviewed professional journals."A good book with references is "Typen des Lebens" by Sigfied Scherer"Sorry, I only read English. Why don't you breifly explain a couple of evidences that were influential for you and the scientific references that go with them and we will discuss them?quoteriginally posted by schrafinator:No, the evidence in nature overwhelmingly suggests common descent. I don't assume anything. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurs5.html"Ill take a look at all those links. Probably the same stuff as usual."Please bring some specific points back here for us to discuss. Otherwise, I won't know if you really read them or not.quoteriginally posted by schrafinator:This is quite a claim. You seem to be saying that there are huge flaws, or even outright fraud involved in the various aging methods. This a very serious charge and I do hope you are prepared to back it up with specific evidence. Please, show us exactly how all of the various dating methods are unreliable, and also show us evidence of widespread fraud among Geologists and Physicists."In my swedish creation book Ive many references. Ill take a speciall time to wright them to you soon."I look forward to examining them."I really trust these ages of an earth younger than 4,6 milliard years. The continents are decomposed. Delta is built up outside rivers. Gases leak to the atmosphere. Salts are gathered in the oceans. Oil leak out from sedimentary rocks.
All these processes have likely speed. They have a reasonable speed. And the earth could not so so old."Why do you think that these processes require speed?

​

What do you mean by "the continents are decomposed?"

​

How do you reconcile the amazingly consistent results of the dozen or so different dating methods used to date rock come up with almost all of the time, with your contention that the Earth is young?

​

If you had never read the Bible, would you think that the Earth was young, or did you get the idea that the Earth is young after reading the Bible?

​

Are your views evidence-driven or religion-driven?

​

Also you did not answer my question about the supernatural and science.

​

Are you suggesting that the supernatural be let into science as an explanation for phenomena? If so, then how do you figure that this will benefit inquiry?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-25-2002]