PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution Indoctrination
       how much evolution indoctrination is there?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know this was discussed briefly in another thread, but since creationists say this a lot I think it deserves its own thread.

Personally growing up in U.S. public schools and living in the U.S. all my life I don't feel I have been forcefully indoctrinated into evolution by the media or public schools.

So for creationists what exactly have you seen that would make you say that we have been indoctrinated into believing evolution?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:59 AM on June 30, 2009 | IP
bobby4

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's not indoctrinating just like teaching chemistry, biology or any other science is not indoctrinating. There are very good reasons scientists support evolution just like there are very good reasons scientist support biology and chemistry. Creationism or any religion for that matter is a personal belief and to force that onto someone is wrong. If one considers evolution to be a personal belief then one can easily say that gravity or anything else is a personal belief which makes the discussion of anything and everything completely pointless
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 03:09 AM on June 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you guys blind, or in denial?

Why, the phrase "In Darwin We Trust" is on our money.  The phrase "under evolution" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s to remind us what we are supposed to believe.  There are vacation Darwin schools for school kids and every Sunday, my parents used to drag me to a science museum to learn all about evolution...  


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:50 AM on June 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hahaha! xD

Speaking about myself, i can tell you that i was not indoctrinated in any way (perhaps i indoctrinated myself). I don't know about anyone who has been. And i know tons of people who have been indoctrinated by some Christian sect.

From Wiki:

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

I was always very critic about all scientific theories. I don't believe things just because they tell me to.

How do they manage to believe that scientists can make lots of cool discoveries, and improve our quality of life, while being deluded into believing in something that just happens to contradict their Bible?

The power of the mind is so amazing...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:11 PM on June 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer 27
Personally growing up in U.S. public schools and living in the U.S. all my life I don't feel I have been forcefully indoctrinated into evolution by the media or public schools.


Well you may not feel that way, however it certainly is the majority belief system of scientists and a lot of the general population; it is part of our culture. The majority of scientists used to believe that the world was created by God –it is what they grew up to believe. Now they believe that they evolved from apes. No indoctrination? I think you are fooling yourself.

Bobby4
It's not indoctrinating just like teaching chemistry, biology or any other science is not indoctrinating.


Teaching chemistry, or the experimental, observable workings of biology are a far cry from the teachings of evolution. The observable versus the unobservable –it’s that simple.

There are very good reasons scientists support evolution


Yes quite – they have been carried away with philosophy without realizing it.

Creationism or any religion for that matter is a personal belief and to force that onto someone is wrong.


Evolution is a religion –it is what people believe without seeing. That’s called faith. Some people teach their kids that God created the world, others teach their kids that everything evolved naturalistically. Neither can be observed. A lot of the claims of evolution are taken on faith and are believed because the contradictory evidence is systematically kept from them. It’s one thing to teach your children that which you believe to be true in what you truelly believe to be their own interests and it is quite another for faith to be forced by a selective showing of the evidence. No religion should ever be forced. We could at the very least make people aware that if they believe in evolution then it is faith and a religion, not science.

Creationism or any religion for that matter is a personal belief and to force that onto someone is wrong.


I agree.

If one considers evolution to be a personal belief then one can easily say that gravity or anything else is a personal belief


The effects of gravity are observable and repeatable in the present. Evolution is not.

Speaking about myself, i can tell you that i was not indoctrinated in any way


The easiest person to fool is yourself.

And i know tons of people who have been indoctrinated by some Christian sect.


And I know tons who have been indoctrinated into the evolution religion.

I was always very critic about all scientific theories. I don't believe things just because they tell me to.


But you believe that naturalism is true just because you’ve been told that it is science. So your scepticism is selective just like most people.  

How do they manage to believe that scientists can make lots of cool discoveries, and improve our quality of lifewhile being deluded into believing in something that just happens to contradict their Bible?



Evolutionists have made no improvements to our quality of life whatsoever. A lot of the scientists making those cool discoveries are creationists and none of those cool discoveries depend on people’s belief systems.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:40 AM on July 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:40 AM on July 1, 2009 :
Teaching chemistry, or the experimental, observable workings of biology are a far cry from the teachings of evolution. The observable versus the unobservable –it’s that simple.


But chemistry is based on quantum mechanics, which you reject.  Should chemistry class not teach about orbitals?




(Edited by Apoapsis 7/1/2009 at 11:50 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:33 AM on July 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well you may not feel that way, however it certainly is the majority belief system of scientists and a lot of the general population; it is part of our culture.
So is the atomic theory. And you don't call that indoctrination. Why?

The majority of scientists used to believe that the world was created by God –it is what they grew up to believe.
And now the know better. I see no inconvenient.
Now they believe that they evolved from apes.
Lester, you shouldn't say that you used to understand and believe in the TOE, because you never understood it.

We did not evolve apart from apes. WE_ARE_APES!

No indoctrination? I think you are fooling yourself.

The observable versus the unobservable –it’s that simple.
No, it's not. The difference DOES_NOT_EXIST!

Nobody ever could pinpoint it. There is none -it's that simple.

There are very good reasons scientists support evolution
Yes quite – they have been carried away with philosophy without realizing it.
Oh, and that every species ever found fits smoothly in the phylogenetic tree of life. We can even predict what we'll find and where.
Magic, right?

Evolution is a religion –it is what people believe without seeing. That’s called faith.
Wrong. Faith is believing without evidence.

Sight isn't that special. I don't know why you pay so much attention to it.

I've asked you if you would go to a place where the Geiger counter goes nuts. There's nothing to be seen, so no worries, right?

Some people teach their kids that God created the world, others teach their kids that everything evolved naturalistically. Neither can be observed. A lot of the claims of evolution are taken on faith and are believed because the contradictory evidence is systematically kept from them.
Just name it, and we'll debunk it -it's that simple.

It’s one thing to teach your children that which you believe to be true in what you truelly believe to be their own interests and it is quite another for faith to be forced by a selective showing of the evidence.
Man, one of your constant strategies is misquoting. That shows what you people are made of.

Have you seen that show where Kirk Cameron and some other guy say that the banana is the atheist's nightmare, and is used as evidence for creation? That its taste, shape, easiness to be opened, speaks of God's plan for the banana (to be eaten by us)?

Do you have any doubts whatsoever that they will never show what the banana looked like before being domesticated by humans?

I will:


No religion should ever be forced. We could at the very least make people aware that if they believe in evolution then it is faith and a religion, not science.
You have consistently failed to show what makes Evolution not-science. Observation doesn't work.

If one considers evolution to be a personal belief then one can easily say that gravity or anything else is a personal belief
The effects of gravity are observable and repeatable in the present. Evolution is not.
Animals are observable. They all fit in the phylogenetic tree. We observe that. We predict that every species we'll ever find will fit too. That's repeatable.
We'll predict some of the things we'll find, and where. That's repeatable too.

Speaking about myself, i can tell you that i was not indoctrinated in any way
The easiest person to fool is yourself.
Ok. No problem. Then i fooled myself. But you can't say that i was indoctrinated.

I was always very critic about all scientific theories. I don't believe things just because they tell me to.
But you believe that naturalism is true just because you’ve been told that it is science.
Naturalism doesn't exist. Naturalism means nothing. It's not like there's any choice.

So your scepticism is selective just like most people.
Yeap. It selects for what is supported by evidence. Very selective.

How do they manage to believe that scientists can make lots of cool discoveries, and improve our quality of lifewhile being deluded into believing in something that just happens to contradict their Bible?
Evolutionists have made no improvements to our quality of life whatsoever.
That is not true. Just not true.
Here:
Practical uses for Evolution

A lot of the scientists making those cool discoveries are creationists and none of those cool discoveries depend on people’s belief systems.
Where? In the USA? Because you don't get many creationists in other developed countries. Specially educated creationists. Those are really hard to come by.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:05 PM on July 1, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Example of indoctrination:

Wisp:
Where? In the USA? Because you don't get many creationists in other developed countries. Specially educated creationists. Those are really hard to come by.

How do you know this? Is it an instinctive supposition or have you been convinced by outside influences? Either way it is a false assumption based on the EVOS doctrine that only the uneducated and brainwashed since birth could possibly believe in creation. Did you go to college? Of course. But you weren't indoctrinated into this elitist liberal mentality. You weren't railroaded in your beliefs to think the way professors think so that you could make grades and not be labeled as "peculiar" by your peers. You are a totally free thinker. Right? Wrong. You were shaped by your environment the same as everyone else. You elitists love to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for your superior intellects while us uneducated backwoods hicks make fools of ourselves by expressing beliefs that put us outside of the "mainstream" of society. All the while you look at the world through the prism of CNN and AP while real human progress is totally ignored. It is unfortunate for so called "education" that the information age has made the irrelevance of forced education so obvious. Now the UN has to step in and try and ram "universal child rights" down our throat as a means of controlling the minds of the children of those who chose to self-educate. But giving children the "right" to sue their parents for pushing some fantasy religion on them is not indoctrination. Convincing whole generations of youth that what they think is superior to the wisdom of their stodgy old stick in the mud parents is not indoctrination. Convincing young adults that the longer they suckle at the teat of government sanctioned "higher education" the greater their chance of "success" is not indoctrination. Right?

The problem here is that the liberal mind functions differently than the conservative mind. Liberals love to tell others how to live and think while blasting anyone who lives and thinks differently. You people are bigoted and intolerant in the extreme and are so blinded by your delusions of grandeur that you can't even see it. You revel in pointing out our (conservatives) flaws while scarcely admitting that you, too, may have some. You indoctrinate yourselves continuously through peer pressure into believing that education makes you superior and create for yourselves the very caste system that cause the multitudes to flee Europe and flock to America even to this day. And what do they find? Free thinking pragmatic self reliant competency is almost non-existent in government and education and to become self reliant you must step back to an agrarian paradigm such as what existed for such luminaries as Ben Franklin, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and millions of others who were instrumental to the history of this once great nation.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:29 PM on July 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The point is, that first question led to others. It cracked the door to critical thinking, you might say. Earlier I wrote that an encounter with a well-known creationist/evangelist had planted the first seeds of my conversion. This person was Dr. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Dr. Gish was the premier creationist debater of his day, and is still an icon in anti-evolution circles.

I had always loved science. To learn evolution was all wrong, a fraud promulgated by evil secular humanist scientists, shocked me. It turned my world on its head. It recalled the catchphrase of the old Firesign Theater: "Everything you know is wrong." Because evolution is so deeply linked with other aspects of physical science, I had to surrender most of what I thought I knew of geology, of astronomy, of comparative anatomy, of genetics--even language and linguistic evolution. (For example, if the universe is less than 10,000 years old, how could astronomers see stars millions of light-years away?)

Now doubting, I sought sources and references for many things the creationists had told me. What did I find? Tissues of misquotes, out-of-context quotes, half truths and plain deception. I learned that many well-known creationists claimed to have doctoral degrees from universities that did not exist or which were unaccredited diploma mills. I found cases where a creationist speaker was forced to admit he was wrong on a certain point, then went on to repeat the falsehood in his next lecture.

Slowly it dawned that almost all creation science "research" consisted of combing science books and journals for quotes and factoids that can be pulled of context and used to support the Genesis story. As one critic wrote, "Creationists use data the way a drunk man uses a lamp post - for support, not illumination."

The rest was just bad science.

Here is the caper. When I told my Christian friends about this, they didn't care. Their attitude was, the "creation scientists" are winning souls, doing God's work; so what matter that they were occasionally deceptive on certain points? Salvation was important, not science. I wondered why Christianity must depend on falsehoods and deception to save souls. What kind of truth uses lies as a crutch? For that matter, if some things I had been taught were disinformation, what else was untrue? What else were they not telling me?


How I walked away


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 02:03 AM on July 2, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:40 AM on July 1, 2009 :
Fencer 27
Personally growing up in U.S. public schools and living in the U.S. all my life I don't feel I have been forcefully indoctrinated into evolution by the media or public schools.


Well you may not feel that way, however it certainly is the majority belief system of scientists


It is not a belief system in terms of religion. It is a scientific theory, which means it explains facts, and this theory does a very good job at it. That is why scientists accept it as the best explanation for the evidence, if you talk to any credible scientist they will not say the believe in evolution because it is not a belief system.

and a lot of the general population; it is part of our culture.


Because many look at what science has done for us and science has become a credible tool to understand the natural world.

The majority of scientists used to believe that the world was created by God –it is what they grew up to believe. Now they believe that they evolved from apes.


Science says nothing of God, what people believe about God can be influenced by science, but science in itself is silent on the issue. And the majority of Christians also accept evolution as fact and have no problem with us evolving from ancestral apes to modern humans.

No indoctrination? I think you are fooling yourself.


As wisp pointed out earlier there is a difference between indoctrination and education. With indoctrination you cannot challenge the material or engage in critical examination. But you can with evolution in the classroom where teachers teach it, they will show you how allele frequencies change in populations over time, how mutations happen during meiosis, and how all the biological, geological, and paleontological evidence matches with the modern theory of evolution.  

Evolution is a religion –it is what people believe without seeing. That’s called faith.


Even if evolution had no evidence, and it was completely faith based, it would still not be a religion. A religion requires rituals, usually accompanied with mythology and a belief system of the supernatural with some type of after life. All three Abrahamic faiths, Buddhisms, Hinduism, and most if not all ancient belief systems fall under this definition, but evolution does not. It has no rituals, it has no mythology, it has no after life, it has nothing to do with the supernatural. And this isn't taking in to account all the evidence it has in its favor.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 03:27 AM on July 2, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 11:29 PM on July 1, 2009 :
The problem here is that the liberal mind functions differently than the conservative mind. Liberals love to tell others how to live and think while blasting anyone who lives and thinks differently.


I'm feeling a little projection here. Conservatives have done quite a bit in rejecting those who don't follow their ever increasing standard of how they should live and think. While liberals don't have a perfect track record as well, they clearly beat the conservatives in this area.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 03:43 AM on July 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Example of indoctrination:
Where? In the USA? Because you don't get many creationists in other developed countries. Specially educated creationists. Those are really hard to come by.
How do you know this? Is it an instinctive supposition or have you been convinced by outside influences?
I've made a question too.
But well... Here in Argentina at least you don't have educated creationists. There's absolutely no debate. But we're not a developed country.
In developed countries you have less creationists amongst the general population, and even less among the educated populations.
Answering to your question: both. I've supposed so, and statistics concur.
I imagine you won't like the results, and you'll want to call them biased. I don't know what to say about that.

Either way it is a false assumption based on the EVOS doctrine that only the uneducated and brainwashed since birth could possibly believe in creation.
What's your basis?

Did you go to college? Of course.
Yes, but i have no trace of pride about that.

But you weren't indoctrinated into this elitist liberal mentality.
Certainly not.
You weren't railroaded in your beliefs to think the way professors think so that you could make grades and not be labeled as "peculiar" by your peers.
Certainly not. Fuck my peers. Fuck my teachers, who taught interwoven superstitions like "rights" and "liberties", which i amusedly studied. They believe they teach "science", which is specially funny to me.

Some of these superstitions were very well interwoven. I use them to defend my client's "rights".
You are a totally free thinker. Right? Wrong.
I imagine there's a lot of influence from my world into my way of thinking. But i'm quite a free thinker, yeah.

You were shaped by your environment the same as everyone else.
Not quite the same, i'd say. I've pretty much made myself. I've questioned everything. I tend not to hold things unless they pass my tests.
You elitists love to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for your superior intellects while us uneducated backwoods hicks make fools of ourselves by expressing beliefs that put us outside of the "mainstream" of society.
You got me wrong. Lots of times i disagree with the majority. And i don't feel the tiniest bit intimidated by that fact.
All the while you look at the world through the prism of CNN and AP while real human progress is totally ignored.
I know CNN. I don't know what AP is. Perhaps you remember that i don't have television. I've decided i'll look for what i want to see, instead of it being shown to me.

So no, Mike. I'm really not like what you describe. I know i can sound like a bigot sometimes. I'm sorry. I can't help but thinking that you've chosen the wrong side of this debate.

And this discussion is (should be) about facts. Facts that seem pretty obvious to me. Since they seem obvious, i can barely help but sounding like a bigot.

The problem here is that the liberal mind functions differently than the conservative mind. Liberals love to tell others how to live and think while blasting anyone who lives and thinks differently.
Is that so???

I always thought it was the other way around... That's what i've always seen...
Are you sure you're not just projecting, like Lester?

You people are bigoted and intolerant in the extreme and are so blinded by your delusions of grandeur that you can't even see it.
Hum... Well, you're right that i don't see it.
I hate the idea of being blinded. I hope you're wrong.

You revel in pointing out our (conservatives) flaws while scarcely admitting that you, too, may have some.
I do have flaws. I'm lazy.

You indoctrinate yourselves continuously through peer pressure
Hahaha! No.
into believing that education makes you superior
Well, education makes you statistically more educated. But i've admired people who didn't finish third grade.
and create for yourselves the very caste system that cause the multitudes to flee Europe and flock to America even to this day. And what do they find? Free thinking pragmatic self reliant competency is almost non-existent in government and education and to become self reliant you must step back to an agrarian paradigm such as what existed for such luminaries as Ben Franklin, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and millions of others who were instrumental to the history of this once great nation.
"This"?
I don't know much about the history of "this" great nation. Sorry.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:35 PM on July 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp
So is the atomic theory. And you don't call that indoctrination. Why?

Atomic models work on atoms that exist here and now. Much like gravity that has effects that can be repeated and experimented with. There is no comparison to the big claim of macroevolution that cannot be observed or repeated. It is pure fantasy (and philosophy) in the absence of evidence.
The majority of scientists used to believe that the world was created by God –it is what they grew up to believe.
And now the know better. I see no inconvenient.


And now they ‘know’ a different story and believe it without needing to see any evidence.

Lester, you shouldn't say that you used to understand and believe in the TOE, because you never understood it.

We did not evolve apart from apes. WE_ARE_APES!


Perhaps I’m just not too concerned with little technical points in the frog and the prince story, but let me just say, you are an ape by your own admission (a deluded ape-man technically) and I am a created human being quite separate from the apes and the evidence is in the design of the interrelated parts and the coded DNA that programmes for the proteins required. You should be theoretically incapable of trusting the workings of your own brain since it was strung together by selection of the best mistakes (mutations) while I can think rationally since my brain was actually designed. You imagine that I am deceived but lets face it, your brain is not to be trusted – everything you think is suspect. You may not have the correct chemicals in the correct quantities going there.

The observable (micro-evolution) versus the unobservable (macro-evolution) –it’s that simple.
No, it's not. The difference DOES_NOT_EXIST!


Actually it does –observable vs fantasized; it just suits you to lump the two together and pretend to demonstrate the unobservable via the observable and then call it ‘science.’ Shouting at me will not make it true but frustration is to be expected.

Nobody ever could pinpoint it.


They may not be able to pinpoint the edges of variability but it is quite clear that dogs stay dogs and fruitflies stay fruitflies and there is no reason to extrapolate beyond that. Calling it fact is forcing your philosophy onto the evidence.

Oh, and that every species ever found fits smoothly in the phylogenetic tree of life. We can even predict what we'll find and where.


You keep saying that but it’s not actually true. There are contradictory trees produced between morphological and biomolecular data. I have discussed these problems before but everyone pretty much dropped the topic.

Think about it, it won’t be enough to find that organisms share a common biochemical basis, or that their molecules as well as their visible features can be classified in a pattern of groups within groups. As Phillip Johnson pointed out in ‘Darwin on Trial’ –“The important claim of Darwinism is not that relationships exist, but that those relationships were produced by a naturalistic process in which parent species were gradually transformed into quite different descendent forms through long branches (or even thick bushes) of transitional intermediates, without intervention by any Creator or any other non-naturalistic mechanism.”
Darwin did not invent classification. His contribution was to provide an explanation in materialistic terms of how the categories came about.Pre-Darwinian classifiers were also aware that humans were physically much like the anthropoid apes and thus included humans amongst the primates. Genetic similarity confirms Linnaeus, not Darwin. It tells us that apes and humans are remarkably similar in some ways and remarkably different in others, but it does not tell us how either the similarities or the dissimilarities came to exist.

Naturalism doesn't exist. Naturalism means nothing.


In this argument, that’s actually what it’s all about. The presumption of naturalism vs the presumption that intelligence was necessary rather than natural processes alone. Those are our philosophical choices and one is better supported by the evidence than the other and that one is not yours.

So your scepticism is selective just like most people.
It selects for what is supported by evidence. Very selective.

Well then it is time for you to change your philosophical predisposition and get with reality.
I've asked you if you would go to a place where the Geiger counter goes nuts. There's nothing to be seen, so no worries, right?

I’d think you’d be inclined to ignore a Geiger counter actually since you can’t seem to see that effects can have unseen causes.
That is not true. Just not true.
Here:
Practical uses for Evolution

There you go again using the observable variability of life to support your claim that macroevolution happens and is useful to us somehow. Nobody disputes variability, only we say that it has limits. You need to demonstrate that there are no limits.
“And God said: Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.” Genesis 1:24 As far as we know this is all that happens, guesswork and extrapolation aside.
A lot of the claims of evolution are taken on faith and are believed because the contradictory evidence is systematically kept from them.
Just name it, and we'll debunk it -it's that simple.

The fossil record does not support evolution.
Molecular genetics does not support evolution.
Most of the geological column doesn’t exist in most places –where is our missing time? –no, erosion did not take it away.
Strata in incorrect order.
Invertebrates in ‘oldest Cambrian rocks’ that never evolved to this day.
The Cambrian explosion from nowhere.
Fish from nowhere.
Everything else from nowhere –explosive innovation with nothing showing where they came from.
Bats and whales
The list is endless…… a few small mysteries covered for the most part by evolutionary fairytales that have no supporting evidence apart from imagination.
You have consistently failed to show what makes Evolution not-science. Observation doesn't work.

No actually I have told you that it is philosophy and why it is philosophy. I have also told you that evidence and plausible stories are quite different things and you need to be discriminating and not just believe the things you want to because you want to.
What exactly do you mean that observation doesn’t work? What is evidence – the unobservable? Sounds like new evo hocus pocus being cooked up here. What are you trying to say Wisp????
Animals are observable. They all fit in the phylogenetic tree. We observe that.

We don’t dispute that animals exist and are observable and can be classified. Is that how confused you are about what divides us? Like I’ve said, what exactly does a phylogenetic tree tell us? Is it a tree at all? Can this tree/ bush/lawn be explained as a result of naturalistic processes?

 






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:31 AM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
Well I could give you so many many quotes from people that found their way out of the evolution fantasy -but then I'd have to find my many books on the topics and pin down the problems which would be a major undertaking. Your example is very rare.
I read the whole thing of "How I walked Away" and noticed there was not one scrap of science in it. A telling thing. I was looking for his scientific reasons for rejecting creation. I didn't expect to find anymore other than the usual rubbish but I was interested to know about his scientific reasoning.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:14 AM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:14 AM on July 3, 2009 :
Your example is very rare.


Then why the near panic in evangelical circles?

YEC is a dying cult.

It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) "[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99

Above I say that I with drew from publishing for 10 years. I need to make one item clear. It is true that I published a couple of items in the late 80s. The truth is that these were an edited letter exchange I had with George Howe. When George approached me about the Mountain Building symposium, I told him I didn't want to write it. He said that was ok he would write it, give it to me for ok and then publish it.  Since it was merely splicing a bunch of letters together, it was my words, but George's editorship that made that article. To all intents and purposes I was through with young-earth creationist (not ism yet) because I knew that they didn't care about the data.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.  I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Glenn Morton's story

(Edited by Apoapsis 7/3/2009 at 1:15 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:45 AM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:31 AM on July 3, 2009 :
Atomic models work on atoms that exist here and now. Much like gravity that has effects that can be repeated and experimented with.


Yet you reject direct experimental evidence of quantum mechanics.

You have a very restricted view of reality.

Should atomic orbitals be taught in high school chemistry?  


(Edited by Apoapsis 7/3/2009 at 2:03 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:09 PM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to your decision to leave Christianity?

(Hey I just found this question set. Hope you're still interested) Answer: I think it was an important catalyst. Growing up my big sister was a devout born again Christian. I went off to Baptist Bible Camp at age 14 and became born again also. It was an interesting psychological experience. Very powerful.

Upon returning home a couple of weeks later, I was immediately a part of my big sister's social circle of young Christians. For whatever reason the prevailing opinion of this group of teenage Christians was the YEC viewpoint. Some of these folks were very passionate about the YEC position. Well, I was only 14, but I was heavily interested in math and science. I was also a little smart ass. I must admit I enjoyed trying to trip up the older kids when they started in on radiometric dating, or evolution. Over the next year as I learned more science, I slowly went from engaging in arguments with my Christian YEC friends for mental exercise, to doing so because I began to see how really bad, inaccurate, and invalid the YEC arguments were.

By the time I was 16 I had graduated high school early and was enrolled at a local junior college. During the summer session I took Intro to Geology and that was all it took. I remember I  realized that those older kids were totally wrong, their ignorance and arrogance was like intellectual repellent. Within a few months I didn't want anything to do with them.

2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?

Answer: To be honest they seemed a little weird to me after I learned more science. It was like they didn't trust me suddenly when the science subject came up. I was an instant outsider. They were just so hopelessly mislead and deluded. When commenting on God they seemed like normal enthusiastic young people. But when they spoke about certain subjects, it was like they switched into a sort of altered state of mind. Their eyes glazed over when they discussed things like the shrinking sun argument, or the moon dust argument. You remember back in the '70's when you would see a Moonie on TV? That spaced-out detached look they had in their eyes? It was a most disturbingly similar look I was seeing in these older kids eyes when they discussed YEC. Shortly afterward I was equipped with my own driver's license and no longer being nearly so dependant on my siblings to cart me around I politely drifted away from that group- much to my big sister's distress.

Over the next few years I came to suspect that my born again experience was more a consequences of human neurophysiology than supernatural intervention. As my education broadened in college and then graduate school, the petty OT God, the idea of human destiny being a mere pawn in a cosmic pissing contest between rival childish Gods, a God who disguises himself as his own human son and manipulates mankind in to murdering him to somehow save us from his own rules...it just didn't make any sense. I think creationism really turned me off of religion in the beginning. I don't think it was the only factor. I think I may have gotten enough of it anyway. But because of YEC I came to really avoid Christians and most religious people for years. I saw them as ignorant morons, I saw them as backward cults...as a cult that almost got ME.

The Effect of Scientific Error in Christian Apologetics


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:35 PM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The next time evolution really came up was when I was 19 and just starting
college and in a Christian chat room at coolchat.com. I debated atheists a
lot and often they'd try to use evolution as a proof of atheism. I would
use some of the tired old arguments we defeat every day, and often I would
win because they weren't equipped to answer them. They confused abiogenesis
with evolution, and I did too, and I was able to defeat them when I showed
them that it wasn't proven. One day one of the atheists (nicknamed Drexl)
from Scotland came in that was a little better informed, we liked to spar
with each other, we were pretty much evenly matched. He too linked
evolution to atheism but he is the one that eventually led me out of the
dark of creationism.

He gave me a page that debunked Carl Baugh, and other creationists, and the
page also made the case for evolution of theropods into birds. Drexl
casually mentioned to me that people at the newsgroup talk.origins would be
able to answer any questions I might have.

I studied the page, it made me realize that Baugh wasn't quite honest, I
didn't believe him anymore, and I learned to be a lot more questioning and
skeptical regarding my sources, and I knew for a fact then that I was an
old earther and not a young earther after reading the site's debunking of
flood geology (which I'd never heard of before in that term). I began to
refer to myself as an old earth creationist.

I wasn't ready for talk.origins and wasn't sure how to get there either, so
I forgot about it for then, I wrote a question to the person who authored
the page and got a nasty response back in the harshest filthiest language,
which reinforced the idea that evolutionists and atheists were evil. That
killed that.

I didn't get close to accepting evolution again until I took my second
biology course in college. Again, I was presented with the nested hierarchy
that I'd learned back in seventh grade. It felt familiar and I was excited
to study it in more detail.

This was also the first class in which I was told how evolution works, that
it works on populations, not individuals, how natural selection works, how
genetic drift works, how sexual selection works. How alleles change
frequency in populations, how sympatric and allopatric speciation work, how
polyploidy works etc. More than anything though it was the nested hierarchy
I'd learned back in seventh grade, when it was expanded into such detail in
this college course, it was very hard to deny that the organisms were
related through common descent.

I didn't know how to deal with it, it was all making sense, all the puzzle
pieces were fitting together! I tried not to think about it, I couldn't
handle it so I blocked it out for a while.

I went on summer vacation, I was watching animal planet on tv, and Gorillas
in the Mist came on. I watched the movie, watched the gorillas. Suddenly
that biology class came back to haunt me. I had to know! I couldn't deny it
anymore, I couldn't compartmentalize anymore, I had to know if there was
any truth to creationism at all.

I reminded myself that a true scientist has to follow the evidence wherever
it leads.

Drexl's words from years ago came back to me "The people at talk.origins
will answer any questions you might have." I was scared.. things were
falling apart, I wrote to creationist organizations, Hugh Ross' site no
longer had an e-mail address for questions, so I wrote to AIG and other
places like it. I wrote some serious questions, I got answers back that
were full of lies and I knew they were lies because of what I'd learned in
school. So I finally got up the courage to go to talk.origins, I wrote
"This is my last resort" in the subject line, and they helped me.

I got some helpful and polite letters from the regulars (completely unlike
the caustic person who answered my inquiries to the site that had been
given me long ago), I found ways to debate and ask questions of both sides,
soon I came around to believing that God guided evolution and then chose
the first hominid that was fully human to be Adam and then the story went
from there. My interpretation of the days of Genesis was still day-age (a
carry over from Ross). I had no problem with abiogenesis, because if God
could guide biological evolution then God could just as easily guide the
formation of life from chemical precursors. I was still awfully literalist,
but I was making progress. I was debating with creationists of both the
young and old earth persuasions, I began to refer to myself as a theistic
evolutionist. I was 23 years old.
Wendy's Story


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:51 PM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution indoctrination by YEC professors.

I began to see strong evidence for evolution, even though all my professors were young earth creationists. In my junior year I started doing research into theories of taxonomy and their relationship to the creation/evolution debate. It was at this same time I took a course in cell and molecular biology.


It was fascinating to study up close the nuts and bolts that made cells function the way that they do, and to notice that not only was there no evidence of design, there was positive evidence against design. The endosymbiotic theory of Margulis had not yet been fully accepted, but it seemed to me to be the most compelling evidence against young-earth creationism that anyone could imagine.


The facts are this. Briefly, life is divided into several domains, bacteria, archaeans and eukaryotes. All the eukaryotes have a nucleus that separates their genes from the cell substance (cytoplasm). Animal and plant cells are all eukaryotes. Any eukaryote that can live in oxygen uses energy by oxidizing carbohydrates, such as sugars and starches.


All animal and plant cells that use oxygen burn it in a controlled fashion with an organelle called a mitochondrion. The mitochondrion has its own membrane. The mitochondrion has its own genome. The mitochondrion splits into two and divides by fission like a bacterium does. All plant cells that do photosynthesis do this photosynthesis using chloroplasts. Chloroplasts also have their own membranes and genomes and also split into two and divide by fission like bacteria do. The most curious part for me was this: there are cells that are eukaryotes but they do not have mitochondria or chloroplasts and they use energy by fermenting sugars and starches.


Fermentation happens in the cytoplasm of all eukaryotic cells but the burning of oxygen happens only in the mitochondrion. It became obvious to me that all multicellular life arose from a lucky symbiosis. When it became necessary to burn oxygen, eukaryotic cells were simply cobbled together out of two other cell types, one that fermented and one that oxidized. It seemed absolutely clear to me when I discovered this fact that life itself, down to its cellular level, was the product of accidents and was in fact an elaborate contraption. It was marvelous indeed in its function, but any appearance of design seemed to completely evaporate. After the scales lifted from my eyes it became clear what a confidence game young-earth creationism was. Life's function was entirely explainable by natural (as opposed to supernatural or vitalist) processes.


So I had lost my young-earth creationism and my belief in biblical inerrancy, but I still had the same family: a father and brother who were pastors, and a devout mother. My sister had abandoned religion very early in her life and I was worried that if I did so as well, it would hurt the structure of my family.


For many years I tried to pretend I was a “liberal” Christian, who believed in morality inspired by a remote, semi-deist God, but the more I studied works of theology and philosophy the more I realized there was no fact universally agreed upon, no doctrine beyond dispute, and no practice that didn't bring opprobrium from someone within Christianity and approval from someone else within Christianity. In short, “liberal” Christianity was a pseudonym for “humanism that won't scare your parents”.


Shortly after finishing my residency I was assigned to live in Turkey while I served time in the military. This experience clinched my conviction that religion was wholly man made. There I encountered the same false certainty, the same fervor for dogma, the same disputation over the meaning of holy texts, and the same lack of agreement that I found in Christianity, even the same platitudinous and empty bumper sticker sloganeering and the only thing different was that the religion was now that of Islam. Every argument that Christians make to convince you of the truth of their religion has a mirror image in Islam.


While living there, I was frequently asked what I believed. Since I was unable to defend Christianity, the existence of God, or any evidence of design in the universe, I decided to answer affirmatively, “I am an atheist.”

My Deconversion by Evan


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:19 PM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then why the near panic in evangelical circles?

YEC is a dying cult.


Where do you get your information? I call it quiet confidence not 'near panic' - someone is deceiving you. Have you noticed anyone in a state of near panic or did you hear that on an evo website?

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  


Where do you get this crap - it sounds as if it was made up for a soapie. (softly and with a tear etching a line down his face.)

A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.


Puke puke - this is too much, I'm breaking down!I'm sure evos will read and believe all of this with a feeling of triumphant glee but I think someone is just selling a story here and actually didn't know enough to defend himself.
You'll find the references to science are always vague (so that you'll imagine that the problems are huge) and the problems are usually theological and have nothing to do with science.
As for the general impression given  about Christianity, I’m sorry but I only became a Christian about 10 years ago –when I was an agnostic, I found stupid Christians (lots of stupid people in the world so it said more about the world than the Christians), traditional Christians (people that pretend and have no clue, I don’t know why they bother), mean Christians (like mean people that exist everywhere in every sector of society), useless Christians (much like the useless people found anywhere in the world) and amazing decent Christians that I didn’t have much time for because I preferred to be with people that didn’t make me feel quilty just by their presence. I found that people tend to love to justify themselves by running down Christians and they tend to expect too much from Christians who are just human beings after all. Overall the lesson I’ve learned is that God is perfect, Christians are not and there’s no point in using Christians as a useful way to run God down, especially if you’re busy professing not to believe in God in any case.

If you read all the stories, you’ll find you can’t pin down one clear piece of science anywhere (they don’t want to know the answer) but lots of “If God’s like that, I don’t want to know him.” (theological argumentation).Well that’s fine but don’t look to science to support your philosophical bias and then pretend it’s a scientific problem.

In short, “liberal” Christianity was a pseudonym for “humanism that won't scare your parents”.

Now that’s an accurate chirp –I like the way they put that..

As for Evan - to be an atheist, you have to be a fool which is why the Bible speaks of those "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" "and their foolish hearts were darkened" -it's all a consequence of avoiding the truth and believing a lie preferentially.

Evolution indoctrination by YEC professors.


Was it indoctrination or education? Usually it is the evolutionists that refuse to teach anything but evolution. In my experience the Creationists tend to teach both and want both to be taught. I know I do.

It was fascinating to study up close the nuts and bolts that made cells function the way that they do, and to notice that not only was there no evidence of design, there was positive evidence against design.


You have got to be joking! Even the most foolish and ardent evolutionists use design words when describing the workings of the cell. The only difference is that they then try to explain why even though it looks like design, it is not design. (like Richard Dawkins) It always amazes me the way they wrap their brains around that contradiction. I am obviously too stupid to see no design when I see what clearly appears to be design. I'm going to need more training in the art of self-deception.

It seemed absolutely clear to me when I discovered this fact that life itself, down to its cellular level, was the product of accidents and was in fact an elaborate contraption. It was marvelous indeed in its function, but any appearance of design seemed to completely evaporate.


This guy is too clever for me, I'm afraid. My brain completely refuses to do that trick.







-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:53 AM on July 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:53 AM on July 4, 2009 :

Where do you get your information? I call it quiet confidence not 'near panic' - someone is deceiving you. Have you noticed anyone in a state of near panic or did you hear that on an evo website?


From an Amazon.com book review:

 
13 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars Evangelicals should read this book, May 19, 2008
By Dennis McCallum - See all my reviews
As an evangelical leader myself, reading Wicker's book was not an exercise in edification. But it is a cold dose of reality, and although I don't believe all her claims, I think the thrust of what she says must be heard. She begins with her thesis:

Evangelical Christianity in America is dying. The great evangelical movements of today are not a vanguard. They are a remnant, unraveling at every edge. Look at it any way you like: Conversions. Baptisms. Membership. Retention. Participation. Giving. Attendance. Religious literacy. Effect on culture. All are down and dropping. It's no secret. Even as evangelical forces trumpet their purported political and social victories, insiders are anguishing about their great losses, fearing what the future holds. Nobody knows what to do about it. A lot of people can't believe it. No wonder. The idea that evangelicals are taking over America is one of the greatest publicity scams in history, a perfect coup accomplished by savvy politicos and religious leaders, who understand media weaknesses and exploit them brilliantly. ix

Could this be true? She lays out studies showing the problem is real, mostly from Christian, evangelical sources--Gordon Conwell, Barna, Josh McDowell, Southern Baptist Mission Board, and from some secular, but neutral sources like Pew and Gallup. She, herself, is not neutral. She is a lapsed Baptist who lost her faith in college, like 90% of evangelical children do, according to McDowell. She tries, but fails to conceal her glee over the situation. But I liked the fact that this was coming from a non-evangelical. Do we dare to read what the world thinks of us?

As a non-believer, Wicker is more interested in the issues raised by the Christian right. She portrays the common perception that evangelical churches are growing in America as sort of a plot, or scam, designed to give the right-wing political people more power at election time. I found this part uninteresting and somewhat implausible.

But while I questioned her interpretations at many points, I did not find her main thesis implausible. Our own studies show the same thing. For instance, "The evidence comes from Southern Baptists' own studies. Only 7 percent of members who've been in a Southern Baptist church five years of less are true converts." 62 We have done studies that show the same thing, and Baptists are generally better than other evangelical churches. In some of our studies of famous churches, the percent that report they met Christ in that church is as low as 3 percent.

She rolls out numerous studies in an interesting way, interspersed with stories of people from both favorable and hostile perspective. She concludes, "The truth behind all these numbers is that evangelicals are not converting and cannot convert non-Christian adult Americans, especially native-born white people, in significant numbers." 64 I believe that is as true as any statement in the book.

In a larger view she says, "A small and declining group of people has been portrayed as tremendously powerful and growing so rapidly that they might take over the country--when in fact that number of converts among this group is down and dropping. They are rarely able to convert and adult, middle-class American. Their share of the population is not 25 percent, but at most 7 percent of the country and falling. All these numbers come from the churches themselves." 67

What about the reports that 30 or even 40% of Americans are evangelicals? She de-bunks that myth using work again from evangelical sources, including Barna who made that figure popular. His real test for actual believers of a simple list of 9 basic truths shows that the real number of those who believe the Bible at a level that could be considered evangelical is only 7% of the population. Even this crew is suspect. The rest of the so-called 'born-again' Christians in America don't even know what it means. Wicker observes, "The other larger group [the rest of the 40%] comprised evangelicals who were born again but didn't accept the great majority of the most basic religious tenets that evangelicals are "supposed" to live by. 86 I've known this for years. There's no way most of the people Barna refers to as born-again are true Christians.

As I argue in my upcoming book dealing with Satan, why would the church ever consider facing the pain of change when they believe they're already on the winning track? At pastors' forums I've attended, most Christian leaders believe we are in the midst of a revival in America. Unfortunately, as Wicker proves, nothing could be further from the truth. Unless evangelicals are prepared to face the truth about ourselves, we will be unwilling to think outside the box in a way that will do any good.
-Dennis McCallum,



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:15 AM on July 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:53 AM on July 4, 2009 :


"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  


Where do you get this crap - it sounds as if it was made up for a soapie. (softly and with a tear etching a line down his face.)


You can find Glenn over at
TheologyWeb

I'm sure a couple of your well-researched pithy comments will turn him right around.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:23 AM on July 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis

I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. You may very well be right about the dying of evangelical Christianity in places like America. Materialism and training in evolution always helps to do that. What I’m talking about is the state of confidence in the idea that an intelligent creator is responsible for life rather than  mindless purposeless ‘evolution’. I think that that is far stronger than you think.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:59 AM on July 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Billions of Christians accept a creator and the fact that evolution explains life on earth, there is no conflict.

Only with a decreasing number of fundamentalists who are forced to back down on statements made in earlier years as progress shows them wrong, is there a problem with evolution.  They attempt to put God into a box they can control and understand, and they are doomed to failure.

90% of evangelical Christian kids fall away when they go to college, and I know at least two personally who couldn't believe the lies they were fed from creationist literature when they were young.  They were also taught they had nothing to fear from false prophets.

(Edited by Apoapsis 7/5/2009 at 10:33 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:27 AM on July 5, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:27 AM on July 5, 2009 :

90% of evangelical Christian kids fall away when they go to college,



That makes sense, but personally I have found that many kids in college essentially convert to a form of  evangelical Christianity from liberal and mainstream Christian sects.  


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:35 PM on July 5, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
Billions of Christians accept a creator and the fact that evolution explains life on earth, there is no conflict.


No, they accept a creator and think that evolution is a fact therefore they think that there is no option but to throw the two together. If they just give it a bit of thought, the contradiction is absolute. Evolution allows no place for God unless it is a kind of distant deism where this ‘god’ gets things started and then stands back to watch everything happen. That is an idol, not the God of the Bible that Christians are supposed to believe in. If they want that kind of ‘god’ then they need a different belief system and a ‘god’ that may not interfere in any way in which case they can give up praying as well.

Only with a decreasing number of fundamentalists who are forced to back down on statements made in earlier years as progress shows them wrong


Like what? Easy to say but what are you talking about?

90% of evangelical Christian kids fall away when they go to college


Not surprising considering they go from ‘knowing’ God created them to ‘knowing’ that God had nothing to do with it and that ‘science’ has ‘proven’ that. A little bit confusing. It comes at a particular time in life when they are most prone to go for drugs, sex and rock and roll and need to justify it and thus their new philosophical outlook makes sense at the time - as long as they don’t think too hard.It’s a common human failing to see what you want to see and believe what your teachers are teaching you without much questioning.

They attempt to put God into a box they can control and understand, and they are doomed to failure.


That sounds exactly like what evolution does.

and I know at least two personally who couldn't believe the lies they were fed from creationist literature when they were young.


That usually happens when kids are not taught to think, just what they must  think. Somebody didn’t explain or else they weren’t listening.

They were also taught they had nothing to fear from false prophets.


What? The Bible says ‘beware of false prophets,” so I wonder what cult they were in?

Fencer27
That makes sense, but personally I have found that many kids in college essentially convert to a form of  evangelical Christianity from liberal and mainstream Christian sects.  


That makes sense to me –dead to alive.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:42 AM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:42 AM on July 6, 2009 :


and I know at least two personally who couldn't believe the lies they were fed from creationist literature when they were young.


That usually happens when kids are not taught to think, just what they must  think. Somebody didn’t explain or else they weren’t listening.


How much critical thinking it taught in Sunday school, or Christian school using A Beka material?



They were also taught they had nothing to fear from false prophets.


What? The Bible says ‘beware of false prophets,” so I wonder what cult they were in?


One was EFree, the other Southern Baptist.

Don't underestimate the effect on a kid when they find their elders that they trusted have been lying to them.

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Jer 23:14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.

You freely peddle falsehoods from Wells and others that can't stand 10 minutes of research.  Can you claim a clear conscience?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:14 AM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:42 AM on July 6, 2009 :
Apoapsis
Billions of Christians accept a creator and the fact that evolution explains life on earth, there is no conflict.


No, they accept a creator and think that evolution is a fact therefore they think that there is no option but to throw the two together. If they just give it a bit of thought, the contradiction is absolute. Evolution allows no place for God unless it is a kind of distant deism where this ‘god’ gets things started and then stands back to watch everything happen. That is an idol, not the God of the Bible that Christians are supposed to believe in. If they want that kind of ‘god’ then they need a different belief system and a ‘god’ that may not interfere in any way in which case they can give up praying as well.


There is no contradiction. We know God created everything, but the bible never says how He did it. Think of it like this, in the bible there are multiple scriptures on how people become saved and all talk about different things. On the surface it looks like a contradiction, but it is not. When you put all the passages together you understand that they no longer contradict each other, but rather they complement each other. It is the same way with evolution and genesis, genesis is the who and evolution/abiogenesis is the how.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it does not talk or infer anything about God, like all scientific theories do. I don't know how many theistic evolutionists you've meet, but most of them are not deists and don't believe God is a hands off God after the initial creation.

I think creationism harms children because they are taught things we know today to be false and they blatantly lie to everyone. Perhaps from a Christian perspective their worse crime is the teaching that which contradicts science. This is because when they do go to college they think that the world is nothing more than black and white, and it is either evolution or God. And when they understand how strong evolution is and how they have been lied to their whole lives about a myriad of things, they lose faith. I have talked to several people who have had this experience, and they want nothing to do with Christianity or religion period.






-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 4:28 PM on July 6, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

I prefer to think of the Bible as tackling the question "Why?". It is after all THE most interesting question.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 03:06 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You freely peddle falsehoods from Wells and others that can't stand 10 minutes of research.  


Your ad hominems are a distraction. How about you go back and attempt to answer the rest of that post without running anyone down this time.

How much critical thinking it taught in Sunday school, or Christian school using A Beka material?


I have no idea but critical thinking should be taught - diligently. A spot of thinking critically in the evolution class would be great as well.

Don't underestimate the effect on a kid when they find their elders that they trusted have been lying to them.


Don’t underestimate the effect on a kid that finds that ‘science’ has been lying to them.

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass…


True good advice.

Jer 23:14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies:


Yes, good one, you sure know how to spout it out!

You freely peddle falsehoods from Wells and others that can't stand 10 minutes of research.  Can you claim a clear conscience?


What exactly is your point? Can you?




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:57 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:57 AM on July 7, 2009 :

What exactly is your point?


Did you pass Wells' work off as your own?

Can you?


Yes, thank you.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:13 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer27
There is no contradiction.


The contradiction is absolute and makes the gospel pointless.

We know God created everything, but the bible never says how He did it.


It does say exactly how he did it and not just once either. It says “And God said” and it was what he said. I think if he had made life as a unicellular organism and let it evolve into everything, it would have said something somewhat different and at least given us a clue. It also says in the New Testament and in various other places “by the power of his Word,” in other words he spoke it into existence.

It is the same way with evolution and genesis, genesis is the who and evolution/abiogenesis is the how.


Genesis says who and Genesis says how so why bother with Genesis at all if it is lying about how?

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it does not talk or infer anything about God, like all scientific theories do.


Not true. It says ‘only natural processes are allowed in science’ and then assumes - therefore only natural processes were involved in life. It doesn’t follow naturally, it is a philosophical conclusion, that leaves God as a cause, out of the picture.

They assume it and then they say it is true. That’s how it works.

It certainly does infer something about God –it is called deism –this kind of god is a distant first cause that creates somehow and then does nothing and leaves natural processes to do all the work. Alternatively it is atheism, there is no god involved. I’m not saying that that these are not possibilities, only that they are possibilities not necessarily the truth. A belief in the God of the Bible is called theism, and in this God is actively involved in his creation and can intervene on our behalf. If he couldn’t, why bother to pray? So actually naturalism says a lot about God and is a religion.

I think creationism harms children because they are taught things we know today to be false and they blatantly lie to everyone.


I think evolution is a lie. It’s a lie that I used to believe, now I’ve learned to weigh everything that ‘science’ says carefully and separate fact from philosophy.

Perhaps from a Christian perspective their worse crime is the teaching that which contradicts science.


It only contradicts the philosophy of evolution not science as in real repeatable, experimental, observable science.

And when they understand how strong evolution is and how they have been lied to their whole lives about a myriad of things, they lose faith.


I lost faith in what has been passing as ‘science’ all my life.

I have talked to several people who have had this experience, and they want nothing to do with Christianity or religion period.


I know a lot with the opposite experience.

 






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:26 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:26 AM on July 7, 2009 :
I have talked to several people who have had this experience, and they want nothing to do with Christianity or religion period.


I know a lot with the opposite experience.


Anecdotal information, as is ours.  So which hypothesis is backed by the numerical evidence?


90% of evangelical Christian kids fall away when they go to college




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:17 PM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I apologize in advance for the post being as long as it is. If you want I wouldn't mind if you made this into two or three separate posts.

Quote from Lester10 at 08:26 AM on July 7, 2009 :
Fencer27
There is no contradiction.


The contradiction is absolute and makes the gospel pointless.


Evolution does not make the gospel pointless, it does nothing to the gospels, the word or the message.

We know God created everything, but the bible never says how He did it.


It does say exactly how he did it and not just once either. It says “And God said” and it was what he said.


If you combine both accounts of creation, which are a contradiction in themselves if you interpret it 100% literally, than you have God creating humans in His own image from dust, and breathed into us to give us life. Very descriptive.

I think if he had made life as a unicellular organism and let it evolve into everything, it would have said something somewhat different and at least given us a clue.


Why? If you understand ancient religions than you would know that all societies were religious, and all religions come with mythology, and that the ancients didn't discriminate between factual history and mythology that they created. This was because it wasn't about what literally happened, it was about the message of the story itself. Not to mention I feel that how someone interprets genesis is one of those non-essential issues that is talked about in the New Testament. Even if God did say how we evolved, or came from the dust, no one back then would understand it. When you put everything all together there is no reason why God would tell us that we evolved from prior organisms in the bible even though it is true.

It also says in the New Testament and in various other places “by the power of his Word,” in other words he spoke it into existence.


I know what you're talking about, but I don't know how you connect those passages to a literal interpretation. We do not disagree on that God created the Heavens and the Earth, only on how He did such things.

It is the same way with evolution and genesis, genesis is the who and evolution/abiogenesis is the how.


Genesis says who and Genesis says how so why bother with Genesis at all if it is lying about how?


Genesis does not say how in any detail beyond God did it through his word, and created us in His image through the dirt. And I don't think Genesis lies about anything it was meant to tell. I don't think Genesis was ever meant to be read literally so it isn't lying about how God did it because it never literally says. Plus, to disregard everything because one item doesn't fly is the domino strategy in which few people take seriously.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it does not talk or infer anything about God, like all scientific theories do.


Not true. It says ‘only natural processes are allowed in science’ and then assumes - therefore only natural processes were involved in life.


Not quite, science is the study of the natural world only. Therefore only natural processes are allowed in science. But since science only deals with the natural, it says nothing of the supernatural. That is why scientists are free to believe in whatever they want about the supernatural as long as they adhere to the scientific method.

It doesn’t follow naturally, it is a philosophical conclusion, that leaves God as a cause, out of the picture.


That is not the scientific stance, but a personal one, and one that not all scientists share.

They assume it and then they say it is true. That’s how it works.


No, you need hard evidence to sway the scientific consensus about science matters. You do not assume anything in science.

It certainly does infer something about God –it is called deism


Science doesn't infer anything about God, but science can change peoples minds about God.

Alternatively it is atheism... A belief in the God of the Bible is called theism, and in this God is actively involved in his creation and can intervene on our behalf. If he couldn’t, why bother to pray? So actually naturalism says a lot about God and is a religion.


Naturalism is a philosophy, and it is different than the scientific method. Science doesn't rule out the supernatural, naturalism does. I would consider myself a theist, and if you doubt it ask wisp, as we have duked it out with religion when I first got on this forum.

I think evolution is a lie. It’s a lie that I used to believe, now I’ve learned to weigh everything that ‘science’ says carefully and separate fact from philosophy.


We are obviously on different sides here, unless you want to discuss it further I propose we agree to disagree for this thread.

Perhaps from a Christian perspective their worse crime is the teaching that which contradicts science.


It only contradicts the philosophy of evolution not science as in real repeatable, experimental, observable science.


It contradicts everything we know about biology, astronomy, geology, physics and just about every other science that supports evolution and or a universe that is older than 6K years. Which is almost everything.

And when they understand how strong evolution is and how they have been lied to their whole lives about a myriad of things, they lose faith.


I lost faith in what has been passing as ‘science’ all my life.


That is really too bad, I can't think of anything to say that wouldn't upset you on this topic so I'll leave it at that.

I have talked to several people who have had this experience, and they want nothing to do with Christianity or religion period.


I know a lot with the opposite experience.


As what was said before, I think the statistic that 90% of evangelical Christians loose their faith after college speaks for itself. But I know quite a few people who essentially became evangelical Christians during college, and I guess that would be a different statistic, so we can't compare the whole data and see if there is a net gain/loss of people who were evangelical before and after college, unless you find anything.


(Edited by Fencer27 7/8/2009 at 02:42 AM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:41 AM on July 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I apologize in advance for the post being as long as it is.


No worries, this is a breeze next to Wisp’s extensive posts!

Evolution does not make the gospel pointless, it does nothing to the gospels, the word or the message.


It does a lot to the gospels. The Bible says the world was perfect until man sinned and brought death into the world. Jesus conquered death for us on the cross.
If evolution is true then death is a normal process, not a curse. If evolution is true then why bother to have Jesus die to overcome death and the sin that caused it. Put the two into one story and it sounds seriously ridiculous.

if you interpret it 100% literally, than you have God creating humans in His own image from dust, and breathed into us to give us life. Very descriptive.


It sounds like he didn’t just have to organize all the parts but that life is part of God given to us, the immaterial part. I wonder if a brain could make itself and then function like it does without an extremely intelligent programmer? That may sound ridiculous to you but it is only because you have accepted the evo explanation. I know how to believe it, I used to believe it but I didn’t really give it lots of thought back then. If it didn’t make sense, I wasn’t really bothered.

you would know that all societies were religious


Because we all have a soul and an instinctive knowledge that our body is not all there is. We were given the original story by God and men changed it to suit themselves. That’s where the mythologies come in. Sometimes the mythologies bear a ressemblance to the original story but the parts that don’t suit get chopped out. Other times they just went off and worshipped idols and made God really upset with them because they preferred a lie to the truth. Sounds a lot like what evolution is all about –worshipping the creation rather than the creator just like the Bible said we would.

Even if God did say how we evolved, or came from the dust, no one back then would understand it.


Only if you assume they were stupid people. The Bible says they weren’t, they were made perfect and I’ll bet their brains and bodies worked better than ours that have picked up genetic mutational loads over time. There must be very easy ways to describe evolution that even stupid people could understand (if we assume cavemen type people which we would only do if we assume evolution.) Why give the completely wrong story when with a little bit of effort, he could just tell the truth simply.I don’t think that that excuse sounds reasonable, though I hear it often.

When you put everything all together there is no reason why God would tell us that we evolved from prior organisms in the bible even though it is true.


I don’t doubt that he knew that the day would come when men would be telling frog and prince stories that cut God out of the equation. That’s why it says in Psalm 118:8 “Better to trust in God, than to put your faith in the words of men.”
The Bible also says “it is written” –in the case of evolution, it is written and then rewritten then they think of a better story then they rewrite it. If you go back over the last 40 years in ‘science’ books and see all the different ‘scientific’ stories about what happened to the dinosaurs, you would know not to trust man’s word over God’s.

This was because it wasn't about what literally happened, it was about the message of the story itself.


Do you really think that nobody felt like preserving the real story? Of course if evolution is true then they would have to make it up because as a one-celled organism, they had no brain nor any writing skills to talk of.

When you put everything all together there is no reason why God would tell us that we evolved from prior organisms in the bible even though it is true.


So you think that God preferred to tell us a simple lie over the simple truth knowing that eventually we would find out that evolution created us and then we would doubt his word? That doesn’t sound like the omniscient, omnipotent God of the Bible somehow.

We do not disagree on that God created the Heavens and the Earth, only on how He did such things.


Why make up your own story if he told us how? If it is not true, then lets throw it all away.
Otherwise we can believe just that which suits us and whatever fits in with man’s opinions.

Not quite, science is the study of the natural world only. Therefore only natural processes are allowed in science. But since science only deals with the natural, it says nothing of the supernatural.


I know what you’re saying but that is not how it works. There is methodological naturalism (how we do science) and then there is philosophical naturalism where we assume that since we can only work via natural processes in science, therefore only natural processes were responsible for life. That’s an extension and it is the modern creation myth. Just because we can only explain things now via natural mechanisms does not mean that nature alone created life. It says a lot about God and the supernatural –like that it essentially doesn’t exist and even if the supernatural did exist, it would have nothing to do with anything because we can make up our own story that makes us happy and excludes the supernatural.

That is why scientists are free to believe in whatever they want about the supernatural as long as they adhere to the scientific method.


So in other words, they are welcome to whatever myth they would prefer but science says there is no supernatural and by extension no God to explain anything since God is not allowed, therefore natural processes are all we can use to explain the origin of life. Sounds pretty disjointed especially since ‘science’ is essentially saying that whatever is outside of science is myth and non-real.

That is not the scientific stance, but a personal one, and one that not all scientists share.


Except they are all expected to believe that evolution is true thus whatever their personal belief is, is not real and the naturalistic ‘scientific’ explanation for life is real.

No, you need hard evidence to sway the scientific consensus about science matters. You do not assume anything in science.


I’m afraid they assume that natural processes are responsible for the evolution of life. They prefer that to the Bible’s explanation so they are swayed for philosophical reasons. You do assume in science – you assume naturalism.

Science doesn't infer anything about God


Yes it does. It infers that God is a distant first cause or non-existant.

but science can change peoples minds about God.


Yes generally it has the effect of turning them into agnostics and atheists. That’s what it did to me and at the time it seemed a logical inference. I didn’t understand their assumptions.

Science doesn't rule out the supernatural, naturalism does.


And where does evolution come from but from naturalistic philosophy.

It contradicts everything we know about biology, astronomy, geology, physics and just about every other science that supports evolution


No there is still a lot of good observable repeatable science in all these disciplines.

That is really too bad, I can't think of anything to say that wouldn't upset you on this topic so I'll leave it at that.


Don’t worry, I’m not upset –just determined to make sure other people know a bit more about what is going on in parts of science that is passing for science but is actually not. If they don’t want to consider what I have to say, they have a right to ignore it. I can’t tell anyone what to believe.

so we can't compare the whole data and see if there is a net gain/loss of people who were evangelical before and after college, unless you find anything.


I have no doubt there’s a net loss. If school doesn’t tell you what to think then TV will and it’s not limited to one day a week. They’re telling you ‘the scientific truth’ every day. It's a new church, new priests and a new religion.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:07 AM on July 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well you may not feel that way, however it certainly is the majority belief system of scientists and a lot of the general population; it is part of our culture.
So is the atomic theory. And you don't call that indoctrination. Why?
Atomic models work on atoms that exist here and now.
First: no. Second: Evolution works with animals and fossils that exist here and now.
Much like gravity that has effects that can be repeated and experimented with. There is no comparison to the big claim of macroevolution that cannot be observed or repeated. It is pure fantasy (and philosophy) in the absence of evidence.
We've shown you tons of evidence. Retroviral insertions, for instance. They show us clear branches of the evolutionary tree.

Lester, you shouldn't say that you used to understand and believe in the TOE, because you never understood it.

We did not evolve apart from apes. WE_ARE_APES!
Perhaps I’m just not too concerned with little technical points in the frog and the prince story,
Correct, you're not. And you never were. It's ok, really.
It's not ok to say that you used to believe and understand it. You need to admit (at least to yourself) that you never did.
but let me just say, you are an ape by your own admission (a deluded ape-man technically) and I am a created human being quite separate from the apes and the evidence is in the design of the interrelated parts and the coded DNA that programmes for the proteins required.
Shall i post a DNA sequence so you tell me if you see all that, and guess if it belongs to a human being or not?

We're not specially gifted. We're crap in many aspects, in comparison with other animals (including other apes).

To me it's really amazing the way you manage to believe that more love (or effort or something) was added to our recipe.

You should be theoretically incapable of trusting the workings of your own brain since it was strung together by selection of the best mistakes (mutations) while I can think rationally since my brain was actually designed. You imagine that I am deceived but lets face it, your brain is not to be trusted – everything you think is suspect. You may not have the correct chemicals in the correct quantities going there.
Hahaha! Very true!

And yet i can easily demonstrate that, even if i might be wrong, you MUST be completely wrong.

Because, in spite of those lines you wrote, you believe that my brain is intelligently designed too.
You can't trust your brain if you can't trust mine.
And our brains disagree. So none of the two is trustworthy.

Why would you trust your brain, when you read what mine produces?

The way i see it there are only two choices:
a) I'm right and you're wrong.
b) I'm wrong and you're wrong.

In both cases our brains are not trustworthy.

As for the chemicals, have a couple of whiskeys and tell me if my "faith" in chemicals is wrong.

The observable (micro-evolution) versus the unobservable (macro-evolution) –it’s that simple.
No, it's not. The difference DOES_NOT_EXIST!
Actually it does –
You just love saying "actually". It usually means that you will provide no evidence for it.
observable vs fantasized;

-Yeah... Which is each one?
-Micro and macro.
-And what's the difference?
-Observable and fantasized.
-Yeah, but what's the concrete difference?
-Added information.
-What's "information"?
-What is needed to create DNA.
-How can you tell?
-Because it shows intent.
-How do you check for intent?
-Because it has a purpose.
-Which purpose?
-To create a working organism.
-How do you check for purpose?
-It's obvious.
-Why?
-Because.
it just suits you to lump the two together and pretend to demonstrate the unobservable via the observable and then call it ‘science.’
There's no difference between observable and not observable.

If there is, please, provide some explanation. NOT examples, but some sort of definition.

Once you do that, i'll show you how your definition breaks down.
Shouting at me will not make it true but frustration is to be expected.
You don't like uppercase?
No problem. I'll avoid it if you want and use bold instead. Would that be ok?

Nobody ever could pinpoint it.
They may not be able to pinpoint the edges of variability but it is quite clear that dogs stay dogs and fruitflies stay fruitflies and there is no reason to extrapolate beyond that.
No, it's not clear.
What does "dog" mean to you? Name any trait that, if changed, you'd stop calling it a "dog".
Would six feet make you stop calling it a "dog"?
That would be very hard to select for indeed. But even if we pull it out, you'll say "That's just a six legged dog."

Nothing will ever please you.

And you demand "proofs" of a change much more rapid than what the TOE explains.

And we could demand the same thing from you. Because it's you who say that millions of species sprung from a bunch of animals in the ark, just 4k years ago.

Where's the evidence for such a quick change????

Oh, and that every species ever found fits smoothly in the phylogenetic tree of life. We can even predict what we'll find and where.
You keep saying that but it’s not actually true. There are contradictory trees produced between morphological and biomolecular data.
Pardon me. You're changing the subject. I did not say that all models of the phylogenetic tree agree, but that every species fit in the phylogenetic tree.
Morphological and biomolecular data?
Fuck morphology! We have cases of convergent evolution!
Morphology should only be used as a general guide. And perhaps not even as that anymore. It used to be useful when we didn't have biomolecular data.

Our tools keep improving. We're more precise now. That's NOT a problem.

It tells us that apes and humans are remarkably similar in some ways and remarkably different in others, but it does not tell us how either the similarities or the dissimilarities came to exist.
Ok, you might believe that (in spite of the evidence), but even then there's no reason not to call us "apes".

Your loving Yahweh decided to make you an ape. Perhaps he could have made you a reptile if he wanted, but he made you an ape.

If you disagree and have some valid elements to do so, please, post them in "Taxonomy and apes".

I've asked you if you would go to a place where the Geiger counter goes nuts. There's nothing to be seen, so no worries, right?
I’d think you’d be inclined to ignore a Geiger counter actually
Oh... Actually...
since you can’t seem to see that effects can have unseen causes.
Whoever said that?
Everything has unseen causes!
Fuck sight!
It's you who's obsessed with "observable vs non observable", not me.

There you go again using the observable variability of life to support your claim that macroevolution happens and is useful to us somehow. Nobody disputes variability, only we say that it has limits. You need to demonstrate that there are no limits.
I didn't say that there are no limits. There are plenty of limits! For instance, evolution can't go back and start a new path. That's a limit. The poor whales now need to go to the surface to breathe!

Now you imagine some limits, but can't pinpoint them. Instead of something real you speak of abstract concepts that you don't even understand, such as purpose and information.
Instead of real things you dwell in analogies that you think are good.

Just name it, and we'll debunk it -it's that simple.
The fossil record does not support evolution.
It does not support YOUR version of it, which is wrong, because you don't understand Evolution (or the fossil record).
You say that because it shows gaps, when that is not a real problem.

Even the complete absence of fossils wouldn't be a real problem.
Molecular genetics does not support evolution.
Explain. Start a thread if needed.
Most of the geological column doesn’t exist in most places –where is our missing time? –no, erosion did not take it away.
Expand. Start a thread if needed. We'll debunk it there.
Strata in incorrect order.
Show me the money.
Invertebrates in ‘oldest Cambrian rocks’ that never evolved to this day.
How is that a problem? Tell me how you think that's a problem, and i'll explain where you got Evolution wrong.
The Cambrian explosion from nowhere.
There's debate about why it happened (but the Cambrian explosion isn't as impressive as creationists imagine it to be). But tell me how it's a problem for Evolution.
Fish from nowhere.
Click there >>Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish
Everything else from nowhere –explosive innovation with nothing showing where they came from.
Is it now up to me to explain to you where EVERYTHING came from?
Bats and whales
What about them? Why didn't Yahweh give bats hollow bones, and gills to the whales?
The list is endless…
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm serious here. Start threads if you have something.

What exactly do you mean that observation doesn’t work? What is evidence – the unobservable? Sounds like new evo hocus pocus being cooked up here. What are you trying to say Wisp????
"Observation" doesn't work to separate "science" from "non-science" (by "observation" i mean your version of it, which is uncertain and unclear, as you've never tried to clarify it).

Animals are observable. They all fit in the phylogenetic tree. We observe that.
We don’t dispute that animals exist and are observable and can be classified. Is that how confused you are about what divides us?
Apparently yes.
Like I’ve said, what exactly does a phylogenetic tree tell us?
That branches stem from the trunk.
Is it a tree at all?
Yeap.
Can this tree/ bush/lawn be explained as a result of naturalistic processes?
It has been.

“And God said: Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.” Genesis 1:24 As far as we know this is all that happens, guesswork and extrapolation aside.
Nah. Nobody knows what you mean by "kinds". Not even yourselves.


Cladus: Eukaryota
Supergroup: Opisthokonta
Regnum: Animalia
Subregnum: Eumetazoa
Cladus: Bilateria
Cladus: Nephrozoa
Cladus: Protostomia
Cladus: Ecdysozoa
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Hexapoda
Classis: Insecta
Subclassis: Pterygota
Divisio: Neoptera
Subdivisio: Endopterygota
Superordo: Panorpida
Ordo: Lepidoptera
Subordo: Glossata
Infraordo: Heteroneura
Divisio: Ditrysia
Sectio: Cossina
Subsection: Bombycina
Superfamilia: Bombycoidea
Series: Saturniiformes
Familia: Saturniidae
Subfamilia: Saturniinae
Genus: Rothschildia

Just tell us where the lie begins. That would be concrete, instead of talking about information and purpose.

Overall the lesson I’ve learned is that God is perfect, Christians are not and there’s no point in using Christians as a useful way to run God down
Yes, there's a point. The point that Christianity doesn't make you any better, while the Christian doctrine says that it does.

As for Evan - to be an atheist, you have to be a fool which is why the Bible speaks of those "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" "and their foolish hearts were darkened" -it's all a consequence of avoiding the truth and believing a lie preferentially.
Yeah, the Bible also says
"But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Jesus) Mat 5:22 Go figure.

Was it indoctrination or education? Usually it is the evolutionists that refuse to teach anything but evolution.
We teach Math too.
In my experience the Creationists tend to teach both and want both to be taught.
Argumentative fallacy: False dilemma. Not "both". There are tons of creation myths. The only thing that makes yours special is the number of (voting) followers, which is circumstantial (and mostly local).
Would you give Scientologists equal time, with Xenu blowing people next to volcanoes?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:38 AM on July 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution works with animals and fossils that exist here and now.


Great – but they are dead. We have trouble observing them doing their controversial conversions in that state.

Shall i post a DNA sequence so you tell me if you see all that, and guess if it belongs to a human being or not?


That won’t really tell me enough –we don’t know enough to interpret the DNA code in a meaningful enough way and we all have DNA whether plant or animal because we have a common designer.

To me it's really amazing the way you manage to believe that more love (or effort or something) was added to our recipe.

To me it’s really amazing that you apparently can’t tell the difference or at least have trouble telling the difference.
Because, in spite of those lines you wrote, you believe that my brain is intelligently designed too.
You can't trust your brain if you can't trust mine.
And our brains disagree. So none of the two is trustworthy.

I can trust my brain and you’re right, I know that yours is intelligently designed too.I’ll bet that you actually do as well, all the garbage notwithstanding.
If our brains disagree it is because yours can’t be trusted –it is philosophically perverse. Someone just might be right and that would be me.
You just love saying "actually". It usually means that you will provide no evidence for it.

No it means that I need to provide as little evidence as you do –I just have to disagree because I do.
There's no difference between observable and not observable.

Well that’s strange so does that mean we can just say anything we like and nobody can see the evidence because there’s no difference between what we can and cannot see? You have to be able to note where observable reality ends and imaginary extrapolation begins- surely.
I didn't say that there are no limits. There are plenty of limits!

Oh I’m surprised you believe that –I have always thought evolutionists were endowed with endless imagination. Tomatoes can only get to a certain size and then they can’t get any bigger but that hypothetical pre-whale just kept getting bigger! It’s amazing.
Would six feet make you stop calling it a "dog"?

With a bit of genetic manipulation, I expect a dog could get 6 legs and still be a dog as long as the genome is still from a dog. Information for legs is already there after all. It’d be like the 4-winged fruitfly –nothing new, just overdone and defective. It’ll never not be a dog actually. I think dogs have inherent limitations –it’s you who thinks they’ll eventually turn into an elephant or a mouse or something if you just keep on selectively breeding. Maybe if it developed a trunk….but then I’d know somebody’s been experimenting on the DNA level and if that was absolutely excluded, then I’d have to believe in macro-evolution.
And you demand "proofs" of a change much more rapid than what the TOE explains.

Yes, the TOE likes the sorts of ‘proofs’ that’ll you’ll never see in a million years.
And we could demand the same thing from you. Because it's you who say that millions of species sprung from a bunch of animals in the ark, just 4k years ago.

Well you can see from the dog population how a ‘kind’ can diversify rapidly so what’s the problem?
Morphology should only be used as a general guide. And perhaps not even as that anymore.

Terrible how the truth keeps changing and changing with evolutionists. It’s pretty confusing. What’s true today isn’t necessarily true tomorrow- like shifting sands…
When you think of all the things that the dinosaurs are said to have died from over just the last four decades! I wonder what they will have died from in 10 years time….
Our tools keep improving. We're more precise now.

Don’t worry about the tools –you guys just need to keep your imaginations tuned, that’ll do it with or without the tools.
You say that because it shows gaps, when that is not a real problem.

If you believe in evolution, it should be.
Even the complete absence of fossils wouldn't be a real problem.


You’re right, your imaginations would still be able to do the job as well as ever. Actually you’d have more latitude, which would be a good thing.

Invertebrates in ‘oldest Cambrian rocks’ that never evolved to this day.
How is that a problem? Tell me how you think that's a problem, and i'll explain where you got Evolution wrong.


Well it just seems strange that some unicellular organisms evolved all the way to human beings in the time that some invertebrates changed pretty much not at all. I know, I know, evolutionists say it was because they were happy and didn’t need to change but how unhappy must you be to turn all the way from one cell into an elephant or a whale??? Imagine that land mammal swimming and swimming and so desperately unhappy, so discontented or ill fitting in its environment. It just keeps changing and changing –all those millions of fortunate random changes just going and going. Did the animal’s genes just know that it needed flippers? How did that swimming action transfer itself to the reproductive cells so that flipper mutations just started happening, so fortuitously, so many, so co-ordinated. And it had to grow so BIG to be a whale from what –a cat, or was it an hyena or sorry a hippo. I know I’m very difficult to train in your ways of thinking –I’m so resistant to your logic, must be in my genes.

I’m waiting for an explanation ok, I really want this to make sense.

The Cambrian explosion from nowhere.
There's debate about why it happened (but the Cambrian explosion isn't as impressive as creationists imagine it to be). But tell me how it's a problem for Evolution.


Well there are probably 100 000 000 invertebrate fossils in the fossil record but each type appears without ancestors. They’re pretty distinct and yet we don’t know where they all came from. If sea pens, embryos and bacteria are found below the Cambrian, why can’t we find the ancestors of all these invertebrates or even some of them. Why do we find so many of the same things? We have so many many invertebrate fossils but they are all distinct and appear fully formed from nowhere. Surely by now we should have found something to show us that evolution is not just all in the mind? The debate about how it happened will be as diverse as the imaginations of those partaking in the debate. The common factor is that they all believe in what they can’t see and that is that these Cambrian invertebrates evolved from less complex predecessors that can’t be found. I believe that they’ll never be found and do you know why? Because I believe that  they never existed. Tell me why this is not a problem for evolution?

Fish from nowhere.
Click there >>Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish


That’s just a story. You evolution types can never seem to tell the difference. You make up a story linking this and that that you KNOW evolved somehow from one another and then when you believe it, we’re supposed to also believe it.  We can’t do that –don’t you see. We don’t have the imagination. We want reason to believe! We have 100 billion fossil invertebrates represented in the fossil record and 500 000 fossil fish collected and in museums and between the sudden and fully fishy varieties that appear is this enormous gap where the evidence for the transition between invertebrates and fish is just missing. I could also make it up if I tried and I believed but I want to see something believable because I need convincing. There’s more than enough fossils out there so why are the gaps just more obvious than ever?

Bats and whales
What about them? Why didn't Yahweh give bats hollow bones, and gills to the whales?


No, where did they come from? Why are there 1000 fossil bats found fully formed and pretty much exactly as they look today? Where are the transitionals that show how the wing membrane started to form and how the mammal’s fingers started to elongate to support the wing membrane? Why are all the bats found fully formed and capable of flying? It’s no use inventing where they came from –I want to see some sort of change from something to a bat.
 
Like I’ve said, what exactly does a phylogenetic tree tell us?
That branches stem from the trunk.


So why do we only see the twigs at the ends of the branches?

Is it a tree at all?
Yeap.


In your dreams Wisp but what I want is the real story.

Can this tree/ bush/lawn be explained as a result of naturalistic processes?
It has been.


Yes, but there could be a better explanation that fits the evidence.

Was it indoctrination or education? Usually it is the evolutionists that refuse to teach anything but evolution.
We teach Math too


Yes I know like 1+1=16 (that’s the 14 unseen links between the one we can see and the other one that we can see) – your math also makes no sense to me.  





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:17 AM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:17 AM on July 17, 2009 :

Bats and whales
What about them? Why didn't Yahweh give bats hollow bones, and gills to the whales?


No, where did they come from? Why are there 1000 fossil bats found fully formed and pretty much exactly as they look today? Where are the transitionals that show how the wing membrane started to form and how the mammal’s fingers started to elongate to support the wing membrane? Why are all the bats found fully formed and capable of flying? It’s no use inventing where they came from –I want to see some sort of change from something to a bat.






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:48 PM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's a bat -just like the 999 or so others in the fossil record. And your point is...


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:03 AM on July 18, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's a bat -just like the 999 or so others in the fossil record. And your point is...

Wrong again, from here:
Bat Fossil

"When we first saw it, we knew it was special," says lead author Nancy Simmons of AMNH. "It's clearly a bat, but unlike any previously known. In many respects it is a missing link between bats and their non-flying ancestors."
Dating the rock formation in which the fossil was found put its age at 52 million years. Onychonycteris was not the only bat alive at the time — fossils of Icaronycteris, a more modern bat that could echolocate, are found in the same formations.
A careful examination of Onychonycteris' physical characteristics revealed several surprising features. For example, it had claws on all five of its fingers, whereas modern bats have, at most, claws on only two digits of each hand. The limb proportions of Onychonycteris also are different from all other bats — the hind legs are longer and the forearm shorter — and more similar to those of climbing mammals that hang under branches, such as sloths and gibbons.
Finally, an answer
The fossil's limb form and the appearance of claws on all the fingers suggest that Onychonycteris may have been a skilled climber. Long fingers, a keeled breastbone and other features indicate that Onychonycteris could fly under its own power like modern bats. It had short, broad wings, which suggest that it probably could not fly as far or as fast as most bats that came after it. Instead of flapping its wings continuously while flying it may have alternated flapping and gliding while in the air. Onychonycteris' teeth indicate that its diet consisted primarily of insects, just like that of most living bats.
"We don't know what the initial incentive was to take to the air," Gunnell says. "My thought is that these bats probably were commuters at first — developing the ability to fly allowed them to travel to a particular place to feed, then fly back to their nesting area." Eventually, selective pressures likely favored the development of more sustained and agile flight, allowing bats to hunt on the wing.
Despite Onychonycteris' resemblance to animals that came after it, its skull lacks features in and around the ear seen in bats that use echolocation to navigate and hunt. The structure of its feet and ankles, which include a special, spur-like bone that likely supported a tail membrane, led the researchers to conclude that Onychonycteris had a broad tail. Researchers believe that modern bats use this tail to capture prey in flight, but that the structure probably was used as an airfoil to aid maneuvering. Without echolocation, Onychonycteris likely had to make do with visual, olfactory or passive audio cues to hunt."

So no, it's not just a bat, it's a transitional bat, just what you asked for!


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:02 AM on July 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very interesting article.  I've read that bats are generally poor candidates for leaving fossils because of their more delicate structure.  Even so, this is an excellent example of the process of evolution.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 04:46 AM on July 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38

Well here we have it, just exactly what we need to illustrate 'evolution indoctrination', the title of this thread.

Your bat looks exactly like every other fossil bat I've ever seen. Do you know that you can get different varieties of finches, different kinds of turtles, my nephew is missing 2 fingers and he is not evolving.
You should really try separating the evidence (the actual fossil) from the wonderful little inventive story that accompanies it. Stick with the facts and lose the fiction.

If you and Orion find this convincing evidence for bat evolution, then I can only feel sorry for both of you.

Orion
I've read that bats are generally poor candidates for leaving fossils because of their more delicate structure.


Excuses, excuses. So all the bat fossils we have just happen to not include anything that looks intermediate?

Even so, this is an excellent example of the process of evolution.


You really have to be joking.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:04 AM on July 18, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your bat looks exactly like every other fossil bat I've ever seen. Do you know that you can get different varieties of finches, different kinds of turtles, my nephew is missing 2 fingers and he is not evolving.
You should really try separating the evidence (the actual fossil) from the wonderful little inventive story that accompanies it. Stick with the facts and lose the fiction.


Please read the article over again. The fossil may look similar to our untrained eyes, but they have identified several key differences in the fossil from modern bats: a lack of echolocation device in the skull, claws on the wings that enable it to climb, and shorter, broader wings that would have made gliding much more sustainable than actual flight. All of this is entirely consistent with group of animals that were at first grounded and gradually became able to fly as modern bats do today.

Excuses, excuses. So all the bat fossils we have just happen to not include anything that looks intermediate?


First I'd like to point out an inaccuracy in that statement. Bat fossils are hard to find in general. It's not just the transitional fossils that are hard to find, but even fossilized evidence of modern bats, and it's for the same reason: as Apoapsis said, bats have very delicate structures and don't fossilize easily.

Now to the important part. By automatically dismissing any scientific explanation for a difficulty in finding evidence as nothing but an "excuse," you're making your own excuses. Evolution doesn't predict that most fossils will be easy to find. On the contrary, a simple understanding of paleontology dictates that fossils will be extremely hard to find. You either agree with that or you don't, and it seems like you genuinely think fossils should be easy to find.

Beyond the out of hand dismissal of a multitude of important evidence simply because its explanation is too complex for your own tastes, another problem is that position is inconsistent with YECreationism as well. If in fact it is easy for fossilization to occur and such an enjoyable abundance of animals will be left behind for our viewing, why aren't there millions upon millions of fossils found everywhere we look? 6000 years would have allowed for many, many generations of animals to exist, die, and become fossilized, yet if you're correct in automatically assuming that fossilization is so easy, you then have to explain why these animals are so sparsely distributed in the rock.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 7/18/2009 at 12:10 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:07 PM on July 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fossil may look similar to our untrained eyes, but they have identified several key differences in the fossil from modern bats


It doesn’t just look similar-its proportions are the same, it’s wings are just as long as all the ones I have seen from museum exhibits and modern bats also have claws on their wings so in what way does that make them more primitive or transitional?

Claws on wings - Many species use claws to cling to surfaces during
resting and hibernation. A good place to start for more information is Bat
Conservation International:
http://www.batcon.org/

All of this is entirely consistent with group of animals that were at first grounded and gradually became able to fly as modern bats do today.


You expect therefore you see –Morton’s demon –like I say it looks exactly the same and what we really need is much shorter wings so that we can see the little furry mammal it started to evolve from in order to truly say that a transitional has been found. It’s a bat, it’s that simple but if I needed funding maybe I’d imagine that it was gliding rather than flying with actual wings. Evolutionists were rather keen to find a transitional –sometimes zeal can do a lot for imagination. I don’t even necessarily say it is done on purpose but the way you evolutionists rally around protecting your story is quite creepy.

Bat fossils are hard to find in general.


Yes there are only about 1000 in the fossil record but they are all about the same –fully developed bats, minor variations aside. Your point is like saying that if a hippo fossil has two toenails instead of five we should be correct in assuming that it is a different species or only on its way to becoming a hippo. Maybe that sounds dumb to you but what you’ve said about the bat sounds just as ridiculous to me.

but even fossilized evidence of modern bats


Yes like I’ve said there are only about 1000 specimens but it’s really funny to me that all of them are in the same state of development (wing size and obvious features) and none show you where they evolved from. There should be at least a few examples of transitionals that look like proper transitionals, and not just to the ‘experienced eye’ that appears to pick up trivialities. You need to really be short of evidence to resort to that sort of hair splitting.

Evolution doesn't predict that most fossils will be easy to find.


Well they actually are pretty easy to find all over the world –there are billions found all over the world and in the region of 200 million in museums worldwide. Since you maintain that this is a record of life of the past 635 million I expect you think there would be a lot more fossils if fossils were easily formed under normal circumstances. The difference with the creation viewpoint is that we don’t believe that uniformatarianism is valid. We believe that there was one worldwide catastrophe around 4,500 years ago in which everything living (except for very few of course)
died en masse and that, under the prevailing conditions of that time, fossilization occurred rapidly and efficiently starting with the bottom ocean invertebrates, then the fish, then the amphibians and the first plants, then the slower moving land animals etc with the humans and the birds being the least likely to fossilize due to their ability to climb, fly, think etc. The humans were more likely to drown eventually and decompose rather than being entombed in sediment though obviously some would have been fossilized. In one area alone in South Africa, billions of fish are found washed together en masse. Signs of mass death rather than slow fossilization at the bottom of lakes seem to me to be a better explanation of the fossil record. 95% of the fossil record is marine life.Of course, a lot of ID proponents are not with me on this but they nonetheless contend right alongside creationists that life had to have been designed and that the fossil record is not consistent with evolution for whatever reason.

paleontology dictates that fossils will be extremely hard to find. You either agree with that or you don't, and it seems like you genuinely think fossils should be easy to find.


It’s not that they’re hard to find but that they are hard to form under normal circumstances. We don’t believe that the majority of the fossils were formed under normal circumstances which is why they are so well fossilized. The sudden death and pressure of sediments prevented their decomposition. Fossils are only really found in sedimentary rock which are waterborne layers transferred from one place to another.

Beyond the out of hand dismissal of a multitude of important evidence simply because its explanation is too complex for your own tastes

It’s not actually too complex, it’s too ludicrous.

6000 years would have allowed for many, many generations of animals to exist, die, and become fossilized


The animals that were buried en masse died at one particular time in history so there are no ‘many generations’ fossilized. It was a worldwide once off catastrophe.    




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 3:56 PM on July 18, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fossil may look similar to our untrained eyes, but they have identified several key differences in the fossil from modern bats


It doesn’t just look similar-its proportions are the same, it’s wings are just as long as all the ones I have seen from museum exhibits


I have a very hard time accepting that you have taken any measurements of this fossil, let alone compared those measurements to measurements of bats at a museum.

and modern bats also have claws on their wings so in what way does that make them more primitive or transitional?


A fair question. The answer is in how the claws are positioned (this is something you would have found out had you read the report on the finding).

Many bats of today have claws, but they do not have their claws on their fingers. Modern bats have claws on the equivalent of their thumb, but the bones that branch out and form the structure of their wings (their fingers) have no claws.

This fossil, however, does have claws on its fingers, as do all rodents, the hypothesized ancestors of bats.

All of this is entirely consistent with group of animals that were at first grounded and gradually became able to fly as modern bats do today.


You expect therefore you see –Morton’s demon


What I see is a fossilized bat that has wing proportions that are shorter and broader than that of modern bats, claws on its fingers, and a skull that according to those who have researched the fossil does not have a place in the skull that would allow for echolocation. I see this fossil contained in a layer of rock that does not contain fossils of modern bats, a rock that was found in layers placed below recently-formed layers. Please tell me where my eyes are deceiving me.

–like I say it looks exactly the same


We've already covered this: It looks the same to your untrained eye. You haven't studied this fossil in depth, and even if you had, you're not expert on the anatomy of bats. I don't mean to be insulting -- that fact describes both of us. If you disagree, I ask you this: Can you see the lack of an echolocation device in the bat's skull?

and what we really need is much shorter wings so that we can see the little furry mammal it started to evolve from in order to truly say that a transitional has been found. It’s a bat, it’s that simple but if I needed funding maybe I’d imagine that it was gliding rather than flying with actual wings.


Maybe you would imagine such a thing without the proper evidence, but fortunately a peer-review process exists that would not only prevent such poor research from receiving funding, but likely punish the author. Due to the peer-review process, other qualified scientists are on hand to give second opinions -- these are scientists who have no stake in the grant. The peer review process is precisely how inaccurate data (even inaccurate data that supports evolution, such as Piltdown Man) are discovered.

Evolutionists were rather keen to find a transitional –sometimes zeal can do a lot for imagination.


Perhaps it can, sometimes. Unfortunately for you, you've provided us nothing to suggest that zeal is at fault for the significance of this particular discovery.

I don’t even necessarily say it is done on purpose but the way you evolutionists rally around protecting your story is quite creepy.


There is very little "protecting" being done in the actual field. While newspapers are always happy to publish headlines such as "Was Darwin wrong?" or "Another Nail in the Coffin against Creationism" whenever a new discovery is made, this is a far cry from the way the actual scientists handle their discoveries. Many become outraged when their findings are exaggerated to the extent that they often are in the popular media.

Bat fossils are hard to find in general.


Yes there are only about 1000 in the fossil record but they are all about the same –fully developed bats, minor variations aside.


Modern bats account for approximately 20% of all mammalian species today. They are by far the most diverse group of mammals on Earth. It makes sense that we find more modern bats, as well as more different kinds of them, than we do prehistoric variants because modern bats outnumber their ancestors on an exponential level. Considering that there are billions upon billions of modern bats across the globe, the fact that we can only find about 1000 fossilized modern bats is a testament to just how rare it is for a bat to become fossilized.

Your point is like saying that if a hippo fossil has two toenails instead of five we should be correct in assuming that it is a different species or only on its way to becoming a hippo. Maybe that sounds dumb to you but what you’ve said about the bat sounds just as ridiculous to me.


Your comparison sounds dumb to me because it is a very poor comparison. None of the possible mammalian ancestors of modern hippos had two toes -- no mammal in all of Africa has two toes. It would not make sense to conclude that a fossil must be the ancestor of modern hippos if the only evidence in support of that conclusion is something irrelevant and even harmful such as a missing number of toes.

It's a poor comparison because that's not at all the same line of thinking we use when we look at this transitional fossil between grounded rodents and bats. Unlike the two-toed hippo example, this fossil does have traits that connect it with rodents, such as clawed fingers, no echolocation, and lesser-developed wings.

There should be at least a few examples of transitionals that look like proper transitionals, and not just to the ‘experienced eye’ that appears to pick up trivialities. You need to really be short of evidence to resort to that sort of hair splitting.


How you know this, I'm not sure we'll ever find out.

Evolution doesn't predict that most fossils will be easy to find.


Well they actually are pretty easy to find all over the world


Going to have to interject here and disagree.

–there are billions found all over the world and in the region of 200 million in museums worldwide.


Right, but countless trillions of animals have existed throughout Earth's history. A few billion out of many more trillion... Not good odds.

Since you maintain that this is a record of life of the past 635 million I expect you think there would be a lot more fossils if fossils were easily formed under normal circumstances. The difference with the creation viewpoint is that we don’t believe that uniformatarianism is valid. We believe that there was one worldwide catastrophe around 4,500 years ago in which everything living (except for very few of course)
died en masse and that, under the prevailing conditions of that time, fossilization occurred rapidly and efficiently


You could refuse to accept the premises underlying evolution because of any belief you have, but that doesn't even the playing field I'm afraid. There is no evidence of a world-wide catastrophe taking place 4,500 years ago, and without such evidence it would be foolish to proceed under the assumption that it did take place.

starting with the bottom ocean invertebrates, then the fish, then the amphibians and the first plants, then the slower moving land animals etc with the humans and the birds being the least likely to fossilize due to their ability to climb, fly, think etc.


Hm... I don't think any of this is possible at all. It's odd, for instance, that that a bunch of crocodiles couldn't outlive land-dwelling dinosaurs. It also seems strange that even bird embryos that were trapped in eggs in nests on the ground were able to outrun the dinosaurs.

The humans were more likely to drown eventually and decompose rather than being entombed in sediment though obviously some would have been fossilized.


Very strange that none of the humans were fossilized along with any dinosaurs. Not even a single footprint.

In one area alone in South Africa, billions of fish are found washed together en masse. Signs of mass death rather than slow fossilization at the bottom of lakes seem to me to be a better explanation of the fossil record.


I certainly agree. Mass extinctions occured many times throughout the history of life. However, do we have any evidence that this particular mass extinction is due to a flood? That wouldn't explain why so many fish died, as after all, they are more than capable of surviving any form of rainfall. It's usually earthquakes, meteors, or droughts that get the fish rather than... more water. But an equally important question is this: What evidence do we have that this extinction occurred 4,500 years ago?


95% of the fossil record is marine life.Of course, a lot of ID proponents are not with me on this but they nonetheless contend right alongside creationists that life had to have been designed and that the fossil record is not consistent with evolution for whatever reason.


I'm not clear on your point though. How is 95% of the fossil record being comprised of marine life a problem for evolution? Such a fact supports evolution more than anything: Marine life is in the water, so it has a much easier opportunity to become fossilized due to the soft sedimentary layer at the bottoms of bodies of water. Moreover, most life on this planet is marine life, and that was even more so the case earlier on in life's history.

paleontology dictates that fossils will be extremely hard to find. You either agree with that or you don't, and it seems like you genuinely think fossils should be easy to find.


It’s not that they’re hard to find but that they are hard to form under normal circumstances. We don’t believe that the majority of the fossils were formed under normal circumstances which is why they are so well fossilized. The sudden death and pressure of sediments prevented their decomposition. Fossils are only really found in sedimentary rock which are waterborne layers transferred from one place to another.


Precisely. This suggests that most land-dwelling animals died near a source of slow-moving water, after which their corpse eventually found the bottom of this body of water and was covered by additional sediment. Floods can produce a similar result, but only under a very specific condition: near a riverbed with plenty of soft sedimentary soil to go around. A roaring flood that washed across the entire Great Plains of the United States or the Colorado Rockies would not be a condition for good fossilization, as there is almost no sediment with which to bury the corpses.

Of course, even if a world-wide flood was conducive to mass fossilization, we have no reason to suspect that it actually happened. This is disregarding the impossibility of such an event happening, due to among other things the fact that there is not enough water on Earth to cover the planet in the first place, or the fact that clouds cannot hold so much water without raining well before one world-wide event.

Beyond the out of hand dismissal of a multitude of important evidence simply because its explanation is too complex for your own tastes


It’s not actually too complex, it’s too ludicrous.


I'm not the one proposing that every bird egg in existence at the time managed to swim faster than every dinosaur egg at the time.

On a serious note, I want to know exactly what you believe to be ludicrous with this situation: Bats are frail; they do not fossilize easily. There are many, many more bats today than there ever were before, and so, understandably, of the few fossils we find, they are almost all of more modern bats.

6000 years would have allowed for many, many generations of animals to exist, die, and become fossilized


The animals that were buried en masse died at one particular time in history so there are no ‘many generations’ fossilized. It was a worldwide once off catastrophe.


How do you know they all died at one particular time in history?





(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 7/18/2009 at 5:49 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:46 PM on July 18, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:07 AM on July 8, 2009 :
No worries, this is a breeze next to Wisp’s extensive posts!


lols

Evolution does not make the gospel pointless, it does nothing to the gospels, the word or the message.


It does a lot to the gospels.


Evolution did nothing more to the bible than the theory of gravity, or the germ theory. Perhaps you are against them as well?

The Bible says the world was perfect until man sinned and brought death into the world. Jesus conquered death for us on the cross.


You take a very literal meaning to the bible. I, not so much. I believe the bible is not talking about the literal creation of the universe in genesis, and with two contradictory creation stories (if read literally) I can easily see why the vast majority of Jews and Christians don't.

If evolution is true then death is a normal process, not a curse. If evolution is true then why bother to have Jesus die to overcome death and the sin that caused it. Put the two into one story and it sounds seriously ridiculous.


Death is a normal process. Your question is simple but the full answer is long, can you be more specific or elaborate so I know how to respond better?

It sounds like he didn’t just have to organize all the parts but that life is part of God given to us, the immaterial part.


Are you talking about the soul?

I wonder if a brain could make itself and then function like it does without an extremely intelligent programmer? That may sound ridiculous to you but it is only because you have accepted the evo explanation.


No evolutionist says that the brain magically made itself, it was a very long process, and you don't have to be a neuroscientist to understand the basic evolutionary development of the brain, you could probably find it with a little time on google. It all makes sense, how does it not? And don't go and look up something we don't yet understand and say we have no idea what is going on over here and say it was designed and IC. That is a God of the gaps argument and I hate them, they demean God and logically make no sense.

Because we all have a soul and an instinctive knowledge that our body is not all there is.


The ancient Hebrews would have disagreed with you. When they wrote genesis they did not distinguish between the body and the soul, all was there according to them.

We were given the original story by God


Um, you do know genesis is not the oldest recorded religious documents. Gilgamesh is just one example that is older, and Hinduism is considered the oldest religion in the world by all, if not most, experts in relative fields.

But for the sake of argument lets say that Adam and Eve were real, the garden was real and so on and so forth. How do you explain the migration of all the humans from one point on the globe to everywhere after the fall without any technology in a very short time?

and men changed it to suit themselves. That’s where the mythologies come in.


Genesis is mythology by definition. All religions have mythology, Christianity has no exemption.

Sometimes the mythologies bear a ressemblance to the original story but the parts that don’t suit get chopped out. Other times they just went off and worshipped idols and made God really upset with them because they preferred a lie to the truth.


Where would the Greek mythology fall into all of this? I see no resemblance what so ever in their mythology, it is like they never had contact with the original story.

Sounds a lot like what evolution is all about –worshipping the creation rather than the creator just like the Bible said we would.


No one worships evolution, and if they did it would go against the very methodology of science. I have also found that many creationists and or fundamentalists flirt with the fine line of worshiping the bible rather than God Himself. I am not saying you do such a thing, but it is an observation.

Even if God did say how we evolved, or came from the dust, no one back then would understand it.


Only if you assume they were stupid people.


Quite the contrary, they were probably very smart, had to be back then. If you weren't you'd get killed. I'm not saying they were stupid, but that they didn't have the pre-knowledge to understand abiogenesis, just a few hundred years ago people thought that cells were simple, these people didn't even know about cells.

The Bible says they weren’t, they were made perfect


Only Adam and Eve were made perfect, not entire populations.

There must be very easy ways to describe evolution that even stupid people could understand (if we assume cavemen type people which we would only do if we assume evolution.)


You could dumb down anything, but what would be the point? If God did condense abiogenesis so the Jews would understand it it would be completely useless information that would have served no purpose. And if God did reveal enough of it to be useful he would have haft to add in so much background information on biology and chemistry it would take away from the point of genesis to begin with.

Why give the completely wrong story when with a little bit of effort, he could just tell the truth simply.I don’t think that that excuse sounds reasonable, though I hear it often.


Why isn't it reasonable? Many religions from that time period and geographical location thought of religion the same way. Not everyone thinks about religion the same way you do, and there are clear cultural differences.

When you put everything all together there is no reason why God would tell us that we evolved from prior organisms in the bible even though it is true.


I don’t doubt that he knew that the day would come when men would be telling frog and prince stories that cut God out of the equation. That’s why it says in Psalm 118:8 “Better to trust in God, than to put your faith in the words of men.”


I don't think that passage is talking about evolution, and I think you're taking it way out of context. Psalms are essentially poetry and praise God. Psalm 118 is talking about how perfect God is, and that He will never abandon you. you can always trust in Him, and to keep your focus on God, not on worldly things. Verse 8 is merely used as a comparing devise, saying that while we are imperfect God is perfect. We can break our promises and focus on the imperfect, impure things, but it is better to focus on that which is perfect and pure, God.

The Bible also says “it is written” –in the case of evolution, it is written and then rewritten then they think of a better story then they rewrite it. If you go back over the last 40 years in ‘science’ books and see all the different ‘scientific’ stories about what happened to the dinosaurs, you would know not to trust man’s word over God’s.


Those that actually understand science don't have a problem with new theories overriding old ones when new evidence is discovered.

This was because it wasn't about what literally happened, it was about the message of the story itself.


Do you really think that nobody felt like preserving the real story?


Of course, but stories get embellished and changed over time. Think about how long the oral tradition in Judaism went on before it was ever recorded. Plus observable science experiments confirm that eye witness accounts are extremely inaccurate.

Of course if evolution is true then they would have to make it up because as a one-celled organism, they had no brain nor any writing skills to talk of.


Do you think Adam and Eve were aware when they were dust?

So you think that God preferred to tell us a simple lie over the simple truth knowing that eventually we would find out that evolution created us and then we would doubt his word?


Why would God allow the world wars which directly started the post modernity era in religion where people became the most atheist?

That doesn’t sound like the omniscient, omnipotent God of the Bible somehow.


You're right, it doesn't, but that didn't stop God from letting it happen. And I can assure you that more people became atheist because of the world wars than evolution.

Why make up your own story if he told us how? If it is not true, then lets throw it all away.
Otherwise we can believe just that which suits us and whatever fits in with man’s opinions.


But evolutionists don't believe in evolution. They accept it as the best answer to explain the facts. No one believes in evolution because they want to, it is because of all the evidence that supports it.

Not quite, science is the study of the natural world only. Therefore only natural processes are allowed in science. But since science only deals with the natural, it says nothing of the supernatural.


I know what you’re saying but that is not how it works. There is methodological naturalism (how we do science) and then there is philosophical naturalism where we assume that since we can only work via natural processes in science, therefore only natural processes were responsible for life.


Science does not dismiss the supernatural, it only explains how things work naturally. We cannot say that life was only done through natural processes, but there is no reason to say that the supernatural was involved either.

That’s an extension and it is the modern creation myth. Just because we can only explain things now via natural mechanisms does not mean that nature alone created life.


We have nothing to engage in the supernatural with. We do however, have a method to understand the natural and we use that method to understand the world around us, and so far it has worked out quite well. However God created via supernatural means will remain a mystery because we have no method to understand or test it.

It says a lot about God and the supernatural –like that it essentially doesn’t exist and even if the supernatural did exist, it would have nothing to do with anything because we can make up our own story that makes us happy and excludes the supernatural.


Scientists don't exclude the supernatural because of a want, but because the supernatural can't help us explain or understand anything about the physical world around us. Okay, God made everything, now what does that explain in terms of the physical world? Nothing.

That is why scientists are free to believe in whatever they want about the supernatural as long as they adhere to the scientific method.


So in other words, they are welcome to whatever myth they would prefer but science says there is no supernatural


Science doesn't say that there is no supernatural, only that it doesn't deal with the supernatural.

and by extension no God to explain anything since God is not allowed,


God did it is not explaining anything. And it stagnates curiosity, something science thrives on.

therefore natural processes are all we can use to explain the origin of life.


That is all science will use to try to explain the origin of life.

Sounds pretty disjointed especially since ‘science’ is essentially saying that whatever is outside of science is myth and non-real.


Science says nothing about the supernatural, religions or anything other than the natural world.

Except they are all expected to believe that evolution is true thus whatever their personal belief is, is not real and the naturalistic ‘scientific’ explanation for life is real.


Evolution is not truth, because you don't deal with truth in science because no theory can be proven to be 100% accurate without fail. That's why there is no law of evolution, only theory. If you don't understand it, which I doubt, look it up. Since I think you do understand this; stop using strawman arguments, it makes you look ignorant.

I’m afraid [scientists] assume that natural processes are responsible for the evolution of life.


They don't assume that. But through evidence they have concluded that evolution is a natural process and we can understand it via natural means and methodology.

They prefer that to the Bible’s explanation so they are swayed for philosophical reasons.


They are swayed by evidence and facts. I've already told you, Darwin had a hard time convincing the scientific community that he was correct. The evidence came in, and eventually the scientific community accept the theory of evolution as valid.

You do assume in science – you assume naturalism.


You don't assume naturalism. Instead you say that science is a methodology to understand the natural, not the supernatural. Science can't explain the supernatural, it has nothing to say about it, much in the same way it has nothing to say about Lord of the Rings.

Yes it does. It infers that God is a distant first cause or non-existant.


Why?

Yes generally it has the effect of turning them into agnostics and atheists. That’s what it did to me and at the time it seemed a logical inference. I didn’t understand their assumptions.


You obviously don't understand science.

Science doesn't rule out the supernatural, naturalism does.


And where does evolution come from but from naturalistic philosophy.


It comes from a methodology designed to understand the natural, not the supernatural.

It contradicts everything we know about biology, astronomy, geology, physics and just about every other science that supports evolution


No there is still a lot of good observable repeatable science in all these disciplines.


Care to tell me how astronomy tells us that the universe and the Earth is only 6K years old? Unless you want to say that God magically created our solar system without naturalistic means the fact that the solar system is here proves that the universe is older than 6K years.

I can’t tell anyone what to believe.


Proselytizing is telling people what to believe, and Christianity is one of the few religions in the world that is supposed to have all of its members do just that.

I have no doubt there’s a net loss [of people in Christianity before and after college]. If school doesn’t tell you what to think then TV will and it’s not limited to one day a week. They’re telling you ‘the scientific truth’ every day. It's a new church, new priests and a new religion.


I think TV and the media are irrelevant in talking about religious tendencies before and after college. I have no data to prove this but people with college degrees probably get the same amount of exposure to the media than people without college degrees. I don't argue that the media can and does play a role, only that it is irrelevant. I would agree that people with college degrees are more likely to abandon their faith, but I don't think it is as high as you might think. However, for those who do retain their faith I think the majority become more liberal in their approach to religion. And of course I have meet many who become more conservative, but I think they deviate from the norm.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:41 AM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:40 AM on July 1, 2009 :
The majority of scientists used to believe that the world was created by God –it is what they grew up to believe. Now they believe that they evolved from apes. No indoctrination? I think you are fooling yourself.


I wonder if this fellow sees the irony in his statement...


Bobby4
It's not indoctrinating just like teaching chemistry, biology or any other science is not indoctrinating.


Teaching chemistry, or the experimental, observable workings of biology are a far cry from the teachings of evolution. The observable versus the unobservable –it’s that simple.


So, we just ignore all that evidence because we cannot watch a reptile lay an egg and have a bird pop out?

By the way - how much chemistry is actually 'observable', do you think?

The easiest person to fool is yourself.

Which is why so many creatinists cannot seem to understand what "projection" is.



Evolutionists have made no improvements to our quality of life whatsoever. A lot of the scientists making those cool discoveries are creationists and none of those cool discoveries depend on people’s belief systems.



So, any of these cool discoveries actually premised on biblical lore?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:07 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Funny how these condescending asses - creatinists - always try to turn science issues iinto religio-political ones.
Quote from timbrx at 11:29 PM on July 1, 2009 :
Example of indoctrination:

Wisp:
Where? In the USA? Because you don't get many creationists in other developed countries. Specially educated creationists. Those are really hard to come by.

How do you know this?

How?
Don't be such a condescending ass.
Many polls have shown a direct correlation between educational level and acceptance of evolution.  The loony right claims that this shows that evil indocrination they fear - yet the trend holds even in folks whose education does not involved evolution at all.

Huh...


Either way it is a false assumption based on the EVOS doctrine that only the uneducated and brainwashed since birth could possibly believe in creation. Did you go to college? Of course. But you weren't indoctrinated into this elitist liberal mentality. You weren't railroaded in your beliefs to think the way professors think so that you could make grades and not be labeled as "peculiar" by your peers. You are a totally free thinker. Right? Wrong.

More condescension from the condescending ass.
"Think you know something?  WRONG.  ONly I, the great creationist gas bag Timbrx, know the TROOOF!"

I have to wonder when all this indocrination by arrogant professors and peer pressure takes place.  The only college professor I can remember having that was an arrogant elitist was a three-piece suit wearing, gold watch on a chain swinging lawyer who taught a history class I was taking and took the opportunity to belittle anything and anyone not American.
None of my science professors did this - they were too busy disseminating informaiton to try to 'program' their students.  As far as peer pressure, well, my daughter was asked who she wanted to win the presidential election, and when she answered 'Obama', her 'friends' pointed at her and yelled 'Democrat!  Democrat!'.  Sure, she is only in 6th grade, but where does such hubris come from?  


You were shaped by your environment the same as everyone else. You elitists love to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for your superior intellects while us uneducated backwoods hicks make fools of ourselves by expressing beliefs that put us outside of the "mainstream" of society.


I was wondering when the "elitist" charge was coming out.

According to dictionary.com, a elitism is:

2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

or

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.


Elite is:

1. (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. (used with a plural verb) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.  
3. a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.  
4. a type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch. Compare pica 1 .

–adjective 5. representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.  


So, certainly those with graduate educations are 'elite'.  Is that a bad thing?  I always thought that conservatives advocated?  

Then again, these are the morons that say they would support Palin in 2012 - conservatives today seem to embrace stupidity and incompetence.  Stupidity is the new elite in right-wing lala land.

All the while you look at the world through the prism of CNN and AP while real human progress is totally ignored.

Better to look at the world through the prism of FOX news and AM hate radio, where Republicans are labelled as Democrats if they do something bad. and drug-addicted draft-dodging pedophiles are hailed as heros.


It is unfortunate for so called "education" that the information age has made the irrelevance of forced education so obvious.


Right - because any rube can become an 'expert' just by perusing a few websites.


Now the UN has to step in and try and ram "universal child rights" down our throat as a means of controlling the minds of the children of those who chose to self-educate.


Can a child really choose to self-educate?

I once saw an interesting saying regarding the self-taught:

The self-taught suffer doubly - they have both a bad teacher and a substandard education.

But giving children the "right" to sue their parents for pushing some fantasy religion on them is not indoctrination.


Um... OK... So having a 'right' is indoctination?

What is it with you people?  This appears to be the same foolish 'logic' that drives you people to claim that having legalized abortion as an option is forcing abortion down the throats of anti-abortion zanies...


Convincing whole generations of youth that what they think is superior to the wisdom of their stodgy old stick in the mud parents is not indoctrination. Convincing young adults that the longer they suckle at the teat of government sanctioned "higher education" the greater their chance of "success" is not indoctrination. Right?


No.

I suggest you try to find out what "indoctriination" means.
Especially as it concerns these twisted little bogie-man fantasies that you people relish in.


The problem here is that the liberal mind functions differently than the conservative mind.


That much is true - studies have shown that conservatives tend to react without thinking and tend to have fear as the driving factor in making determiniations, also that conservatives are more likely to more strongly believe things that are wrong when told shown that they are wrong.

Conservatives are pathetic creatures.



Liberals love to tell others how to live and think while blasting anyone who lives and thinks differently. You people are bigoted and intolerant in the extreme and are so blinded by your delusions of grandeur that you can't even see it.


Your condescending elitist projection is truly comiucal to behold.



You revel in pointing out our (conservatives) flaws while scarcely admitting that you, too, may have some. You indoctrinate yourselves continuously through peer pressure into believing that education makes you superior and create for yourselves the very caste system that cause the multitudes to flee Europe and flock to America even to this day.

You've never been to europe, have you?

Education DOES make us superior when it comes to issues in which in-depth knowledge is required.  Why do you think the government goes through confirmation processes for appointees - what is it that you think gets discussed during such processes?  It is their QUALIFICATIONS.  Does that mean plotical appointees are 'elitists', too?  Or just the 'liberal' ones?



And what do they find? Free thinking pragmatic self reliant competency is almost non-existent in government and education and to become self reliant you must step back to an agrarian paradigm such as what existed for such luminaries as Ben Franklin, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and millions of others who were instrumental to the history of this once great nation.

Once great - until Reagan and Bush destroyed the economy and made stupidity the new aspiration for millions of Americans for whom "Patriotism" means unquestioningly following the rantings of Fox channel and talk radio personalities.

Get over yourself and stop the condescending nonsense, Little Timmy-poo.  

You are not as important as you seem to think you are.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:33 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 03:43 AM on July 2, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 11:29 PM on July 1, 2009 :
The problem here is that the liberal mind functions differently than the conservative mind. Liberals love to tell others how to live and think while blasting anyone who lives and thinks differently.


I'm feeling a little projection here. Conservatives have done quite a bit in rejecting those who don't follow their ever increasing standard of how they should live and think. While liberals don't have a perfect track record as well, they clearly beat the conservatives in this area.


Agreed.

A big difference is in the level of hypocrisy.

Look at how right-wingers prattle on about 'family values', yet have no problem with the fact their hero Limbaugh has been divorced three times and getting caught bringing Viagra to the Domincan Republic - a place known for its underaged prostitutes, or how they have no problem with McCain or Gingrich having had affairs and being divorced.
Look at how they treat people who are not in lock(goose?)-step with the 'beliefs' of the far-right.

Conservatives are the people that want to legislate behavior - let us recall how racist homophobe christian Jesse Helms tried to tack an amendmant to a bill banning the dissemination of information on abortion on the internet.

But sure, it is right wingers that want people to be able to make their own decisions...
...rolling eyes...



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:39 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:31 AM on July 3, 2009 :
Wisp
So is the atomic theory. And you don't call that indoctrination. Why?

Atomic models work on atoms that exist here and now.


How do you know?

Have you ever seen an atom?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:40 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.