Food for thought

[rogue06]

I guess you have a point there.

If a scientist tells one lie, then I am under no obligation to believe another word that comes out of his or her mouth.

Apply that same sort of thinking to YEC organizations and their spokespersons

Keep it in mind when you read anything they say.

Some of those folks have turned "Lying for Jesus" into an art form.

[Tassman]

Who is this Easttom person? Is he an anti-creationist? If he is, then his quote does not belong here, as he is attacking creation. If he is a creationist, then fine. And he is as ignorant and as guilty of resorting to name-calling as the anti-creationists.

No name-calling, unless you consider that the tribal authors of the biblical creation myths were not "one particular tribe of uneducated, Bronze Age, goat herders".

Except TOE does not relate to origin of life any more.

It never did; it relates to the origin of species – including human-kind.

As I have pointed out before it is the most plausible explanation if you assume God did not do it.

But why would you "assume" that God did do it?

[rogue06]

I think Mossy brings up a good point. The word "evolution" has different meanings and implications to different people. To a scientist, "evolution" refers simply to physical mechanisms. But to a non-scientist, "evolution" often means "evolutionISM", an atheistic, materialistic worldview. Outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins don't help when they conflate the two (evolution and evolutionism) in their popular writings.

Exactly. I kind of mentioned that in passing in post #2

a couple of the quotes are complaints not about evolution-the-scientific-theory concerning how biological life grows and develops but rather what some have termed "evolutionism" -- the non-scientific but heavily philosophical concept that there is no God, no Creator, no purpose in life (Richard Dawkins position or a form of metaphysical/ontological naturalism or scientific materialism).

Thanks for bringing that point to the front

[rwatts]

Apply that same sort of thinking to YEC organizations and their spokespersons

Keep it in mind when you read anything they say.

Some of those folks have turned "Lying for Jesus" into an art form.

There, lies become a Orwellian "truth".



(I post a lot on facebook these days, and oh my goodness. The number of times we have to correct creationists who say things like:-

1) Evolution is just about random chance.

2) Evolution has to be able to explain the origin of life.

3) Evolution cannot be tested.

4) Those who accept the theory must be atheists.

5) etc, etc, etc, and etc.

And some of them will return and make precisely the same claim again, after having been corrected. And it's not just layfolk who will do it, but it's even their supposed guides and exemplars, namely ministers of religion.)

[Juvenal]

I would suspect in name only.

I suspect they'd be a bit more generous with you. Wait, are you saying rogue is a Christian in name only?

[Juvenal]

Wait, are you saying rogue is a Christian in name only?

Those were some damn fine cookies.

[mossrose]

I suspect they'd be a bit more generous with you. Wait, are you saying rogue is a Christian in name only?

I didn't mention rogue at all.

I am sure "the majority" of evolutionists in the US are not believers unless in name only. There might be some who are, but not the majority.

[phank]

Well, let's assume that the theory of evolution is false. So how do we handle the literally millions of supporting data? Simple, we ignore them and instead comb the literature for sentences taken out of context, which SEEM to indicate that the authors were flat spang ignorant of the theory. Present them one after another, and bingo, a theory we don't understand, never studied, and can't explain even in general terms acceptable to an evolutionary biologist, somehow becomes "a lie". NOT an incomplete theory (aren't they all?) which best fits all current evidence but remains subject to change, but simply a lie. You know, evolutionary biologists deliberately making false statements.

Now, an alternative approach is to spend a while examining the evidence, trying to make sense out of it. What do we do with morphological similarities, which caused the creationist Linnaeus to construct his model? What do we do with genetic similarities, which can be tracked to produce almost exacly the same structure? What do we make of the predictions the theory implies of what will be found both in the fossil record and in the genetics of organisms - predictions which are invariably validated?

Problem is, examining the evidence is (1) extremely time consuming; (2) soon converges on an uncongenial model, and (3) is known to be a waste of time before we started. Too much trouble. On the other hand, SOMEONE has gone to the trouble to extract these sentences from a broad search of the literature. I wonder who did it? Whoever it was, was clearly more concerned with what purported authorities said, than what the evidence says. The quote mines are clear; the evidence is too detailed. And anyway the conclusions are foregone.

Easttom's observation must be refuted. WHY is it that the better the theory of evolution is understood, the better it is accepted? WHY is it that no creationist has ever presented the scientific understanding, and invariably attacks a misrepresentation?

[Jedidiah]

The majority of evolutionists in the U.S. are Christian.

And that changes the truth of what I said how? Science is by definition materialistic. You can not test God. So TOE is the best scientific explanation. It does not matter if all or none of the evolutionists in the world are Christian.

[Jedidiah]

But why would you "assume" that God did do it?

For the same reason you would assume He did not. The point is not that God did it, but rather that it is assumed that because we can not test that idea scientifically it must not be true.

[Tassman]

For the same reason you would assume He did not. The point is not that God did it, but rather that it is assumed that because we can not test that idea scientifically it must not be true.

God’s existence is an “assumption” that is not supported by any substantive evidence. Therefore, whilst it is possible God exists, it is not probable.

Conversely there is considerable substantive evidence for Evolution. It lies in the linking of verified facts from numerous disciplines such as the fossil record, cladistics and genetics. All these separate strands of evidence arrive at the same conclusion: Evolution. Hence, not only is the ToE “possible” it is probable to the point of certainly.

[firstfloor]

Religions teach fear of the real world; fallen, contaminated, ruled by evil spirits, etc. Religions see the world as something to escape from. Science including evolutionary science is liberating. It teaches us that this world is our home. It is not a religion. It brings freedom from superstition.

[jordanriver]

Religions teach fear of the real world; fallen, contaminated, ruled by evil spirits, etc. Religions see the world as something to escape from. Science including evolutionary science is liberating. It teaches us that this world is our home. It is not a religion. It brings freedom from superstition.

post 25

exactly, its not a religion...

...its ABOUT religion.

it exists because of religion, CHRISTIANITY specifically.

....like finding ways to avoid the Big Bang , because as Stephen Hawking noted , a "beginning" smacks of the divine:

"...Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.)
There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang...."
A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME Stephen W. Hawking ISBN 055305340X (pages 46-47 softcover book)


it used to be, when scientists who were already Christian were interested in discovering how God's creation operated, IOW, in pure science,
...REAL SCIENTISTS, like Michael Faraday and Isaac Newton for example.

but now i guess, anti-creationists are getting into science NOT TO DISCOVER HOW THE WORLD WORKS,

...but instead to figure out a way to discredit the hated Bible.

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't matter to me if evolution is a "religion". It sure seems to matter though, to a lot of people who believe in it.

True? The theory of evolution?



Full of lies, it is!

Run for cover! splat, splatter, splat! The gonney bird makes another pass dumping smelly loads of antiquated worldviews and superstitions.

This is not food!

[Cow Poke]

Run for cover! splat, splatter, splat! The gonney bird...

Is that anything like a gooney bird, except maybe evolved or devolved?