Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[Gadawg73]

So, what you are saying is that evolution is not absolute truth and religious people should just take what evolutionists say with a grain of salt..?

I am a religious person and believe in evolution.
My religious faith is so strong that scientific fact does not affect it.

I am a Christian and my faith in God surpasses any faith I have in man's wisdom. I find that scientific FACTS actually support what God Word says.

Evolution is scientific fact.

 

[LittleNipper]

Your comment doesn't make any sense. Could you please rephrase it? It doesn't appear you have the slightest notion of the basics of evolutionary theory and are just spouting off whatever sounds good to you. Like my high school biology teacher told a doubter, "you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it".

I would say that 99% of the evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory. But it would have been educational if your science teacher said that you don't have to believe in creationism but you should understand it. One cannot argue with that with which they do not understand.

Creationism is not discussed in science class.
That is discussed and studied in religion and philosophy classes.

Evolution should be studied in religion and philosophy class. Biology, anatomy, physiology and chemistry should be studied in science class.

 

[LittleNipper]

I am a religious person and believe in evolution.
My religious faith is so strong that scientific fact does not affect it.

I am a Christian and my faith in God surpasses any faith I have in man's wisdom. I find that scientific FACTS actually support what God Word says.

Evolution is scientific fact.

All you need do is to prove it.

 

[konradv]

Who have you been talking to--- the one who owns a St. Bernad or the toy Chiwawa? Nature clearly could care less. And dogs clearly seem to want to be human. And with all the sexual diversity today, clearly there are some humans who wish they were animals...

Your comment doesn't make any sense. Could you please rephrase it? It doesn't appear you have the slightest notion of the basics of evolutionary theory and are just spouting off whatever sounds good to you. Like my high school biology teacher told a doubter, "you don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it".

I would say that 99% of the evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory. But it would have been educational if your science teacher said that you don't have to believe in creationism but you should understand it. One cannot argue with that with which they do not understand.

Why would my science teacher say that? That was the job of the religion teacher. If that's the education you want, you've got to spring for a private school.

As for 99% of evolutionists not understanding the theory, that's just your opinion because we won't accept your reasoning. You're the one that doesn't seem to understand.

 

[konradv]

I am a Christian and my faith in God surpasses any faith I have in man's wisdom. I find that scientific FACTS actually support what God Word says.

Evolution is scientific fact.

All you need do is to prove it.

The fossil record should be enough to show that there have been changes in species and that species that weren't around at all suddenly appear. The only way that could have happened under your theory is by multiple creations.

 

[Hollie]

I am a Christian and my faith in God surpasses any faith I have in man's wisdom. I find that scientific FACTS actually support what God Word says.

Evolution is scientific fact.

All you need do is to prove it.

The relevant science community has as much proof of evolution as is possible in the context of how facts are defined in science. You can believe the disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, physics, earth science, etc., (all of which support evolution), are all part of a global conspiracy and that would not be unique among fundies.

Speaking of "proving it", do you somehow your gawds are proven by attacking science?

I've yet to see a single, credible bit of evidence for your gawds.

 

[S.J.]

If evolution is a series of spinoffs from other species, then please explain where the very first living species came from. And be specific.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Anyone who knows the basics of it knows that.

There are lots of chemists and biochemists that would be happy to explain to you this concept. Unless you have an extensive chemical and biological science background, they may be hard to understand though.

In other words, you don't know. I love how evolutionists always end up saying "You're not intelligent enough to understand" when they can't answer a question.

 

[newpolitics]

Respectfully, all scientific research is always subject to the scientific method.
Beliefs can never be tested by science.
Beliefs are never science. Creationism is based on religious beliefs.
You need a good community college Biology 101 course and a good Philosophy and/or Religion course also to show you the difference.
Religion is not science. A hockey team does not take the field against the SF 49ers.
That is what you are asking for. First YOU have to give some evidence that religious beliefs are science and subject to the scientific method.

Respectfully, some "scientific" research is bunk. Science has its limitations. One of them is repeatablitiy and another observation. Respectfully, with all the selective breeding over thousands of years of tampering by man, a dog is still a dog. A new species is not yet observable. Yet, we are to believe that nature brought the dog into existance. So we observe variety within a species, but man --- who evolutionists claim has been around 100's of thousands of years (according to evolutionary fossil interpretation), and yet man could not repeat (with selective breeding) what some men claim nature did totally without forethought...

Good point they also avoid living fossils that had ancestors dated back to as many as 325 million years or more and the organism today showed no evolutionary change.

Evolution predicts that if an animal is fit to survive, and its environment is not changing, it has no reason to evolve. This is what you would expect to find with top ocean dwelling predators such as sharks. They don't have to contend with the variables that land dwelling animals do, such as changing topographies and climates, so it is easier for them to stay the same. Let me just predict, nearly all animals that have stayed the same over a long time are ocean dwelling predators. I know the shark is one.

 

[newpolitics]

If evolution is a series of spinoffs from other species, then please explain where the very first living species came from. And be specific.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Anyone who knows the basics of it knows that.

There are lots of chemists and biochemists that would be happy to explain to you this concept. Unless you have an extensive chemical and biological science background, they may be hard to understand though.

In other words, you don't know. I love how evolutionists always end up saying "You're not intelligent enough to understand" when they can't answer a question.

Neither do you. You have faith, not evidence. You are just as ignorant as scientists. The difference is, scientists don't claim to know, yet you do. Hence, your is a claim is an argument from ignorance.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am a religious person and believe in evolution.
My religious faith is so strong that scientific fact does not affect it.

I am a Christian and my faith in God surpasses any faith I have in man's wisdom. I find that scientific FACTS actually support what God Word says.

Evolution is scientific fact.

???
a.
I believe in both creation/divine design and some evolution in the life process.
I believe people can look at the same facts and see one but not the other.
including evolution. I don't think you can prove either one except by
agreement in faith?

I believe anyone could look at teh world and believe it is completely random,
or today is the only experience and all other perceptions are true false or whatever.

what i do find is the basis of proof is REMOVING OR RESOLVING what is causing people to disagree, and then once that is out of the way, the mind defaults back to whatever they do agree is truth and believe it to be proven. by letting go of whatever is blocking that.

on that note, I believe it is possible to prove a side lemma and then using that process to prove other things again by removing the obstacles to agreement. for example if we first were to prove that forgiveness changes perceptions and facilitates proof by agreement, then that would help with these other proofs in turn. the example I give is spiritual healing.

b. I believe spiritual healing can be more clearly proven by science,
as I have shared with Hollie.

What if we were to focus our attention there to something that can be proven,
and then see if our perceptions change and ideas open up about how to
deal with this evolution creation issue.

There are also flaws in proving spiritual healing is caused by the prayer and forgiveness therapy. You could always argue that it is coming from something else that intervened.

But the university doctors in MacNutt's study on RA did set up the studies where
they could clearly attribute the healing, even of a man formerly crippled with pain where he was completely free of pain and permanently cured, to the prayer process applied.

It is also clear in the patient's attitudes because it heals the spirit and mind
and then in this case the body healed also.

I think the studies on forgiveness also show a correlation
but not as strong as these cases of assessing people's mental or physical
conditions after spiritual healing has been applied.

 

[S.J.]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Anyone who knows the basics of it knows that.

There are lots of chemists and biochemists that would be happy to explain to you this concept. Unless you have an extensive chemical and biological science background, they may be hard to understand though.

In other words, you don't know. I love how evolutionists always end up saying "You're not intelligent enough to understand" when they can't answer a question.

Neither do you. You have faith, not evidence. You are just as ignorant as scientists. The difference is, scientists don't claim to know, yet you do. Hence, your is a claim is an argument from ignorance.

The difference is that I don't try to force my beliefs on other people. I don't think EITHER should be taught in public schools. If you want your kids to be taught evolution, you should have to pay for it the same as Christians have to pay for a Christian school if they want their kids taught that faith in school. Taxpayers should not have to support your THEORY any more than they should have to support creationism.

 

[zombiehunter696]

In other words, you don't know. I love how evolutionists always end up saying "You're not intelligent enough to understand" when they can't answer a question.

I never claimed to know. That's you and your crowd doing that. Nor did I say you aren't intelligent enough to understand. I said that their explanations would be difficult to understand without a science background. Nice straw man though.

The difference is that I don't try to force my beliefs on other people. I don't think EITHER should be taught in public schools. If you want your kids to be taught evolution, you should have to pay for it the same as Christians have to pay for a Christian school if they want their kids taught that faith in school. Taxpayers should not have to support your THEORY any more than they should have to support creationism

Yeah, we shouldn't teach one of the most well established scientific theories in science classes. There's a reason it's called a "theory". It means they have a huge amount of evidence supporting it.

Theory doesn't mean a guess or hunch. It's a large body of facts and observations used to explain how something works or why something is the way it is. It's a theory that the earth goes around the sun. It's a theory that germs cause disease.

Is teaching cell theory or gravitational theory "pushing beliefs on other people?" Of course now. It's teaching science. Science is pretty much entirely a bunch of theories used to explain the universe and how it works. Evolution is only one theory. Why single out just one?

 

[S.J.]

In other words, you don't know. I love how evolutionists always end up saying "You're not intelligent enough to understand" when they can't answer a question.

I never claimed to know. That's you and your crowd doing that. Nor did I say you aren't intelligent enough to understand. I said that their explanations would be difficult to understand without a science background. Nice straw man though.

The difference is that I don't try to force my beliefs on other people. I don't think EITHER should be taught in public schools. If you want your kids to be taught evolution, you should have to pay for it the same as Christians have to pay for a Christian school if they want their kids taught that faith in school. Taxpayers should not have to support your THEORY any more than they should have to support creationism

Yeah, we shouldn't teach one of the most well established scientific theories in science classes. There's a reason it's called a "theory". It means they have a huge amount of evidence supporting it.

Theory doesn't mean a guess or hunch. It's a large body of facts and observations used to explain how something works or why something is the way it is. It's a theory that the earth goes around the sun. It's a theory that germs cause disease.

Is teaching cell theory or gravitational theory "pushing beliefs on other people?" Of course now. It's teaching science. Science is pretty much entirely a bunch of theories used to explain the universe and how it works. Evolution is only one theory. Why single out just one?

You know damn good and well the liberals who control the public school system teach evolution as absolute fact, even though it has yet to be proven and never will be. Don't give me your double talk. Prove your theory, then we can have an adult conversation, but until then, stop insulting my intelligence with your bullshit.

 

[newpolitics]

In other words, you don't know. I love how evolutionists always end up saying "You're not intelligent enough to understand" when they can't answer a question.

Neither do you. You have faith, not evidence. You are just as ignorant as scientists. The difference is, scientists don't claim to know, yet you do. Hence, your is a claim is an argument from ignorance.

The difference is that I don't try to force my beliefs on other people. I don't think EITHER should be taught in public schools. If you want your kids to be taught evolution, you should have to pay for it the same as Christians have to pay for a Christian school if they want their kids taught that faith in school. Taxpayers should not have to support your THEORY any more than they should have to support creationism.

You act as if creation and evolution both have the same evidence bearing on them, and that there is a bias for science for some odd reason. The reality is that there is no evidence for creation, and there are mounds if demonstrable, repeatable evidence for evolution across many scientific disciplines.

 

[newpolitics]

In other words, you don't know. I love how evolutionists always end up saying "You're not intelligent enough to understand" when they can't answer a question.

I never claimed to know. That's you and your crowd doing that. Nor did I say you aren't intelligent enough to understand. I said that their explanations would be difficult to understand without a science background. Nice straw man though.

The difference is that I don't try to force my beliefs on other people. I don't think EITHER should be taught in public schools. If you want your kids to be taught evolution, you should have to pay for it the same as Christians have to pay for a Christian school if they want their kids taught that faith in school. Taxpayers should not have to support your THEORY any more than they should have to support creationism

Yeah, we shouldn't teach one of the most well established scientific theories in science classes. There's a reason it's called a "theory". It means they have a huge amount of evidence supporting it.

Theory doesn't mean a guess or hunch. It's a large body of facts and observations used to explain how something works or why something is the way it is. It's a theory that the earth goes around the sun. It's a theory that germs cause disease.

Is teaching cell theory or gravitational theory "pushing beliefs on other people?" Of course now. It's teaching science. Science is pretty much entirely a bunch of theories used to explain the universe and how it works. Evolution is only one theory. Why single out just one?

You know damn good and well the liberals who control the public school system teach evolution as absolute fact, even though it has yet to be proven and never will be. Don't give me your double talk. Prove your theory, then we can have an adult conversation, but until then, stop insulting my intelligence with your bullshit.

Stop throwing a fit as if some injustice is being done to you and you are the sorry victim. You are the victim if your own ignorance.

 

[S.J.]

Neither do you. You have faith, not evidence. You are just as ignorant as scientists. The difference is, scientists don't claim to know, yet you do. Hence, your is a claim is an argument from ignorance.

The difference is that I don't try to force my beliefs on other people. I don't think EITHER should be taught in public schools. If you want your kids to be taught evolution, you should have to pay for it the same as Christians have to pay for a Christian school if they want their kids taught that faith in school. Taxpayers should not have to support your THEORY any more than they should have to support creationism.

You act as if creation and evolution both have the same evidence bearing on them, and that there is a bias for science for some odd reason. The reality is that there is no evidence for creation, and there are mounds if demonstrable, repeatable evidence for evolution across many scientific disciplines.

Yeah, well when you can actually PROVE it, then you might have a valid point.

 

[newpolitics]

I never claimed to know. That's you and your crowd doing that. Nor did I say you aren't intelligent enough to understand. I said that their explanations would be difficult to understand without a science background. Nice straw man though.



Yeah, we shouldn't teach one of the most well established scientific theories in science classes. There's a reason it's called a "theory". It means they have a huge amount of evidence supporting it.

Theory doesn't mean a guess or hunch. It's a large body of facts and observations used to explain how something works or why something is the way it is. It's a theory that the earth goes around the sun. It's a theory that germs cause disease.

Is teaching cell theory or gravitational theory "pushing beliefs on other people?" Of course now. It's teaching science. Science is pretty much entirely a bunch of theories used to explain the universe and how it works. Evolution is only one theory. Why single out just one?

You know damn good and well the liberals who control the public school system teach evolution as absolute fact, even though it has yet to be proven and never will be. Don't give me your double talk. Prove your theory, then we can have an adult conversation, but until then, stop insulting my intelligence with your bullshit.

Stop throwing a fit as if some injustice is being done to you and you are the sorry victim. You are the victim of your own scientific ignorance. The facts of evolution are there for you to accept or deny. You choose to deny them because of faith in a god you can't prove exists.

 

[newpolitics]

The difference is that I don't try to force my beliefs on other people. I don't think EITHER should be taught in public schools. If you want your kids to be taught evolution, you should have to pay for it the same as Christians have to pay for a Christian school if they want their kids taught that faith in school. Taxpayers should not have to support your THEORY any more than they should have to support creationism.

You act as if creation and evolution both have the same evidence bearing on them, and that there is a bias for science for some odd reason. The reality is that there is no evidence for creation, and there are mounds if demonstrable, repeatable evidence for evolution across many scientific disciplines.

Yeah, well when you can actually PROVE it, then you might have a valid point.

There are no proofs in science, as this implies absolute certainty, which is not afforded in science. There are degrees of certainty, and considering evolutionary theory has been around for over 150 years and there has not been one contradictory piece of evidence against it, it is pretty near certain that it is the correct explanation for what we see. Genetics makes this even more certain. Why don't you shown evidence for you god? (I misspoke when I said show proof, although not entirely, as logical proofs have been attempted to try to define god into existence since Aristotle, and all failed).

 

[S.J.]

You act as if creation and evolution both have the same evidence bearing on them, and that there is a bias for science for some odd reason. The reality is that there is no evidence for creation, and there are mounds if demonstrable, repeatable evidence for evolution across many scientific disciplines.

Yeah, well when you can actually PROVE it, then you might have a valid point.

There are no proofs in science, as this implies absolute certainty, which is not afforded in science. There are degrees of certainty, and considering evolutionary theory has been around for over 150 years and there has not been one contradictory piece of evidence against it, it is pretty near certain that it is the correct explanation for what we see. Genetics makes this even more certain. Why don't you shown evidence for you god? (I misspoke when I said show proof, although not entirely, as logical proofs have been attempted to try to define god into existence since Aristotle, and all failed).

I don't seek to prove the existence of God. That's because I believe in leaving it up to the individual to believe what he or she chooses to believe. You, on the other hand, are hell bent on forcing everyone else to believe in your theory, a theory that cannot be proven. I'm hearing a lot of comments like "degrees of certainty", "no evidence to contradict it" What I'm not hearing is "here's the proof".

 

[newpolitics]

Yeah, well when you can actually PROVE it, then you might have a valid point.

There are no proofs in science, as this implies absolute certainty, which is not afforded in science. There are degrees of certainty, and considering evolutionary theory has been around for over 150 years and there has not been one contradictory piece of evidence against it, it is pretty near certain that it is the correct explanation for what we see. Genetics makes this even more certain. Why don't you shown evidence for you god? (I misspoke when I said show proof, although not entirely, as logical proofs have been attempted to try to define god into existence since Aristotle, and all failed).

I don't seek to prove the existence of God. That's because I believe in leaving it up to the individual to believe what he or she chooses to believe. You, on the other hand, are hell bent on forcing everyone else to believe in your theory, a theory that cannot be proven. I'm hearing a lot of comments like "degrees of certainty", "no evidence to contradict it" What I'm not hearing is "here's the proof".

Proof is a term for math, so please stop using it, as it carries a connotation of certainty. No theory is ever proven, including the theory of gravity or the theory that the earth orbits around the sun, so the problem is that your expectations are too high, as you are unfamiliar with scientific epistemology and what it offers. It's understandable I guess, being a theist, where absolute truths are around every corner. Here in reality, no absolute truths exist. We can only approximate reality as best we can. It is a humbling proposition, perhaps too much for some theists.

Your logic would dictate that we throw out science altogether. No scientific explanations are certain. We have scientific models or explanations of reality that seem to map to reality so closely, that we term it "true." Yet, there could always be something in the model that is false. However, as long as a model accurately describes and offers predictions that are demonstrable, the model is generally considered to be accurate. We do the best we can. Evolution makes an enormous amount of sense and fits the evidence, if you'd just stop being so mad at it. We teach it to our children because it is an accepted and evidence-based theory that has rigorously stood the test of time.