Why are creationists so against evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2015, 10:04 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
RDK,
So far you have demonstrated your incredulity, and complete lack of understanding of evolution.
Can you support any of your assertions with even the slightest shred of evidence?
Your opinions and the bible are not evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 10:33 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 10:46 AM)Anjele Wrote:  The whole Christian belief system is a house of cards...if you start with the base - the creation story - the whole thing falls down.

You would think the smarter thing for them to do is to accept evolution (as any intelligent non-brainwashed person would do) and figure out a PR spin on how evolution is all part of their god's plan. They do that with other aspects of the myth.

A (Christian ) system based on faulty principles is certainly a "house of cards". The methodology through a lot of the Bible is incredulous. First God creates creatures out of love then finds fault with those same creations, finds reasons to destroy them unless they follow after a lot of cruel laws which condemn them, and later changes His mind to say He is sorry about it all, and that He loves us after all. I am a Christian, and that mentality is a load of crap. This world is designed to be a mixed up trial place. It is everything opposite to that which could be so simple and beautiful.
Yet, we can decide to be kind anyway, knowing inside that anything else is not worth remembering. Men get a hold of ideas and twist them up until they make no sense anymore. All of you have a sense of what is right even if you do otherwise.
A world with this many problems-I am not surprised by the many contradictory sayings throughout (holy) books. The only truth in there will be something good that we can say or do for others. The rest is just trash. Sort it out with definitions of love. We can't be held accountable for things that we do not understand. We just try our best and try to hold on to valuable things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 10:57 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 10:04 PM)pablo Wrote:  RDK,
So far you have demonstrated your incredulity, and complete lack of understanding of evolution.
Can you support any of your assertions with even the slightest shred of evidence?
Your opinions and the bible are not evidence.

Reason is evidence. It can't be touched, tasted, smelled, or even seen, but it can still be understood if someone is willing to identify the similarities to that which they already know. You know that inventions come about by reason. So everybody should be inventing things continually, right? Sorry it does not come about this easily. Inventions are designs that have a physical proof if someone wishes to get them out of their head and make something tangible. The same is true for spiritual insight. It is invisible to all of those who want it, unless some fantastic idea comes to bare. The concepts are only real to others when they apply the ideas that work, and can be trusted. They have to be based on something substantial, yet valuable. Of course you want proof. Everybody needs to know that an idea has substance. That substance understood is what you base your truths on, and what you live by. Ideas are proof. You have to see them in your mind before you make sense of them. If you are open, your proof we be revealed to you in a way that, maybe, only you can understand in your life. That is what Christians call a personal witness, something that has been experienced, but needs to be put to the test before the reality comes to fruit. When those tests become dynamic, the result can be amazing. God works personally like this. He uses what you have and makes it better with good ideas. That is where the miracles happen. These events occur regularly if you stay with the principle that makes it all happen-JUST LOVE.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 10:58 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 10:33 PM)RDK Wrote:  ...
A (Christian ) system based on faulty principles is certainly a "house of cards".
...

And there, from the mouth of the horse, we have the reason why people are leaving christianity in droves.

Well done.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 11:09 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
Trying to understand creation by looking at evolution is a lot like trying to reassemble a car after it has exploded into tiny little bits. The parts can be assembled in a myriad of ways, but not enough of the parts have been assembled to explain the cause of the explosion. So, for the pieces that have not yet been assembled, you have to try to extrapolate some conclusions to see if any of it makes sense.
It is much easier to just start at the beginning and try your assembly methods there. If evolution can be proven there, it will be proven everywhere else. Nothing has changed from the beginning. The same principles have to work from day one. It has to be simple and it has to make sense. Assemble the possible scenarios and you will bump into the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 11:12 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
Horrible analogy.
Nobody is trying to use evolution to understand creation anyway. Creation didn't happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
29-06-2015, 11:13 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 10:58 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 10:33 PM)RDK Wrote:  ...
A (Christian ) system based on faulty principles is certainly a "house of cards".
...

And there, from the mouth of the horse, we have the reason why people are leaving christianity in droves.

Well done.
I agree that faulty ideas will lead to a bad end. Yet, good ideas can bring order back from the chaos. I prefer simple things instead of the complex. Simple can be proven easily, the complex can usually only lead to a lot of dead end pondering.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 11:13 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 10:57 PM)RDK Wrote:  That is what Christians call a personal witness, something that has been experienced, but needs to be put to the test before the reality comes to fruit.

Please explain the the tests you have conducted. Here is a method.

Testing a hypothesis
The primary trait of a hypothesis is that something can be tested and that those tests can be replicated, according to Midwestern State University. It is often examined by multiple scientists to ensure the integrity and veracity of the experiment. This process can take years, and in many cases hypotheses do not go any further in the scientific method as it is difficult to gather sufficient supporting evidence.

"As a field biologist my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data, but what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question so the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science.

A null hypothesis is the name given to a hypothesis that is possibly false or has no effect. Often, during a test, the scientist will study another branch of the idea that may work, which is called an alternative hypothesis, according to the University of California, Berkeley.

During a test, the scientist may try to prove or disprove just the null hypothesis or test both the null and the alternative hypothesis. If a hypothesis specifies a certain direction, it is called one-tailed hypothesis. This means that the scientist believes that the outcome will be either with effect or without effect. When a hypothesis is created with no prediction to the outcome, it is called a two-tailed hypothesis because there are two possible outcomes. The outcome could be with effect or without effect, but until the testing is complete, there is no way of knowing which outcome it will be, according to The Web Center for Social Research Methods.

During testing, a scientist may come upon two types of errors. A Type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. A Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false, according to the University of California, Berkeley.

Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time. For example, relativity has been tested many times, so it is generally accepted as true, but there could be an instance, which has not been encountered, where it is not true. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis that a certain type of tomato is red. During research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this type is red. Though his findings confirm his hypothesis, there may be a tomato of that type somewhere in the world that isn't red. Thus, his hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100 percent of the time.


Taken from this page.

Good luck! Thumbsup

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 11:18 PM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2015 11:21 PM by pablo.)
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:13 PM)RDK Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 10:58 PM)DLJ Wrote:  And there, from the mouth of the horse, we have the reason why people are leaving christianity in droves.

Well done.
I agree that faulty ideas will lead to a bad end. Yet, good ideas can bring order back from the chaos. I prefer simple things instead of the complex. Simple can be proven easily, the complex can usually only lead to a lot of dead end pondering.

There is also such a thing as oversimplification.
Such as, replacing logical explanations with magic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
29-06-2015, 11:20 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:09 PM)RDK Wrote:  Trying to understand creation by looking at evolution is a lot like trying to reassemble a car after it has exploded into tiny little bits. The parts can be assembled in a myriad of ways, but not enough of the parts have been assembled to explain the cause of the explosion. So, for the pieces that have not yet been assembled, you have to try to extrapolate some conclusions to see if any of it makes sense.

You are attempting to use what is known as "Hoyle's fallacy". Just in reverse and in the wrong context.

It never works.

The "Tornado in a Junkyard" analogy is credited to Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and writer. He originally used the comparison not as an analogy for evolution, but as an argument against abiogenesis. He felt that the improbability of even the simplest life form arising from non-living matter was too great. However, his analogy lives on in origins debate despite its original context.

Just as you have done here. Proper study of your subject matter is your friend. Not your enemy. These debates are far more interesting when the adversary actually understands the arguments.

Can you do better to make it more interesting for us?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: