Let's start fresh. Creation vs. Evolution models.

Well...I have NEVER placed any member on ignore as some of them GET OFF ON IT!! LOL!!

But I have found in a few instances after I stated the actual FACTS that instead of such a member admitting what they posted that member simply went to a deeper and darker place and simply hunkered down and dug in deeper into their lunacy.

When I engage them they really enjoy that...but the couple of times I IGNORED THEM....well that really got to them.

A few times when I have done this and ignored them they have gone so far as to chase me into other toics in an attempt to get my attention and the more I ignored them the more frustrated they became until they took their ball and went home!! LOL!!!

I have decided I simply will no longer PLAY THEIR GAME!!

There are more than enough good people using logic and common sense here to debate issues with.

You are one of those good people.

AboveAlpha

 

if someone enjoys getting put ignore no problem, no loss to me...most semi-normal people don't like being ignored so I know it bothers the crap out of them when someone doesn't respond to their ranting...I rarely put the ultra religious on ignore no matter how delusion, the exception being if they get insulting...dumb people I tolerate to varying degrees...racists, haters etc I've very little tolerance for, add dumb to the mix and it's a quick dispatch to the " intolerably stupid bin"...since the ukraine invasion by russia ive added at least a dozen stupid/nutty Putin groupies to the bin, intelligent rational debate is impossible so why bother ...

 

How many dozens of time have you made the claim that evolution has been proved, but not once provided any evidence to back up your false assertion. Your like a broken record. "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...." "Evolution is proven...."

 

Maybe it just the way my brain works but let me ask you....HOW...could anyone ever find satisfaction when they attempt to silent debate by posting idiocies about a topic discussion they see as not going the direction they want it to go???

Such a direction being down and deep into IGNORANCE!! LOL!!

I just don't get it.

I don't mind if another member posts to me..."Hey! You made a mistake and the real answer is...this."

To such a member I would check out what they state...and if they are right and I am wrong I will thank them and apologize to the membership for my posting false data.

No big deal...EVERYONE...makes mistakes.

But I guess these other people are PURPOSELY MAKING MISTAKES.

That is by design...but still...what possible gratification can they get knowing they are promoting false data?

AboveAlpha

 

Actually, you are totally right! Evolution is NOT proven. No theory can be proven, only disproven. Thank you so much for the reminder. What I should have said is the evolution is accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

 

with the religious it's a self induced delusion to save their belief system...with others its their political leaning, just go to the environment category and witness how supposedly "intelligent" people come up with most incredible excuses to deny the science of climate change, Ive come to think of that segment of our forum as stupid corner....

 

So, if I can convince 50% + 1 within the scientific community that the Sus revolves around the Earth, then that is a new scientific fact?

 

Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), acknowledges that evolution is religious:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint… the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
​

 

Yeah...it is sad though.

If you noticed a member here replied to your post and they offered up....this...asa reply to your post........

*********************************************************************************************************************
Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), acknowledges that evolution is religious:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint… the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."
*********************************************************************************************************************

Now the thing is that this member and members like him if you notice...NEVER seem to provide a LINK....to whatever it is they are quoting and I am not saying that THIS particular above reply is made up but it would be nice to see such members SUPPLY A LINK.

Secondly...this member for some reason thinks that by providing a statement from a professor of history and philosophy.....who is professing that Evolution is a Religion...in his FOR SALE BOOKS.....The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986).......that for some completely unexplainable faulty in any LOGIC WHAT SO EVER.....this member thinks that a STATEMENT WRITTEN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GAINING INTEREST AND CREATING CONTROVERSY SIMPLY TO SELL THIS GUY'S BOOKS HE WROTE......

.......well for some illogical reason Natural thinks THIS is VIABLE EVIDENCE that would somehow support his ideology and position!!?? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thing is.....members like him.....don't even understand that their own posts are doing them a diservice as well as making them seem to anyone of reason that reads them....to be ignorant and uneducated in the EXTREME!!

Now just because a person might be ignorant of certain things.....AND EVERY MEMBER INCLUDING ME ON THIS FORUM IS IGNORANT TO CERTAIN REALITIES.....and just because a person might be uneducated upon certain levels or perhaps uneducated in certain fields or areas of learning....and EVERYONE INCLUDING ME....is uneducated upon certain areas and fields of reality..........

..............well just because certain levels of ignorance and certain levels of lacking in education DOES NOT MEAN A PERSON CAN'T STRIVE TO INFORM AND EDUCATE THEMSELVES ESPECIALLY IN THE 21st CENTURY ERA OF THE INTERNET!!!!!

Not knowing or not understanding certain things does not make a person BAD....or and IDIOT.

What DOES make a person a FREAKIN' IDIOTIC MORON.....is ignoring their shortcomings in knowledge, understandings and education....AND THEN REFUSING TO LEARN OR EDUCATE THEMSELVES OR REFUSING TO ASK FOR A BIT OF HELP WITH CERTAIN THINGS THEY MIGHT HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING!!!

THAT...is what makes a MORON!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Uh... no. You should really read your own signature line.

Though as an FYI, a 2009 poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 97% of all scientists say that life has evolved over time. 87% say that it is due to natural selection or other natural processes.

 

Yeah...not to mention EVERY SINGLE EXISTING CHRISTIAN SET LEADERSHIP...except Baptists....not only accept and agree that Biological EVOLUTION was the process by which ALL LIFE was generated....but as well they have been informing their Faithful of this FACT.

Here is a Christian Website that details how EVOLUTION is the process through which GOD supposedly created the Universe and all LIFE within it.

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.

LINK....http://biologos.org/about

We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes.

All Christian Sects and their Leadership acknowledge EVOLUTION AS A FACT....except Baptists and soon they will as well.

AboveAlpha

 

Watch, NaturalBorn will now accuse you of thinking science is determined by the majority, but that's what happens when someone puts effect before cause. Evolution isn't a theory because it is accepted by the majority of scientists, it is accepted by the majority of scientists because it is a theory.

NaturalBorn's signature line is only partially correct. Theory is not just "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world", it is the BEST explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Creationists like NaturalBorn can rant and rave about all of the supposed problems with evolution, but they cannot produce a better explanation.

 

So according to you those stats are meaningless. Correct?

 

I still await YOUR better explanation and evidence for your religious beliefs.

Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), acknowledges that evolution is religious:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint… the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

 

They could understand it, while the biologists cannot understand the math. We need a brilliant math guy, a physicist, to get a phd in biology, and then let him show us that the improbability is zero. But would that change the minds of the atheistic evolutionists? I doubt it. For they already believe in the improbability, but yet it just had to happen.

 

The idea that an atom was composed of pure solids, was also accepted by consensus. Until they got smart enough to see differently. This is the history of science. We thought at one time that solids, atoms, were the largest thing in matter. Then we found out that the space between atoms, was 98 percent of matter. You are 2 percent atoms, 98 percent space. Evolutionists, who depend upon an improbable event, are using that 98 percent. In their brains.

 

You might want to review the definition of the term "improbable".

I wonder what you consider a probable replacement for evolution theory, or do you just wish to reject something and offer no alternative to it?

 

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate even a basic understanding of evolution. You had better be quick too, this thread is about to get locked.

There's that annoying echo again.

 

I've been pondering about this, and if you think about it, science kind of is determined by the majority (of scientists). When a new theory is presented, it is first peer reviewed to see if there are any flaws in it and then other scientists try to repeat any experiments and try to use the theory to make predictions. Scientists will then decide for themselves if the theory has any merit. Those that believe it has merit will use the theory in their own research and papers, while those that do not will argue against it or just ignore it. Scientist regularly have competing theories, look at String Theory and the Standard Model. When this happens, scientists for each side will continue to research and write papers on the validity of their theory versus the other. Eventually, one theory will be shown to explain the natural world better than the other and will will be accepted by so many scientists that the other theories are considered on the fringe. At least until newer theory comes along that does a better job at modeling that particular part of nature.

Creationism was the default explanation of life on Earth (at least in the western countries) since most people in western countries where Christian and science hadn't come up with anything better. But then the Theory of Evolution came along and science no longer had to rely on an untestable hypothesis for answers and so creationism gave way to evolution among scientists. If a better theory comes along, scientists will then use evolution to explain life less and less and start using the new theory more and more.

Believe it or not, religion works in a similar manner. When a new religion is presented, people will compare the relative benefits and "truth" of the new religion versus the old one. If people see more "truth" in the new religion, they will convert. Of course, sometimes religions give this process a little push in their direction with threats of incarceration, torture or death. Go figure.

 

Yes, science is constantly changing as new information emerges, unlike religion which stubbornly clings to the past even when faced with overwhelming evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure what you mean.

 

Being in Nexus 6 could still count as a form creationism or intelligent design.

 

Would you consider it a problem with science DD if one research scientist made an astounding discovery and presented it to a peer group who either discounted it out-of-hand because the scientist did not believe their doctrine, or did subject the discovery to intense review and arrived at the exact same conclusion but discounted it because it did not fit their doctrine/ religious beliefs?

Is that true science? Is that how you believe science should be promoted?

 

Changing information versus reconfirming one worldview with the same scientific evidence. Which is proved more accurate? The 'theory' that must be constantly adjusted to eliminate any possibility of confirming another 'theory' as true? Or the 'theory' that all scientific evidence and new discovery confirms is true?

You quoted a poll to prove your point that science by consensus (poll) is not true science. I was confused by your post.

 

I apologize, actually it was I that was confused. Science is by consensus. There is no "authority". Some scientists are more respected and are listened to more than others, but there is no central figure making the rules.

 

It has happened before, but in those cases, others have duplicated the research and eventually, it became accepted. This exact thing happened to Darwin when he published the Origin of Species. It was met with a lot of resistance by those who thought it went against their religious beliefs, but as other scientists looked at Darwin's evidence and then did their own research they found it was the best theory to explain the diversity of life.