Religious affiliation poll

You missed my entire point, maybe try not cutting half of it out when you quote me? I never claimed just because its a theory that means its unlikely to be true, in fact I said quite the opposite. On top of that I never claimed to have any proof whatsoever for a supernatural being, again I have been claiming the exact opposite I have no idea how you thought I was on the other side of this debate.

 

Then my apologies. I focused on your "just a theory" as a marginalization of what a scientific theory really is.

 

It is based on faith in the same way that my thinking that I exist and I am actually currently typing this is based on faith. However, all the evidence at my disposal would have me believe that I am, and that evolution is an accurate explanation for how and why life currently exists as it does. Evolution has been observed in certain organisms, and the evidence for macroevolution is varied and compelling. This is not like the debate over climate science, where there is a wide consensus on one side of the issue, but there is still dissent among credible scientists. As far as evolution goes, there isn't a single dissenting voice. There is a 100% unanimous agreement among all scientists about evolution. Only religious people blinded to reality challenge evolution.

 

All good, it happens.

 

Good point. If I could change it I would.

 

Heh the first real animals were sponge and then the crinoids not plants , animals came out of the sea long before the plants..
If you know how a sponge works you will understand that single cells united because cooperation brought much better benefits.

Weeds grow out of nothing? are you for real?
Yes some lifeforms can survive extreme conditions , there are crabs living 3k undersea next to vents with boiling water .

You don't know how planets are formed... i think you may wanna read about it before posting such nonsense.

You do not see all the colors of the rainbow because some of them are outside your vision's limit , we can only see combinations of the three basic colors . It is thought that primates originally developed the ability to see red because they were fruit eaters, being able to distinguish mature red fruits from sour green ones gave us a boost in efficient eating . Everything happens for a reason .

 

I understand that it can be measured, that it is highly predictable, that it is a natural force, but WHAT IS IT? A wave, a particle, what?

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)...

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

I think this article in particular is hilarious, considering what you just said: http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

Creationists with PhDs (partial list of scientists): http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ (main page w/ link to list & explanation) | the list (over 700 scientists): http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

 

A list of high school science teachers and engineers!! Only in the world of religious delusion is that credible. If any other scientific theory was challenged by a high school science teacher, say gravity, they would be dismissed without question as crazies. However, if a high school science teacher takes their science from ancient mythology, other people who like that mythology will trumpet their brilliance!!

PS. There are of course biologists who believe in intelligent design. However, there is not ONE single person with a PHD in biology, especially evolutionary biology, who is a creationist. Not one. Zero. They all accept evolution, it is a question only of how far back they believe evolution explains things. Meaning some believe in intelligent design, and may argue that the earliest life forms were designed, but that evolution explains everything that has taken place since.

 

Wow they have a question on the side of the website saying "Why do so many scientists endorse Evolution?" And their only (*)(*)(*)(*)ing answer is literally "because they really believe such to be the case." That website is either ran by very unintelligent people or they are extremely bias, I wouldnt doubt that its both.

 

You're right! This is pointedly unfair to people who worship The Great Tree Lizard!

 

It's clear that you didn't read anything I posted. What list of high school science teachers are you referring to? The only thing I read about high school science teachers in the above links, is that the majority of people who believe in evolution were taught that in high school... by said teachers. How many college students are actually taking Anthropology courses? How many are actually going to college? Then the argument is this "how many high school science teachers are PhDs in their field and how many are necessarily experts?" Not very many.

And how, sir, did you learn about evolution?

I just gave you links to a slew of individuals, some Biologists, some Geneticists, some Physicists, some Geologists, some Geo-Physicists, some Chemists, etc. with PhDs, who refute evolution, believe in intelligent design and are religious (Creationists). Your repetition of saying the same thing again and again doesn't disprove the fact that many scientists refute your cherished theory... it just makes you insane.

FYI - This is the requirement for signers of the Dissent from Darwin list:

"Signers of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signers must also agree with the following statement:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

If you meet these criteria, please consider signing the statement by emailing contact@dissentfromdarwin.org."

 

Says you. I'm aware of how a sponge works, but you'd think they'd have evolved by now. I thought I mentioned the crinoids and sponges in a previous comment, anyway... Or was that a different conversation? Too many evolutionists without PhDs in here - hard to keep track.

No, I'm fake.

Seriously though, that stuff is hard to kill.

You're funny... You know why? Because you don't get sarcasm... and then argue against it. My argument was to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the evolutionist mind. Something came from nothing... One theory: the Earth birthed the first single-cell organism. Why is that so crazy, but a single-cell organism that just appeared out of nowhere isn't?

That being said... do you? Have you ever witnessed the forming of a planet? I guess it could theoretically be explained to you... but that doesn't mean to say it's true.

Wow, you know why we can see the color red? Did an evolutionist tell you that? What about bananas? They're green, then turn yellow... then turn brown. Do they not count? Or what about oranges? Wait... what about green or yellow apples? And different berries/grapes? This is getting very complicated.

 

A force. So give me the measurable predictors of supernatural beings, the empirical repeatable, measurable evidence that supernatural beings exist.

 

Did that unfathomable deity put thoughts into ancient people's heads that got put down in writing and eventually edited and compiled in volumes around which churches were established?

 

I never claimed that there are supernatural beings.

Magnetism is a force. It consists of electrons in a field. Where are the electrons in gravity? If you know what gravity consists of, you are way ahead of any scientist I know.

 

So you don't believe in the Christian God and angels.

 

I'm not a regular visitor to their website, but their answer seems to be a bit more involved than that. That's the "obvious" reason, but you actually need to read further to see what scientists actually have to say... I know that reading is kind of a sub-cultural activity for the modern-day political debater, but can you at least humor those who might be interested in an intellectual and honest debate?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html

 

The electrons in gravity are in the mass that make of the body that is producing the force. Both are natural forces which can be measured and quantified and predicted.

So cite me to a source that does so with supernatural beings, gods.

 

Having a PHD in computer science, mathematics, and engineering is as useful to making you an expert on evolution, as having no PHD at all. It is meaningless, they are not experts.

PS. Again, promoting intelligent design and denying evolution are NOT the same thing. You are basically linking to scientists who are religious. That is it. So they believe the hand of some creator is in the mix somewhere. That is not the same as denying evolution, nor is believing in intelligent design comparable to creationism. Intelligent design looks at the mysteries of the world and universe which science cannot explain, and attributes explanation to a creator. Creationists look at phenomenon already well explained by science, deny the science, and invent their own "scientific theory" based on the bronze and iron age myths they insist are real. The former is something I think it is pointless, and it stifles further scientific advancement when you just declare god did it, instead of seeking scientific explanations. This therefore relegates God to an ever receding pocket of ignorance. However, it is an intellectually understandable position. Creationists are simply scientifically illiterate people who attempt to push religious myth as science, and that is completely unacceptable, dangerous, and idiotic.

 

I'm afraid you've mistaken me for some retrogressive Republican yayhoo.

 

Obviously not. People created religions themselves. This is a nearly universal phenomenon. Any people who create a society, tend to create a religion on almost all occasions. They do it to explain things they do not understand. They are also created and used by the powerful to control the rest of society more efficiently. It is no surprise that the religions that are prominent today were attached to powerful empires. Christianity was a significant, but still minor sect in 300 AD. It had about 6 million adherents. In 350AD, during the time Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, it had about 33 million adherents. Considering that the Empire had about 60 million people at the time (a rough estimate, since it is impossible to know the exact number), it went from a sizable minority of 10% to a majority of people in 50 years, simply through its changed relationship to power. It is that simple. Islam had a similar connection to the power of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphate, and then dozens of other Empires. Hinduism to the power of various Indian kingdoms and empires. The list goes on and on. Zoroastrianism was one of the worlds great religions when it was the religion of an Empire, when that Empire falls, so too did the religion. This is something that has been true for the history of the ancient world. In order for a religion to survive until today, it simply needed to maintain its connection to power. that simple really.

 

Once again, you didn't read anything I posted. You didn't read the names or credentials. You're just postulating bull(*)(*)(*)(*), because you can't disprove what I say. Arguing with you is a waste of time, as you don't want to have a serious discussion.

I majored and received a BA degree in Anthropology. I saw the evidence, studied the evidence, listened to the lectures, read the books, saw the videos, joined the societies and received/read the journals, etc... and I've come to the conclusion that there's absolutely no definitive proof or valid explanation for humanity's beginning, based on factual observations/evidence. Whether you want to believe that is up to you. I know the truth about myself and I sleep well at night. In fact, I'm thinking about pursuing an advanced degree in Biblical Archaeology, where archaeologists have been able to verify events in the Bible through their findings.

You people keep claiming that "creationists are simply scientifically illiterate," but when we offer up a list of hundreds of scientists who refute evolution, you ignore it and laugh. If we produce an argument against your proclaimed "science," which could explain away your precious theory, you immediately denounce it as creationist psychobabble. Why? Well, because we believe in God, that's why... and we believe that evolution has not occurred, or at least hasn't been proven to have occurred. You people, atheists/evolutionists/Darwinists, are the epitome of intolerance and narrow-mindedness. You won't even give credence to the notion of the unexplainable, because you arrogantly think that science has the answers to all things - which it doesn't.

There's an entire archaeological field of research, based on the Bible (a book about God - something that can't be proven). How many of those archaeologists do you think have accepted evolution as fact and deny creationism?

I can tell you that these guys: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/ are creationists, based on their statement of faith.
Or how about these guys: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/ ? I'm not sure if the entire organization has a statement of faith, like the above, but it's interesting that they have contributors from the likes of Harvard Professor Peter Machinist, of the Harvard Divinity School (did you even know Harvard had a Divinity School? I bet not.). Here's a recent article by him for Biblicalarchaeology.org: Who Was Moses? Was He More Than an Exodus Hero?

Anyway, your ignorance sucks, and your arrogance sucks more. Maybe you'll stop issuing platitudes and sweeping statements about things you know nothing of... or at least you'll start doing research on the subject, before doing so. One could hope, anyway.

 

I saw the lists you posted, none of them are lists of people who reject evolution and certainly NONE of them refute evolution. They are simply people who challenge evolutions ability to explain everything. For example the origins of DNA. How did chemicals with no DNA create DNA? That is a question smart people studying chemical evolution cannot answer. So claiming in that instance god did it, makes some sense, but it makes more sense to seek a natural explanation and do your job as a scientist. As I said in the last post, when you use what is essentially the god of the gaps argument, you are placing God in a box of an ever receding pocket of ignorance. As scientists explain more, God is needed less and less.

However, the evidence to support the existence of evolution is varied and vast. The evidence to prove that the world is more than 10,000 years old is actually indisputable. It is a scientific FACT!! Not just a theory. Scientists are 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure the world is over 10,000 years old. Creationism is a joke. Post a list, which is ONLY scientists who are creationists, not simply a list which is essentially just religious scientists (as I already pointed out, that is ALL you have done).

PS. I don't care that you have a degree in anthropology!! That is irrelevant. It is an appeal to authority fallacy, and the authority you are appealing to isn't impressive to me. First of all, there are various fields of anthropology, and even if you were in a field which focused on such questions, a BA in the field is like reading the wikipedia article on the subject. Also, there are various different universities with various different reputations. If you studied at say Oral Roberts University, or a local state school like the University of Western Alabama (or some other equivalent), your degree doesn't impress me in the slightest. If you went to a very good university, it only gives you the smallest iota of credibility, but even that is tenuous, because as I said, a bachelors degree gives no one expertise on anything.

 

One list is of people who's stated goal is to challenge evolution (that is to approach evolution as a skeptic - much like you're a skeptic of religion). You would denounce them just as plainly as my other list, had they stated this in a different way. Evolution to lemmings of Darwin is a very touchy subject. They have such great belief in the theory, despite not having solid evidence, that it's as though "Evolutionism" is a religion.

Ok, say they do find the origins of DNA... what would have been the origin of the matter that created DNA? Do you not see that it's an endless cycle? It's like questioning how the Universe was formed. The Big Bang! Ok, what started the Big Bang? Answer that and then I'll ask a follow up - what created/birthed the matter that started the Big Bang? Ok, what started that?

Now, the entire Big Bang theory is being questioned, due to a Cosmologist suggesting that the Universe is actually condensing, not expanding, which would be contradictory to a Big Bang theory.

You can't disprove God and I'm not trying to disprove science. I'm suggesting to you that evolution is not a very scientific theory - I'm a skeptic. I don't believe it happened, because it hasn't been shown to have happened, even through evidence, which I have already argued.

No... it's not varied or vast - it's dependent on three things: fossils (which could or could not be related to human beings), dating methods (which are unreliable, due to the nature of radioactive decay) and DNA (which are building blocks that every living thing has). No one disputes that the world is over 10,000 years old (at least I don't). The Carbon-14 dating method (our more reliable, yet still unreliable) can be used to date things as far back as 50,000 years old, while other methods (for testing Uranium, etc) can allegedly date as far back as millions of years ago (but highly unreliable). I don't see how this disputes/refutes Creation.

Yes, you don't care that I actually have a degree in the topic we're talking about - that's part of the problem. Why even mention educational requirements in a conversation if they don't matter? I'll ask you again, smart guy in the room... WHERE did you even hear about evolution? Did you study it? Do YOU have a PhD? If not, then why is your opinion any better than mine, whom actually studied it for more than 4 years? Apparently those findings/opinions of scientists with PhDs (Anthropologists/Archaeologists/Biologists/Chemists involved), who don't believe in evolution (which I have listed and you continue to ignore, like a brain-dead zombie) don't count... They don't have the "right" background, according to you. Well, what's YOUR background? What professor taught you the theory? Who's YOUR go-to for believing in Evolution?

I'll pose to you another question: Who is more credible on the Theory of Evolution? Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins? And further... why?