Creationism is Stupid, Stupid, STOOOOPID!

by Farkel 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tijkmo

  which you likely didn't bother to read

  well there you go then..

  an absolute assertion without any evidence..kinda ironic n'est pas

  actually i don't care either way..i just find it amusing that people who believe evolution think they do it without faith.
• 

  Maddie

  How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong?

  The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people to accept, particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people, and well-respected organizations say it is true. How can it be that so many people are so wrong?

  • Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and that evolution is a proven fact. They have not been told about the problems with the theory of evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.
  • Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this word is commonly used to describe two very different things:
  • Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes this. Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good design". Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this type of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing trait.
  • Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.
  • Some other considerations include:
    • Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.
    • Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist can believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field", even if it is not obviously seen in his own.
    • Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves.
    • Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best" theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.
    • Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate. However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with their religious and scientific ideas working together.

  It seems to be quite common to belittle creationists so I thought I would post something in defense of it. I think we should be careful of just assuming that Scientists have all the answers cut and dried. I have learnt from experience not to put all my trust in what human being says as the indisputable truth. Just thought I'd mention it

  Maddie
• 

  Farkel

  : an absolute assertion without any evidence..kinda ironic n'est pas

  Baloney. I clearly stated that scientists have OBSERVED evolution in progress in the laboratory and you come back with a statement that such evolution requires "faith." If you would have read and understood my thread you wouldn't have said evolution requires faith. That is, if you understand the difference between facts and faith.

  Farkel
• 

  Satanus

  Creationists don't require proof. No, they don't want the proof, reject it, even though it is there, right in front of them. Faith acts as a blind.
  
  S
• 

  tijkmo

  If you would have read and understood my thread you wouldn't have said evolution requires faith. That is, if you understand the difference between facts and faith.

  the irony was based on the fact that you asserted that i hadn't read your initial post..you had absolutely no evidence of this and yet you believe it to be true as you are in fact still doing.

  in this matter you have faith in something you believe without knowing whether you are right or wrong or being privvy to the facts. i could tell you that i did read it and you may well choose to believe otherwise.

  for the record..i did read it (yes prior to posting) (yes the first time)...i did understand it..hell i even agreed with it....and i do know the difference between facts and faith (i know for example that in everyday life factual occurences still require our putting faith in them)

  i just don't care...but i am still amused at your annoyance that i won't just accept what you said as gospel in much the same manner as i am amused by anyone else who gets annoyed at my refusal to accept what they say as gospel .

  tijkmo...of the - just because it's what you chose to believe, it does not make it so* - class

  *liars and fools (part 4) - the irony...lyrics printed by permission of me.
• 

  hillary_step

  Maddie,

  I have learnt from experience not to put all my trust in what human being says as the indisputable truth. Just thought I'd mention it

  In which case, why not put your trust in science, it has little to do with "humans". It has no agenda, no axe to grind and is based on falsifiable evidence of which so much exists both in DNA and transference fossil records that though details are shady, the foundations of evolution are beyond dispute. Science exists, even if humans do not.

  For example :

• Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and that evolution is a proven fact. They have not been told about the problems with the theory of evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.

There IS no legitimate alternative that does not require "faith" to be injected to give it some legitimacy. Once "faith" enters the equation, we move from the realms of science into the dubious realms of supernaturality.

There are four or five different concepts of creationism. Three of them one can have a little respect for as they are developed by people who have faith in God and try somehow to find some some rationale that allows them to accept both a form of evolution that can at least superficially live side by side with the idea of a creator. One of them, Young Earth Creationism, has nothing to recommend it and is the retreat of those who study little and talk much and have no qualms about using dishonest means to protect Biblical interests. The WTS is one such group, although they do not adhere to all the tenets of YEC. Like plaigerists, they like to change a thought or two and then claim the subject as their own!

YEC relies on the notion that the Genesis account must be strictly adhered to come what may. If scientific fact needs to be bent, or lies need to be told to uphold "Gods Word", then so be it! It starts with a conclusion and bends the facts to fit.

• Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes this. Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good design". Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this type of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing trait.

What has been conveniently ignored Maddie is the fossil record that puts paid to this assertion once and for all. It is indisputable. Do a little research and prove this to yourself.

Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.

Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.

• Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist can believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field", even if it is not obviously seen in his own.
• Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves.
• Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best" theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.
• Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate. However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with their religious and scientific ideas working together

The above is all nonsense written along Watchtower lines, trying most dishonestly and disengenously to muddy water that is clear and falsifiable.

For example the statement "Can we equate "what is true" and "what can be seen and measured" is typical of the intellectual dishonesty raised by creationists to try to undermine the theory of evolution by those with a religious agenda. Imbued in this statement is an admission that the scientific method is actually based on fact, what "is true" and "can be measured" but an appeal is made to the reader that perhaps other things exist beyond scientific fact.

They cannot have it both ways, but WANT it both ways. Unfortunately the truth of the evolution/creation debate is only settled after some in-depth study and a large lashing of honest appraisal, a station that many strict religionists find impossible to achieve, on both counts.

HS