But, as I recall this thread was about how the entire science of biological evolution is the result of liberal morals and sheepish minds. lol
No, its about non-evidence reasons why people embrace evolution, and reject biblical creation.
hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
hooberus
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
hooberus
One thing I find interesting is that creationists always complain when actual scientists point out that their sources are not-qualified / uninformed / fringe. Pointing out that someone doesn't know what their talking about is not an ad hominem.
. . .the creationist "side" is represented only by a meager smattering of scientists (often speaking about things that are not qualified to speak about) and laymen that are always conservative religious believers? Where is the "skepticism" of this state of affairs?
The previous referenced publication "In six days" gives the specific qualigfications of its authors.
http://creation.com/in-six-days/
Many hold Ph.d 's in the specific revelant field that they discuss. such as doctorates in biology, geology, and genetics. Furthermore many of scientists employed at the major creationists organizations have formal qualifications in these areas.
Evolutionists don't seem to have a problem though when their own speak on areas not directly related to their specific fields though.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
hooberus
For JaguarBass-
The first book has been covered by cofty so I guess I'll take the second
"THe Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris
Refutation Joel Cracraft, "Systematics, Comparative Biology and the Case Against Creationism," in Laurie R. Godfrey, Scientists Confront Creationism
See my previous post.
Your second book's ("In 6 Days Why 50 Scientist choose to believe in Creation" By John Ashton) main argument is irreducable complexity which was thoroughly dismantled in Kitzmiller v Dover (this is the bacterial flagellum theory). Here take a look:
Its obvious that you haven't read the "in 6 days book". Thanks for the "review" though. (see previous comments)
B.T.W. I've actually read a good part of it. It doesn't have a specific "main argument" at all. Here it is: http://creation.com/in-six-days/
As I said before:
One thing that I have found interesting is the facts that evolutionists always, always engage in source attacks whenever any non-evolutionist resource is recommended (or even referenced) be it website or book.
The evolutionist who haven't read the publications will always do a "search" and immediately paste any neagtive info that they can find.
Evolutionists simply can't tolerate anyone actually reading any publications against their belief system.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
hooberus
The Earths Catrostophic Past, Geology, Creation and the Flood" by Andrew Snelling
OK let's look at your first witness for young earth creationism. Andrew Snelling is a hypocrite. He is a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo.
The rest of the time he is a consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.
Let me refer to one of his papers as quoted by one of his colleagues Dr Alex Ritchie
During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.
2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.
3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.
When he writes for his theological pseudo-science magazine he never makes mention of his acceptance of "millions of years". When he writes peer reviewed papers he never owns up to his young earth creationism.
Dr Ritchie concludes..
One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?
Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.
Shall we go on to look at the rest of your "sources"?
One thing that I have found interesting is the facts that evolutionists always, always engage in source attacks whenever any non-evolutionist resource is recommended (or even referenced) be it website or book.
The evolutionist who haven't read the publications will always do a "search" and immediately paste any neagtive info that they can find.
Evolutionists simply can't tolerate anyone actually reading any publications against their belief system.
They will consistently "review" books without reading then and try to dimiss them as "lies", or refer to other evolutionists reviews (that they haven't read, and dogmatically pronounce the non-evolutionary literature to have been "refuted"). Its also interesting since when they recommend pro-evo. resources the non-evolutionists usually don't behave in the same way.
These kind of consistenently employed tactics are one reason confirming to me anyway that the embrace of evolution is usually due to non-evidence based reasons.
For a response to the above ad hominem regarding Snelling see: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
hooberus
From the O.P.
*Note: By "Evolution" (capital "E") I mean the complete evolutionary naturalist version of history (molecules to man), not merely "evolution" in the limited sense of mere biological "change" (which of course everyone including Biblical creationists accept)."
So Tuesday, mere observed speciation is what caused you to embrace what the O.P. refers to as "the complete evolutionary naturalist version of history (molecules to man)"? If so then fine [you might though wish to see: http://creation.com/speciation-conference-brings-good-news-for-creationists,].
However as I said in the O.P. I suspect for most "that their principal reasons for embracing evolution often have more to do with other factors than mere "evidence". This thead is about a discussion of some of these other reasons."
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
hooberus
Non-evidence reason #4.
Desire to be accepted as an intellectual, desire to conform to the predominate viewpoint of others pereceived as intellectuals.
more to come.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
hooberus
Non-evidence reason #3.
Philosphical a priori starting point that mandates an evolutionary naturalist conclusion from the start.
Evolutionists frequently allow only "naturalistic explanations" as allowable (due to philosophical or methodological bias). This essentailly mandates some sort of an evolutionary conclusion. Evolutionists even go so far as to demand that science itself be defined as such.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
hooberus
Non-evidence reason #2.
Personal hurt by religious persons or organizations that claim to represent God.
A backlash against God himself often ensues, and attributing everthing to evolution helps in the rejection of God.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
hooberus
Non-evidence Reason #1.
Social and sexual liberalism.
While one may find many socially conservative people who believe in evolution, one will virtually never find a socially liberal activist person who believes in Biblical creationism (i.e. that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis are real straightforward history). This is because a socially liberal belief system is incompatible with a historical genesis. Therefore Liberals will (and do) universally reject an historical Genesis.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
hooberus
Evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in Evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence". They frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to Genesis creation and flood history !).
Their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing God). They always claim that these beliefs (no matter what they are) are "backed by evidence" ; "overwhelming evidence" etc, repeat, evidence; etc, repeat, evidence; etc..
However I think that their principal reasons for embracing evolution often have more to do with other factors than mere "evidence". This thead is about a discussion of some of these other reasons.
*Note: By "Evolution" (capital "E") I mean the complete evolutionary naturalist version of history (molecules to man), not merely "evolution" in the limited sense of mere biological "change" (which of course everyone including Biblical creationists accept).