Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One could almost say that it is, [gulp] downright Christian of them, right?
I was a Southern Baptist deacon and Sunday School teacher, even preached in substitute at a small church twice , in church every Sunday week in and week out for decades , until about 10 yrs ago. One of ( but not the only ) the major things that made me question it all was the complete lack of honesty regarding the conflict between science and conservative evangelical beliefs. More lies were told than I could stomach, not only about what evolution supposedly said, but lies in the rebuttals to evolution , along with lies about those believing in evolution, including atheists and agnostics. I finally decided that a belief that dealt in so much deception could not be true as a whole even if some parts of it were OK. I refer here to conservative evangelical Christianity, and not the other strains like Catholicism and Orthodoxy , or more mainline and moderate Christian groups.
I have since learned that many in the other forms of Christianity regard this part of it as either an aberrant and warped form of Christianity, or simply dont regard it as real Christianity.
I was a Southern Baptist deacon and Sunday School teacher, even preached in substitute at a small church twice , in church every Sunday week in and week out for decades , until about 10 yrs ago. One of ( but not the only ) the major things that made me question it all was the complete lack of honesty regarding the conflict between science and conservative evangelical beliefs. More lies were told than I could stomach, not only about what evolution supposedly said, but lies in the rebuttals to evolution , along with lies about those believing in evolution, including atheists and agnostics. I finally decided that a belief that dealt in so much deception could not be true as a whole even if some parts of it were OK. I refer here to conservative evangelical Christianity, and not the other strains like Catholicism and Orthodoxy , or more mainline and moderate Christin groups.
Agreed. I have no issue with most Christians. And, as noted earlier, don't bother arguing with those fundamentalists who demonstrate diminished capacity.
But I loathe (and I do not use the word lightly) those who deliberately misrepresent scientific positions and flat-out lie in defense of their mouldy old book and bigoted dogma.
They are my enemy. I will expose, attempt to shame, mock, and deride them until I can no longer type or speak.
You just demonstrated the problem. You did not read the article with comprehension. Please address the quotes FROM the article that show the problems with it, not just waste band width with personal attacks. Only a blind believer in Evolution could ever find anything in that article of value to his position. It refutes it AND calls Evolution a hypothesis, not a theory, let alone a fact. Then the straw man argument .......
You REALLY need to learn to read better , or really, more honestly. The study, which was merely a computation of statistical probabilities based on proteins and their commonality among life , and NOT a refutation of any aspect of evolution itself , concludes that while the odds of evolution are statistically low , the odds of creationism are "absolutely horrible". Which leaves evolution as the improbable but likelier method life arose , ACCORDING TO the study.
You have a third choice between the improbable rise of life through evolution and the " absolutely horrible" likelihood life arose from independent creation? Lets hear it then. Because that's what the study concludes , IF read honestly (see my other recent posts on Christian honesty, suddenly relevant here) . That while the odds were not great for evolution, life HAS happened , and the odds that it happened through creationism are , to QUOTE the ACTUAL scientist ' absolutely horrible".
So whats your third choice? Or are you still going to maintain that the article is saying the impossible (creationism) is more likely than the improbable ( evolution ) regarding how life exists?
Your problem here is you cant grasp and deal intellectually with how scientists ( most , but not all ) can be honest with themselves about their ideas. Its not a practice religionists are good at.
Last edited by wallflash; 10-31-2015 at 10:20 AM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,943,087 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
You just demonstrated the problem. You did not read the article with comprehension. Please address the quotes FROM the article that show the problems with it, not just waste band width with personal attacks. Only a blind believer in Evolution could ever find anything in that article of value to his position. It refutes it AND calls Evolution a hypothesis, not a theory, let alone a fact. Then the straw man argument .......
Why don't you show us where the article refutes evolution, because I have read it twice now, and can't see where it says that.
But I loathe (and I do not use the word lightly) those who deliberately misrepresent scientific positions and flat-out lie in defense of their mouldy old book and bigoted dogma.
They are why I vote "Yes" on school bonds. An educated populace will see past their sleight of hand tricks.
Why don't you show us where the article refutes evolution, because I have read it twice now, and can't see where it says that.
His take on it is that since it computes the odds of evolution as low, it refutes evolution. He then dishonestly fails to mention that it also computes the odds of the independent rising of different life forms as absolutely horrible , and tries to insist that the study refutes evolution and supports creationism.
Im not sure how one can do this with any sense of honesty, but there you go. Religionists at work.
His take on it is that since it computes the odds of evolution as low, it refutes evolution. He then dishonestly fails to mention that it also computes the odds of the independent rising of different life forms as absolutely horrible , and tries to insist that the study refutes evolution and supports creationism.
Im not sure how one can do this with any sense of honesty, but there you go. Religionists at work.
He's far from alone in that type of deception but is a regular offender.
He's far from alone in that type of deception but is a regular offender.
Its worth noting , to clarify what the study actually stated amidst all the deception from religionists, that the study in no way at point finds a flaw in the ToE. None. Nothing in the article suggests in the slightest that evolution could not have taken place as described by the ToE. It merely computes the odds based on the vast array of life that would share those same characteristics that make us life, from bacteria to human.
What the study was , was a computation of the probability of differing events taking place to get us all here today debating it on a computer. Since we ARE here, we got here somehow , and as far as I know only 2 ways are proposed. Evolution and independent divine creation. So the odds of each of those ways were computed. The odds of evolution were low. The odds of creationism were astronomically abysmally lower than evolution. But as Sherlock Holmes said, when the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Until someone comes up with a third way with better odds than evolution, evolution remains the probable way.
And BTW, this doesn't address the evidence of genetics that link us to the rest of the animal kingdom , nor the vestigial organs left over from our evolution from other animals that we can clearly see , IF willing .
The last comment gets it. Neither life in general nor man developed by macro Evolution. Science confirms that. That is why Creation trumps Macro Evolution.
As to the link above, a little reading says:
a new study seems to confirm.
Again no real confirmation and ... Life on earth is generally speaking carbon based so all life will share commonality. God knows what he is doing.
It also confirms that several hypothesizes exist and applies that to evolution as well:
The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis"
Then the straw man argument:
Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.
Man is not separate, he is part of ... creation and in the same "line" as it were as all animals and man are .... based on the same basic genetic stuff. That is why similarity exists. This study shows the impossibility of Evolution and only attacks a straw man argument about creation. All such life shares some genetic similarity. In the end we all return to the basic building block of life, "dirt". That is scientific fact.
Those believing in Evolution blindly follow the words, but not the actual evidence, presented in a way they like. Blind faith. Maybe Blinded is a better word.
A good example are cars. If we look at the Model T we see a primitive car compared to today's cars. Yet they all share a common basis. Yet every one was created and the improvements were created by intelligence and are still directly linked. We have a variety of car kinds, gas, diesel, hybrid, electric, propane and more. You can't run a electric car on diesel but the electricity that recharges the batteries may come from a diesel powered plant. To claim cars Evolved on their own is stupid. Well they are so simple compared to life that to say life evolved on it's own is ....... well dumber than saying cars did. No man alive today saw the first car built, not even the later Model T, but we believe base on what we read and find and analyze that it was created by man. Evolution is speculation, and in many forms, and has absolutely no factual evidence, just a lot of hypothesis that when analyzed are untenable.
Evolution is a man made "religion", a belief system, based on what other men claim, but can't prove. With Evolution man, instead of God, is at the top of creation. Arrogance.
If the first cell came from dirt---all cells came from dirt. Using cars as an example of comparison against life is the epitome of the straw man argument.
The best evidence is that everything came from the same thing--the astonishing similarities in DNA between us and several other primates shows just how much like them we are. In fact, there is far more EVIDENCE that evolution occurred than that God exists. God is completely a faith issue--not evidence based. And believing YEC has neither evidence nor faith to back it--just blindness.
And the inability of some humans to see the link is only evidence that in some cases people are dumber than apes.
The United States is the only remaining bastion of YEC's. It isn't present in Europe, or the Middle East, or Africa, or the Mediterranean--just the U.S. where conservative christians continue to block the progress of humans in virtually every field of endeavor. Rightfully young people here are now rejecting such foolishness.
Evidence of how dilatory most evangelicals have been has come in my lifetime. I remember reading magazine articles where christians claimed man could not create life--but man has--because God gave us a brain and some of us are going to use what God called good.
And not all the religious community of the past did not hold with the foolishness of YEC. Origen and later St. Augustine both found recommended that the Bible not be viewed as a science book.
Jews of past ages are smarter than YEC christians:
Quote:
A literal interpretation of the biblical Creation story among classic rabbinic commentators is uncommon. Thus Bible commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra (11th Century) wrote,
If there appears something in the Torah which contradicts reason…then here one should seek for the solution in a figurative interpretation…the narrative of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for instance, can only be understood in a figurative sense.
Finally the belief is a critical part in driving away young people in this nation from church doors.
Quote:
But the study managed to isolate six main reasons why Millennials (age 18-29) tend to leave Christian churches as they grow up: a sense that young adults were receiving an unsatisfying or “shallow” version of Christianity, feelings that the church was overprotective, the perception of judgmental attitudes around sex and sexuality, churches’ unfriendliness to members grappling with doubt, the sense that Christianity was too exclusive, and finally, the tense relationship between Christianity and science.
So keep spreading your "good" news of driving people away from church. Our young people and the rest of the world see you for what you are---bound up in worship of a book rather than bound up in the spiritual rescue of all human beings.
You have been weighed in the balances and are found wanting.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 10-31-2015 at 11:34 AM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,943,087 times
Reputation: 4561
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
