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.
Well, when they're in a conversation with someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and every creature on the planet descended from pairs of animals who were rescued from a flood by a big boat, yeah - it's easy to see how they would seem like "supreme experts" in comparison.
Hell, a 5-year old child who draws a picture of a dinosaur and knows when it lived is an expert compared to you, Jeff. No insult intended, but it's just a fact. When you don't know anything at all, someone who knows even just a tiny bit is an expert in comparison. Sorry if that makes you feel left behind in the conversations, but you have nobody to blame but yourself. You have access to the same information as everyone else; you just made a conscious decision to completely ignore it.
Sad - but in virtually every fundamentalist's case - true.
Except for those poor souls who simply do not posses the cognitive abilities and educational background to discern the truth when it smacks them upside the cranium.
Well, when they're in a conversation with someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and every creature on the planet descended from pairs of animals who were rescued from a flood by a big boat, yeah - it's easy to see how they would seem like "supreme experts" in comparison.
Gotta love how 99% of atheists act like they are supreme experts in science, psychology and every other field on this planet.
It's called the Dunning Kruger effect. My background is in the biological sciences. In reality it's often biologists of the first rank who are throwing doubts on the tenability of the modern synthesis. Save for zealots like Dawkins and PZ Myers, it's almost always those adherents without life science degrees who claim that the theory is immutable fact and undefeatable.
Regardless of uneducated views--and mine is one of them--the vast majority of scientists hold with the theory of evolution:
Quote:
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.
-----
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory"
So called scientists with other views are not at the top of the pecking order in their respective fields.
Further, it is, percentage wise, relatively FEW christians that have sunk into the creationist mode.
Quote:
Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is only associated with atheism.[58][59] However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of creation science in the influential McLean v. Arkansas court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups.
Same source
Obviously the Dunning Kruger effect plays out among people claiming to be creationist christians as well.
Well, when they're in a conversation with someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and every creature on the planet descended from pairs of animals who were rescued from a flood by a big boat, yeah - it's easy to see how they would seem like "supreme experts" in comparison.
Hell, a 5-year old child who draws a picture of a dinosaur and knows when it lived is an expert compared to you, Jeff. No insult intended, but it's just a fact. When you don't know anything at all, someone who knows even just a tiny bit is an expert in comparison. Sorry if that makes you feel left behind in the conversations, but you have nobody to blame but yourself. You have access to the same information as everyone else; you just made a conscious decision to completely ignore it.
Oh you fully intended to insult. There was no need to compare me to five year old. You see, unlike yourself, I don't need to have all the blanks filled in to know that God is real. But atheists act like just because I can't explain a young earth or Noah's ark then the whole house of cards must come down. Such an attitude actually goes against the nature of science which is suppose to be constantly renewing with new knowledge and discovery. Therefore, you don't just concrete something as scientific fact and say this can never be untrue. What if there is a discover in the future that completely rewrites evolutionary thought? For example, discovery and knowledge about infectious diseases completely rewrote long held scientific beliefs like the four humors. Hundred years from now, scientists will probably be laughing at how archaic beliefs today just like you laugh at what people believed in previous generations.
The hypocritical stance from atheists is that they demand Christians explain every possible question yet have no problem filling in the blanks with NO evidence to the countless holes in evolutionary theory. For example, how did man evolve to create language? As far as I know, we are the ONLY species that has multiple languages, accents and dialects. Why wasn't just one united language good enough? How did this happen exactly? Oh the atheist will give some impressive sounding answer, but it's still just an answer that they pulled out of their rear end. No concrete evidence.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,938,587 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Oh you fully intended to insult. There was no need to compare me to five year old. You see, unlike yourself, I don't need to have all the blanks filled in to know that God is real. But atheists act like just because I can't explain a young earth or Noah's ark then the whole house of cards must come down. Such an attitude actually goes against the nature of science which is suppose to be constantly renewing with new knowledge and discovery. Therefore, you don't just concrete something as scientific fact and say this can never be untrue. What if there is a discover in the future that completely rewrites evolutionary thought? For example, discovery and knowledge about infectious diseases completely rewrote long held scientific beliefs like the four humors. Hundred years from now, scientists will probably be laughing at how archaic beliefs today just like you laugh at what people believed in previous generations.
The hypocritical stance from atheists is that they demand Christians explain every possible question yet have no problem filling in the blanks with NO evidence to the countless holes in evolutionary theory. For example, how did man evolve to create language? As far as I know, we are the ONLY species that has multiple languages, accents and dialects. Why wasn't just one united language good enough? How did this happen exactly? Oh the atheist will give some impressive sounding answer, but it's still just an answer that they pulled out of their rear end. No concrete evidence.
It's called the Dunning Kruger effect. My background is in the biological sciences. In reality it's often biologists of the first rank who are throwing doubts on the tenability of the modern synthesis. Save for zealots like Dawkins and PZ Myers, it's almost always those adherents without life science degrees who claim that the theory is immutable fact and undefeatable.
Yes, but these first rank scientists who doubt the accuracy of the modern synthesis aren't saying, "Well, there are still gaps in the theory of evolution and, since we don't have all the answers right now, right this very minute, we may as well trash the entire theory and just accept that God did it in six literal days."
I think you'll find few atheists who will claim that evolution is a rock-solid wall of immutable fact, but when put up against a god using magic to make humans out of a dirt pile and a rib, creating all of the animals and plants fully formed out of nothing (more magic), evolution does appear to have a monumentally greater chance of being true. Perhaps not the entire truth; perhaps not the entirely accurate truth. But there is truth there. God "speaking" everything into existence? Well ... no, not much truth to be found there, especially when there is a plethora of creation myths involving various creator gods spitting, crying, vomiting, stomping, sculpting, sneezing, bellowing, hammering, smithing, and willing the universe - or humans - into existence. One begins to realize that there's nothing at all special about the myths believers accept as true. Geography plays more of a role in what people believe than any inherent truth in the dogma.
Oh you fully intended to insult. There was no need to compare me to five year old. You see, unlike yourself, I don't need to have all the blanks filled in to know that God is real. But atheists act like just because I can't explain a young earth or Noah's ark then the whole house of cards must come down. Such an attitude actually goes against the nature of science which is suppose to be constantly renewing with new knowledge and discovery. Therefore, you don't just concrete something as scientific fact and say this can never be untrue. What if there is a discover in the future that completely rewrites evolutionary thought? For example, discovery and knowledge about infectious diseases completely rewrote long held scientific beliefs like the four humors. Hundred years from now, scientists will probably be laughing at how archaic beliefs today just like you laugh at what people believed in previous generations.
Then the theory will change to accommodate the new information. Happens all the time in science. That's because science isn't scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The hypocritical stance from atheists is that they demand Christians explain every possible question yet have no problem filling in the blanks with NO evidence to the countless holes in evolutionary theory. For example, how did man evolve to create language? As far as I know, we are the ONLY species that has multiple languages, accents and dialects. Why wasn't just one united language good enough? How did this happen exactly? Oh the atheist will give some impressive sounding answer, but it's still just an answer that they pulled out of their rear end. No concrete evidence.
You are wrong about animal dialects. They are well-known to exist, multiple examples are found in whales and birds.
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.
