Creation vs. Evolution

[Stuu]

religion addresses life beyond this world... We don't despair this world, but at least we acknowledge that it is transient.

That's a big cheque that's easy to write but difficult to cash.

Stuart

 

[Caino]

That's a big cheque that's easy to write but difficult to cash.

Stuart

Upon retirement the annuity of the faithful will be honored and pay out dividends for an eternity. Sorry, that did sound like a black Baptist preacher from Selma Alabama but it's the first thing that occurred to me.

 

[Yorzhik]

I make no qualms about trusting in the qualifications and conclusions of the vast majority of scientists in their rejection of creationism. Call it “consensus”, call it “appeal to authority”, or whatever term you want to hide behind to deflect from addressing the issue that what you euphemistically call “science” is in reality a quirky fringe belief held by a small group of religiously motivated fanatics.

But the religious motivation is consistent with the science, while you admit here you won't even look at the science.

Do you agree with what 6days told us recently, in bold glaring text:

The strongest argument for the truth of reality is found in philosophy, and I think specifically that which is found in the bible. Science is the weaker argument, and yet, you lose even there. Science is consistent with the bible, and I would not be as open about the scientific arguments if it were not so.

You know what “supernatural” means? It means outside of what science deals with.

I know what it means. Which makes one wonder why you are so anti-science, relying on someone's word for something that they are under duress to say when the science so clearly says something else.

And as I already said in prior posts, “consensus” is poison to you.

You make no sense here. Consensus could be used as an argument if the science backed it up. But science doesn't back current consensus. So it's only poison to me in that you are killing yourselves and I cannot seem to help you.

You know creationists have long since lost the battle in academia and in the scientific workplace, and of the large number of peer-reviewed scientific studies that are published annually, your side is almost barren of representation.

Yeah, you have consensus as long as you can cow those that disagree with you. You act as if consensus can create reality. Enjoy your current consensus because reality will eventually catch up with you.

The epitome of success for many creationists like you is sadly limited to occasionally scoring a debate point in obscure forums like this one.

Nah. Success is actually learning from my mistakes on a forum like this so I can talk intelligently with more important people.

A month or so ago you asked what my field of expertise was. Since my saying I am well qualified in some discipline could also be perceived as an appeal to authority, why did you ask?

Because I want to discuss a topic where you a) won't appeal to consensus because you actually understand the science, and b)because you will expose all my errors because you are smarter than me on the topic. I expect when I argue to lose at first, which is why the bible is so much stronger than science. In fact, I'll let you in on the thought process with Shannon - I didn't know if the argument was in my favor or not. I was told it wasn't, but I hadn't seen it actually discussed. I was confident in the veracity of the theory because I used it when programming compression routines. Therefore, since I'm confident it is real, then it should work in my favor. And low and behold, when the topic is discussed, Shannon isn't just in my favor, but it's devastating to common descent.

And here's why: Shannon actually measures information, and it says you cannot get more information from a source than the maximum amount of information that is there. To say otherwise requires you to show how it can be done. Since science doesn't have this evidence, it cannot support common descent through mutations+NS.

 

[Lon]

Stuu: So what reason do you have to doubt the existence of Bertrand Russell's teapot, orbiting the sun just out of sight?

The problem is you have no defense against anybody's crackpot claims. My line in the sand is unambiguous evidence. But for you it matters a great deal that your religion claims an exclusive god but has no way of ruling out Hindu, Norse or Classical gods, except by bald assertion. That sounds like a belief system that needs blind faith to survive. It doesn't stack up on its own merits.

Again, most have never heard of it. There is no compulsion to have to examine it. I am not, however, a[gainst]it until I personally 'could' prove it false. That's the atheist position, not mine. I find it untenable. Being ridiculous does not, in point of fact, guard against crackpots. Caino, here in thread supports the oddball idea that Celestials (angels/messengers) gave him the Urantia papers. I probably could be said to be 'situationally only' an a-cultist (like an atheist) but I am not. I can only show that his particular cult has many problems and offers no hope because it leaves man exactly in the same spot he is in, whether he held to the Urantia truth or not. In the end, there is no need to even investigate it because you'd be exactly where you are before you started. "Enlightened" by their reckoning, but still with nothing but exactly what you brought with you....and oddly, they think that's worth time. I am not an atheist, I don't need that to protect me from crack-pots. If they 'could' prove it to be true, I would of course look (and I did). I like you, and happy where I am, but I'm not against the majority on the planet in doing so. Atheism is and worse, as I've said, it isn't a logically tenable position. It is simply a poor wall against even what may be true, as well as the crack-pots. "No soliciting" is different from atheism. It means you are trying to find out on your own, so it is different than atheism where even you aren't looking for what is true.

I understand that about 6 million Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens within the last year. You seem to be ignoring their claims. Why? Where is the cut-off percentage for you to start believing crackpots?

Again, the difference is this (and holy cow, is it rally that many???), some information is just information, it doesn't demand anything or much from me. Like the UB, there is no reason to look at most cults because they leave us exactly where we started. The compulsion factor would be said to be low. I am not 'anti-alien' abduction for several reasons. 1) Most seem exactly as they were before their abduction so no harm, no foul. There is nothing that demands I believe or suspend belief. If, however, I adopt a label that calls into question what they may (or not) emphatically believe, I'd have to become involved and I'd have to make it my business.

For you and me, we'd not even have this conversation if it weren't for the fact that 1) you are purposefully frequenting a Christian website. And 2) that I frequent it and am talking to you simply because I believe it real and I believe you need God, whether you know it or not.
The compulsion factor is escalated and relevant to both of us. I'd think, for these facts alone, 'atheism' should have been left at the door.

It is the established church in England, and the reason that they can honestly call themselves a christian country. But it is mostly cultural christianity, not actual belief in Jesus magic.

"Magic" is an odd word and tends to only be employed toward fantasy, but in reality, we have 'magicians.' We understand they are doing something that 'can' be explained but that 'we' can't explain it.
I love being awed, and it furthers my scientific inquiry. I have been able to duplicate card tricks simply by working out logistics of how it is done, but for that one darn card trick. It is very cool, but I do it wrong. With 'magic' momentarily out of the way, my understanding of Christianity and what makes a Christian, could not have an atheist as a vicar. It just wouldn't work and there'd be no point afterwards.

Is that another one of your facts that isn't one of mine?

Yes, whether you are aware of air, or gravity, makes no difference to facts, just your awareness of them.

]Where does Genesis discuss orbiting? The only reason you find science and Genesis compatible is because you reinterpret scripture in the light of your modern knowledge (or at least the bits you accept within your set of facts).

That's the point. Despite where science and YEC don't get along, we have few verses to actually contend. Science often presents facts that are counter-intuitive. When Atheists adopt science as their hide-behind, it only exacerbates the conversation. I'm sure there are quite a few scientists frustrated with that. Science isn't meant to be the carrier for atheistic belief. It is usually the scientist, unaware, and inept in theology matters, that causes the offense, however, so it makes sense that science is the go-to for atheism. It is just a pairing that causes further problems and a strong reason why there is still dilemma in America and should be.

However, Genesis says that living species were created but science disagrees.

No it does not. Some scientists, and certainly atheists disagree, but you don't 'own' science. Quite a few scientists and university professors and TOL participant would disagree, but no, science is a shared field, as is all educational disciplines.

Genesis says that there were plants before there was a sun to provide the light needed for photosynthesis. That's obviously wrong. In Genesis light exist before the creation of the only objects capable of providing the kind of light it talks about. A large proportion of the creative effort of your god goes into a thing called a firmament, apparently a beaten-out solid thing stretched out across the sky. Has NASA ever crashed a rocket into that?

No, you'd have to understand how Hebrews think and write. They were global thinkers. It is a frustration to western concrete-sequential thinkers because we do not think or express but in a sequential manner (well, I am a global thinker, but can function sequentially).


W

ho cares what facts you choose not to list as facts? Your loss. Unless you vote that way as a member of a school board. Then it's the children's loss, and the making of your state into a laughing stock if too many others agree with your fact denial.

Er, when 80% or more of those children don't buy into it themselves, who indeed cares what you tried to ineffective teach? :noway:

Your body plan; 100% of your biochemistry; the same inherited inability to make your own Vitamin C; large numbers of identical retrovirus insertions in exactly the same places on the same chromosomes (proving common ancestry beyond any doubt)... it's the differences that are trivial, especially when humans are compared to chimpanzees specifically.

I realize you can list 'more' commonality than that of a houseplant, but this again does not demand derivative. Science merely speculated that. Here, I posit this: There is NOTHING that would preclude science from entertaining the idea that commonality doesn't by any necessity, demand derivatives. I said this before: I as creator, make a Lego house and a Lego Millennium Falcon. Commonality? Me, and Legos. You don't have to assume that the building came from the Star Wars Lego set if it came from another box. That they both have Lego blocks as commonality? Okay. Both point to me as Creator. Scientists generally don't notice 'who' put creation together, but sometimes it could actually help science to do so (providing they aren't atheists and generally against it, that kind of thinking 'would' steer science in a bad direction with a lot of faults in thinking - hint hint).

But I suppose those facts aren't on your list of facts.

I hold to commonality, just differ on what commonality actually means. I don't automatically assume common descent, just common building blocks of life. You have no scientific problem with that, I have scientific problem with further assumption as if it is gold.

OK then. How about a prediction from you. Given that you say there are these signatures, repeats of the same pattern, would you predict that the same job would be found to be done the same way in different species?

Yes, but I could be wrong. This would be the hypothesis stage of science inquiry. Back to my analogy, Lego does indeed produce different kinds of Legos an and parts but similarities are still all there. Of course when we are talking Lego, we are assuming intelligent design. It is a given. You and I are discussing 'how' but science at times thinks 'evolution-did-it' as if something can happen without design.

Trying to find who? The god that no one has ever seen, according to John 1:18 or 1 John 4:12 or John 6:46 or Colossians 1:15 or 1 Timothy 1:17 or 1 Timothy 6:16 or, indeed Exodus 33:20?

:doh: So a blind man "can't" believe in an elephant? He certainly can't 'see' it!

Can you suggest a method for seeing an invisible god?

Jeremiah 29:12-14 Proverbs 8:17

There is a photograph of Charles Darwin on the front of my paperback copy of Origin of Species. Can you explain why there isn't a photograph of your god on the cover of the bible?

Stuart

Or a picture of wind on the cover of a book about wind? :think: Go outside, take a picture: Psalm 19:1 Romans 1:19-20

 

[6days]

However, Genesis says that living species were created but science disagrees.

Science 'agrees' with Genesis - ALWAYS.

Actually Stuu.....science never agrees or diasgrees with anything. It is evolutionists who disagree with God's Word. It is evolutionists who disagree with the evidence that we are created beings. Its because of that rejection of evidence that evolutionists are continually walking back their 'facts'.

The most scientific explanation.... the best explanation to the evidence is "in the beginning, God created"

 

[MichaelCadry]

Now, Be Nice And Say Adios!!

Now, Be Nice And Say Adios!!

Yet superstition today plays an immense role in our lives. There are literally billions of people who are addicted to it, even though it comes draped in priestly robes and carrying ancient tomes filled with fantasy stories about talking snakes and ladies transforming into salt.

I certainly hope scientists are rational enough to know that the lottery, like religion, panders to people’s desires for a quick solution to problems they face.

And man can live a long and meaningful life without the narcotic effect of believing in some divine God-figure.

Since I spent years on your side of the fence, I too know what I am now missing. The withdrawal can be painful, but well worth it once the addiction is gone.

You mean ignorance about how the physical world really operates? No rivers turning to blood, no decaying dead bodies coming back to life, no animals talking in human voices?

But science, in the span of just a couple centuries, has taken us vastly farther than all religions did in all of human history. Do you want to dismiss the most successful way of advancing that man has ever known?

That’s good, then you too see how much of what is euphemistically called “God’s Word” is laced with error.

BJ,

Science, in part, has brought us about as long down that road as we are going to get. It's all going to hit the fan soon, and those lauding science before God, will get the reward of their Science god. See how your Science god will save you. You are just a man nevertheless, on the wrong path. Thanks Lon, for all of your hard work and efforts. Trying to save DavisBJ from his fate is useless. He thinks he's further ahead now than he was before shedding the True God in his life. Que lastima!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

DavisBJ, science is certainly the best tool for advancement but you can't honestly believe that all of this just happened this way. The Hand of God is visible in all things living and dead. We have a creator

Dear patrick jane,

You are so FULL OF TRUTH and speaking to one who isn't. He needs an excuse for living, I guess. He lives for Science. I'm not trying to be mean or anything. But he won't have any of it. So, it is what it is.

In The Name Of Christ,

Michael

 

[Stuu]

Upon retirement the annuity of the faithful will be honored and pay out dividends for an eternity. Sorry, that did sound like a black Baptist preacher from Selma Alabama but it's the first thing that occurred to me.

It's a fear-exploiting tale for the gullible and the ignorant.

That's what has always occurred to me. What kind of utterly failed understanding of how the universe works would you have to be suffering to think there was some kind of magical existence after you die? And who would want to be so cruelly treated as to never die? What a pointless existence that would be.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Science 'agrees' with Genesis - ALWAYS.

Actually Stuu.....

I'm going to stop you right there. Now, log off, turn off your computer, stay in the house, and await my further instructions.

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

Quote from Davis:

I look at the same world you do. We each appreciate the beauty of a rainbow, but you probably see the hand of God in the rainbow, whereas I see Maxwell’s equations explaining how various frequencies of light separate as they reflect within microscopic spherical water droplets.

To DavisBJ:

And Who do you think made that light and it's colors, it's frequencies, and the laws which govern it appearing nearly perfectly semi-circled, not to say Who made the rain. I know, you think it was a high pressure and a low pressure colliding. Who do you think moves these high and low pressures around in the first place. You can't play God just because you know a few facts about something. It is not you doing it. It is only your feeble attempt at trying to explain what you have no power to even touch upon Who caused it to be.

Michael

 

[Stuu]

Caino, here in thread supports the oddball idea that Celestials (angels/messengers) gave him the Urantia papers. I probably could be said to be 'situationally only' an a-cultist (like an atheist) but I am not. I can only show that his particular cult has many problems and offers no hope because it leaves man exactly in the same spot he is in, whether he held to the Urantia truth or not. In the end, there is no need to even investigate it because you'd be exactly where you are before you started. "Enlightened" by their reckoning, but still with nothing but exactly what you brought with you....and oddly, they think that's worth time.

The Urantia crackpots claim special input from knowledgeable celestial beings, who strangely seem to have knowledge limited to about 1950, the decade of publication of the Urantia book. So it is relatively easy to show that it is all nonsense because it claims to be all-knowing but is demonstrably wrong on several of its claims. The only diverting thing about the Urantia fantasy is how committed the adherents are to obvious nonsense.

I am not an atheist, I don't need that to protect me from crack-pots.

Do you actually know what atheism is?

If they 'could' prove it to be true, I would of course look (and I did). I like you, and happy where I am, but I'm not against the majority on the planet in doing so.

You can't prove things, except in mathematics. All you can do is disprove things that are wrong.

Atheism is and worse, as I've said, it isn't a logically tenable position. It is simply a poor wall against even what may be true, as well as the crack-pots. "No soliciting" is different from atheism. It means you are trying to find out on your own, so it is different than atheism where even you aren't looking for what is true.

You don't know what atheism is, do you.

Like the UB, there is no reason to look at most cults because they leave us exactly where we started.

Christianity is exactly the same. It is just as set in aspic as the UB or any other cult. It doesn't move and therefore you can simply walk away from it and it is difficult to perceive the absence. Nevertheless some of it's adherents make it their business to be a nuisance on behalf of their omnipotent friend.

For you and me, we'd not even have this conversation if it weren't for the fact that 1) you are purposefully frequenting a Christian website.

You do me the credit of purpose that I might deny you. Very generous.

And 2) that I frequent it and am talking to you simply because I believe it real and I believe you need God, whether you know it or not.

So you haven't considered that I could be your saviour from believing things that have trapped you by their sheer absurdity. I have met several christians who have agreed with me that christianity is absurd, but they think it is a set of special cases, perhaps real miracles that really were exceptions to the usual physics. Do you agree with them that christianity is absurd? I think many christians have made such an emotional investment in the absurdities that the face-saving exercise required to turn away from it would be too challenging.

The compulsion factor is escalated and relevant to both of us. I'd think, for these facts alone, 'atheism' should have been left at the door.

It might help for you to say what you think atheism actually is.

"Magic" is an odd word and tends to only be employed toward fantasy,

That is the sense in which I employed it.

With 'magic' momentarily out of the way, my understanding of Christianity and what makes a Christian, could not have an atheist as a vicar. It just wouldn't work and there'd be no point afterwards.

Do you think you would be able to tell which ones were the atheist vicars? Don't forget about the preachers in the megachurches who turn out to be privately hiring male escorts in a manner contrary to the claims of their public preaching. Could you identify them before others did? Does it actually make any difference what the personal beliefs are of a person whose job it is to lead others in rituals? Isn't that just a professional skill?

What am I saying?! What professional skill is there actually in leading others in mumbling to the pantheon of unworthy and entirely absent demons, angels and ghouls?

The reason we know there are 13% atheist vicars is because there are organisations set up to allow them to seek help anonymously to leave the preisthood and retrain for a change of career. Very often these people have trained as vicars, lost their belief in christianity over a long period of engagement with it, then found themselves older and a bit stuck in a job that really doesn't suit them.

Yes, whether you are aware of air, or gravity, makes no difference to facts, just your awareness of them.

What if you are aware that there are no gods, but others appear unable to grasp that?

When Atheists adopt science as their hide-behind, it only exacerbates the conversation. I'm sure there are quite a few scientists frustrated with that. Science isn't meant to be the carrier for atheistic belief. It is usually the scientist, unaware, and inept in theology matters, that causes the offense, however, so it makes sense that science is the go-to for atheism. It is just a pairing that causes further problems and a strong reason why there is still dilemma in America and should be.

I rather think the contrasts, and indeed some of the toxic politics in the US are down to the gene pool that is full of god genes that stepped off the Mayflower and other similarly earnest attempts to escape the persecution of others who share the same god delusion.

Some scientists, and certainly atheists disagree, but you don't 'own' science. Quite a few scientists and university professors and TOL participant would disagree, but no, science is a shared field, as is all educational disciplines.

Well, I was trying to be brief. But if you want greater detail then put it this way: there is no theory of creation. For a start, it would be difficult to determine the mechanisms by observing a god that is so shy that it doesn't allow itself to be seen, heard or observed directly as it goes about its creating; there is no body of evidence or indeed any unambiguous evidence that anything has ever been created in that sense; and there is no power of prediction in creationism like there is with actual theories. With gods, anything is possible, so nothing can be predicted. That's not science.

If creation is not a theory, then what is it in scientific terms? It is a nothing. It is a visit to a joke 'museum' where sad excuses for human beings have placed model humans into model saddles perched atop model dinosaurs. I could feel sorry for such tragics if I didn't know that what they do is exploit and rape science just to try to get some of the light of its respectability to shine on their long disproved fantasy conspiracies.

you'd have to understand how Hebrews think and write. They were global thinkers. It is a frustration to western concrete-sequential thinkers because we do not think or express but in a sequential manner (well, I am a global thinker, but can function sequentially).

I know ancient Hebrew writing was highly allegorical in a particular style, but make no mistake, the ancient Jews really did think there was a solid beaten thing up there with little holes for starlight to shine through.

Er, when 80% or more of those children don't buy into it themselves, who indeed cares what you tried to ineffective teach?

That is brilliantly disingenuous. I suppose the adults in this situation have no responsibility at all for how the children came to believe fantasy conspiracy versions of natural history.

If the hearing of religious fantasies was banned until the age of 18 then christianity wouldn't last a generation.

Is it a tenet of your particular branch of god belief that you invent statistics to insert into conversation?

I realize you can list 'more' commonality than that of a houseplant, but this again does not demand derivative. Science merely speculated that. Here, I posit this: There is NOTHING that would preclude science from entertaining the idea that commonality doesn't by any necessity, demand derivatives.

Then you have completely failed to appreciate how much the existence of endogenous retroviruses makes a mockery of your claim. If you are unwilling to educate yourself on that overwhelming disproof of your position then I'm not sure how else I can help you. Will you carry on with the Lego analogy even though it is disproved?

Stuu: OK then. How about a prediction from you. Given that you say there are these signatures, repeats of the same pattern, would you predict that the same job would be found to be done the same way in different species?

Yes, but I could be wrong. This would be the hypothesis stage of science inquiry. Back to my analogy, Lego does indeed produce different kinds of Legos an and parts but similarities are still all there. Of course when we are talking Lego, we are assuming intelligent design. It is a given. You and I are discussing 'how' but science at times thinks 'evolution-did-it' as if something can happen without design.

So is that a yes, or a no?

So a blind man "can't" believe in an elephant? He certainly can't 'see' it!

I don't know. Can a blind man believe in an elephant?

Stuu: Can you suggest a method for seeing an invisible god?

Jeremiah 29:12-14 Proverbs 8:17

So the writer of Jeremiah suggests calling upon, praying and searching with all your heart.
I'm still not clear. How is the use of the larynx and heart a means for seeing invisible things?

The proverbist recommends seeking. That's not really an answer if you are trying to see something invisible.

Or a picture of wind on the cover of a book about wind?

The book is about evolution by natural selection. The photograph is of the author.

Is your god a wind, or is it a personal god that is involved, as you claimed earlier. Is it in the same image as humans, as claimed in Genesis?

Go outside, take a picture:
Psalm 19:1

Take a picture of the firmament, a solid beaten-out sky thing that doesn't exist?! Brilliant!

Romans 1:19-20

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

If your god had shewed me stuff then would I be asking? You use scripture to lie to me.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse

Nope, I asked for a photograph of your god, not a photograph of stuff that you claim it made.

You seem to be sprinting around the gooseberry bush to avoid the question of why there aren't photographs. Wind? Elephants? The firmament? Shewed things? Power?

There are things that can't be photographed in the usual way. You can't photograph atoms because the wavelength of visible light is too long to be able to resolve particles that small. This is a well-established principle of optics.

If you are determined that it is not possible, can you give as good an explanation for why there is no photograph of your god available to show me?

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

If God told me two days beforehand that there would be 7 inches of snow, I would be a bit concerned. “Uhh, that’s it, God? 7 inches of snow? No fire and brimstone, or parting of an ocean, or flying chariots? What am I, chopped liver? Well, OK, if you say so. But I do have just a couple more questions. You know the TV weatherman last nite said 6 to 9 inches, so You really think this is a good idea? And please, no wind. You know, when there is just a bit of wind with snow then it tends to pile up on the windward side, and to be a bit shallow on the lee side. Which side do you want me to tell the reporter to take the measurement on?”

You are lividly out of your mind for being a professional person. The weatherman did not mention anything about snow two days prior. Even the morning it started snowing, I was going to work and it started snowing and I was bummed because I've had enough snow to last me a lifetime, since I was born and raised in Michigan. But the Lord said, "This is the snow which I promised to you." Then, I was glad that it was snowing. On my way home from work, the snow had ended for the day and the streets were snowy and the sidewalks also. The snow was measured in midtown Manhattan, where the reporter's newspaper's building was, and it measured seven inches. I'm thankful for the snow, rather than the Atlantic Ocean dividing for me. You don't get it, do you? God doesn't want you to believe in Him, because then He'd have to save you and take you into Heaven, and that is not the plan He has in mind for you. There, I said it, plain and simple. I hope you enjoy knowing the why of everything, friend?!! He doesn't want your love for Him because it is not sincere or real.

Probably about as much as Elrond and Galadriel did for me

But you make it so darn hard. Over a year ago I warned you away from making silly prophecies about the rapture before the end of last year, but no, not you. You forged right ahead and made a fool of yourself anyway, and then shifted the blame on us for your screw-up. Some friend you are.

But, like a friend, I will persevere and hope that someday you will actually listen to advice from someone other than your imaginary playmates.

Perhaps you will see the error of your ways some day. I don't think that saying more will help. Lots of luck!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

For 6 days, every opponent of creationism is an evolutionist

For 6 days, every opponent of creationism is an evolutionist

Science 'agrees' with Genesis - ALWAYS.

Actually Stuu.....science never agrees or diasgrees with anything. It is evolutionists who disagree with God's Word. It is evolutionists who disagree with the evidence that we are created beings. Its because of that rejection of evidence that evolutionists are continually walking back their 'facts'.

The most scientific explanation.... the best explanation to the evidence is "in the beginning, God created"

Previously I have pointed out (obviously to no avail) that scientists other than evolutionists do not accept a literal Genesis. I am going to expand just a bit on that, and see if 6days’ myopic focus on evolutionists is accurate.

A month or so ago I listed those Universities from across the world that are recognized as the premier universities for learning science. None of them support creationist views on the disputed parts of Genesis. Let me now add to that some more information about what active scientists say about creationism.

Several times 6days had tried to cast the opposition to creationism as being primarily from evolutionists. Here are some of the fields in which major societies that have issued statements supporting mainstream science’s stance on evolution, the age of the earth, and the flood.

These societies that have issued formal position statements are from across the world. In addition there is an organization called “InterAcademy Panel” which, according to Wiki, is:

a global network consisting of over 106 national science academies. Founded in 1993, its stated goal is to help member academies advise the public on the scientific aspects of critical global issues.

That panel has issued a formal position paper that affirms support of an old earth and for evolution (no mention is made of the Flood). The signatories to that statement are all societies that have not authored their own independent statements on evolution and the age of the earth, but agreed with the “InterAcademy Panel” statement on the subjects. Here are two relevant bullets from that statement:

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. … scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
…
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. ….

If we tabulate the fields represented by the members of the InterAcademy Panel, and those scientific societies that have authored similar papers under their own letterheads affirming support for evolution and the age of the earth, here are some of the fields that are represented:

• Anthropology
• Astronomy
• Benthology
• Botany
• Chemistry
• Comparative biology
• Ecology
• Entomology
• Fisheries
• Genetics
• Geology
• Herpetology
• History of science
• Ichthyology
• Mathematics
• Microbiology
• Naturalists
• Neuroscience
• Paleontology
• Parasitology
• Petrology
• Philosophy of science
• Physics
• Psychology
• Science Education
• Statistics​

Maybe these are all just “evolutionists” in 6days’ eyes, but if so, that stands as a testimony to the level of intellectual dishonesty that 6days must engage in.

Religions are moderately localized in geographical areas. Moslems strongly predominate in areas of the Middle East, Christianity in the “Western World”, Buddhism, Shinto, and so on in the Far East. But when we turn from religion to science, do we see this same allegiance by geographical location? Where do the members of the premier scientific organizations that have united in support of an old earth and evolution come from? Here is a partial list of the represented countries:

• America
• Australia
• Albania
• Argentina
• Austria
• Bangladesh
• Belgium
• Bosnia
• Brazil
• Bulgaria
• Canada
• Chile
• China
• Columbia
• Croatia
• Cuba
• Czech
• Denmark
• Egypt
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Hungary
• India
• Iran
• Ireland
• Israel
• Italy
• Japan
• Kenya
• Kyrgyz
• Latvia
• Lithuania
• Macedonia
• Mexico
• Mongolia
• Morocco
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Nigeria
• Pakistan
• Palestine
• Peru
• Philippines
• Poland
• Senegal
• Serbia
• Singapore
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• Spain
• Sri Lanka
• Switzerland
• Tajikistan
• Taiwan
• Turkey
• Uganda
• UK
• Uzbekistan
• Venezuela
• Zimbabwe​

 

[Lon]

The Urantia crackpots claim special input from knowledgeable celestial beings, who strangely seem to have knowledge limited to about 1950, the decade of publication of the Urantia book. So it is relatively easy to show that it is all nonsense because it claims to be all-knowing but is demonstrably wrong on several of its claims. The only diverting thing about the Urantia fantasy is how committed the adherents are to obvious nonsense.

Well again, though I agree with you, it is incidental because the goal of it, for you and I, is to leave us exactly where we are before we became aware of it. Their religion is simply to leave us exactly where we are with nothing different BUT being happy about it lain: There is no compulsion to that. So thinking with you that it is crazy, isn't really part of the problem. I think jumping off a cliff is crazy, but you could talk me into jumping off of one and into water below. I'd even posit, if I could make it fun, you'd go to a Urantia meeting with me if there is something to make it worth your while. Think of why you frequent TOL. There is something worth your while. You or I'd have to have a tremendous draw to even want to look at the UB and there is nothing.

Do you actually know what atheism is?

No, nor do a lot of atheists. For the most part, it is me saying "Stuu, I know there is a God that exists." The atheist response is with few exceptions is "I doubt it." To me, atheism is a convenient skepticism and a willful decision to avoid the subject. It is often accompanied by a deep desire to leave the room during prayer or scripture reading.

You can't prove things, except in mathematics. All you can do is disprove things that are wrong.

In a way, I think I agree. If I were always a street bum, and told you I lived in a house, you can doubt that, and perhaps with reason, but being the one living in the house is 'proof to me' that I live in a house. You can doubt every ounce of veracity that shows the point. I think this very much the case of trying to explain to you that there is a God. I know there is a God nearly exactly the same way I live in a house. The difference? It doesn't matter if you believe I live in a house or not, so you will likely readily concede it. The ONLY reason you'd doubt that is if you have something at stake. The analogy follows clearly that the only reason to doubt God exists, is for the exact same reason: you have something at stake.

You don't know what atheism is, do you.

Nor do a lot of atheists. For the most part, it is me saying "Stuu, I know there is a God that exists." The atheist response is with few exceptions is "I doubt it." To me, atheism is a convenient skepticism and a willful decision to avoid the subject. It is often accompanied by a deep desire to leave the room during prayer or scripture reading. As I just said above, the only reason for saying you doubt it, is because you have something at stake that you cherish, to prevent and doubt what is a fact. I may not be able to prove a fact, but it doesn't stop it from being a fact, nor that "I" can know what it is. It is a fact that I live in a house, whether I can prove it or not. I agree, I cannot prove it BUT there is no reason that I know of for another to doubt it. I don't know what reason you could have to doubt God either. Do you? Really? Truth is truth. Why not live according to it, if it is true? Again, do you have any reason to doubt? Even if truth does indeed cost, isn't truth still better, and logical in the end? What possibly could support a suspension of belief? Let me put it this way: What would change in your life if you even just went from atheist to deist?

Christianity is exactly the same. It is just as set in aspic as the UB or any other cult.

Set in meat gelatin? Never heard of it. It must be a colloquial there in the UK? I've heard some of your vicars and with about 2 in every 10 being atheist? I think it is something altogether different in the UK that you might be getting sufficient fodder for such an odd view. Let's just take Noah's Ark for a second. We 'think' we've translated the story correctly, but I don't think it matters if it was a global flood like we think of or not. The ONLY thing science could disprove, is that it happened the way we think it did. Now, no such thing has occurred, but the Epic of Gilgamesh shouldn't be relegated merely to fantasy either. That is horribly sloppy scholarship (we so need to question and requestion what passes for scholastics). For some reason, this idea of a flood permeates a number of ancient documents. I was talking to Davis about Pangea, and he insists man wasn't on earth at the time, but we don't know that. There are human footprints within dinosaur footprints. If you are as sharp as I am, you know that causes all kinds of dilemmas for science. Back to the flood: simply thinking it was fiction is not the way to read and understand myth. A good many of them deal in facts. You'd be better to question if Christianity and Jews have understood it right, than to inadvertently question the existence of God. Such is quite an insubstantial jump. There does come a point where you have to realize God can and would be able to do things we cannot. One day science does hope to be able to jump-start life again. It would be hypocritical to deny there is a God that can do what science is already working on trying to do itself. Not all things should be suspended for belief, just because "I" can't do it. It is that same logic that has conspiracy theorists thinking we never set foot on the moon. We never had before we did it. At times, I think atheism is nothing more than unfounded conspiracy theorists. There aren't that many of you.

It doesn't move and therefore you can simply walk away from it and it is difficult to perceive the absence. Nevertheless some of it's adherents make it their business to be a nuisance on behalf of their omnipotent friend.

You are on a Christian website. I'm not on an atheist one. I do think you should consider a genuine love behind some sentiments though. I too want what is the best for people. I do believe the best thing for a creature is to know his/her creator, especially if that one is said to be loving.

You do me the credit of purpose that I might deny you. Very generous.

:think: Research for an atheist publication? Paid atheist reporter? I do see you throwing me into the same category as the UB. Christianity however, is better documented. For instance, 1) it is verifiable. It certainly is used by all archeologists looking for actual places. 2) Though some things come across as incredible, the morals and teaching of them are tangible, whether you think the event happened or not. Jesus even told the crowds NOT to look to the spectacular, but the spiritual and moral. 3) It has testable verifications. God makes claims that He can be found by those who seek Him. It invites an individuals scientific inquiry (goes back to your proving argument. I think you are right. God HAS to prove Himself on a one by one basis). 4) It is historical. Though Egyptian servitude or slavery hasn't been verified from Egypt, there are cities mentioned that did exist. There are about 18 extra-biblical and secular sources that mention the historicity of Jesus Christ by name, etc. I think it a bit poor to compare such to any other cult.

So you haven't considered that I could be your saviour from believing things that have trapped you by their sheer absurdity. I have met several christians who have agreed with me that christianity is absurd, but they think it is a set of special cases, perhaps real miracles that really were exceptions to the usual physics. Do you agree with them that christianity is absurd? I think many christians have made such an emotional investment in the absurdities that the face-saving exercise required to turn away from it would be too challenging.

I allow for the absurd comment but I dig a lot harder than most, so no, do not believe there are absurdities, at least not like the ones you'd come up with. The flood again, in other mythologies may have one comparing, but I think there has to be something to them. They observed something and carried that idea on in their writings. Further, it meant something to all of them. They weren't just writing it like "bad weather this week." For me, an incredulous dismissal is dismal. We see a lot of that with history this first half of the century, but I don't think it tenable. We would eventually have to stop teaching history altogether if that were the case. Whether one finds the stories incredulously or not, there is something valuable there. If that is tossed out in the convenience of atheism, our world would have lost some precious truths because of it. A lot of fiction is just for entertainment, but some of it is crafted so incredibly well to pass off values, we'd be poorer for it if we tossed it all away. I'd suppose that is what some of the England church atheist vicars would teach, but there is a greater appreciation than dismissal, else they are useless members with nothing to offer in their congregations. It still baffles me, however. What would be the point of going to a Christian church to hear a nonChristian sermon???

As I know I live in a house, I know there is a God, but you are correct, I cannot prove it, but God can...

It might help for you to say what you think atheism actually is.

A belief in no gods and an active denial before Christians that is often offensive, purposeful or not. You are purposefully here. You ask me to 'doubt' my faith. I might as well doubt I live in a house too :noway:

That is the sense in which I employed it.

Of course you did. I 'implied' such was shoddy and anti-intellectual. Again, and for instance, the Flood is recorded in other books besides the Bible. That they have stories of gods chopping up other gods and making land and sea should not make you toss the whole story. There is nothing particularly unbelievable about a flood. One guy....whoever he was, decided that "nobody could...." and hypothesized that they were all stories that were purely fictional and passed that on. Other academics came along and said "sounds good."

Academics are NOT institutions of indoctrination. Well, they are, but they are not supposed to be. They are supposed to be teaching people how to think. Imho, atheism is not thinking.

Do you think you would be able to tell which ones were the atheist vicars? Don't forget about the preachers in the megachurches who turn out to be privately hiring male escorts in a manner contrary to the claims of their public preaching. Could you identify them before others did? Does it actually make any difference what the personal beliefs are of a person whose job it is to lead others in rituals? Isn't that just a professional skill?

The structure of churches is different here. If in a megachurch? Harder to tell because you don't get to know the person. In a local church? Yep, I knew. It wasn't that hard to tell he was an atheist. You can't escape the language of who you are unless you are running to a plane right after service, but I already avoid those kinds of glitz and glamour flashy preachers.

What am I saying?! What professional skill is there actually in leading others in mumbling to the pantheon of unworthy and entirely absent demons, angels and ghouls?

It 'sounds' like you attended the skeletal remains of a Christian church. I might be reactionary to such a thing myself (was in fact). For me, I did notice that the people were going through motions but I had been reading my bible while the service was going on and, left alone, had to figure out and wrestle through the bible passages by myself. I didn't run from it.

The reason we know there are 13% atheist vicars is because there are organisations set up to allow them to seek help anonymously to leave the preisthood and retrain for a change of career. Very often these people have trained as vicars, lost their belief in christianity over a long period of engagement with it, then found themselves older and a bit stuck in a job that really doesn't suit them.

No kidding! Absolutely not does it suit them.

What if you are aware that there are no gods, but others appear unable to grasp that?

Er, you are wrong so there is nothing to grasp. I know I live in a house. I know there is a God. I can prove neither. The first doesn't matter, unless I can only get the million by proving residence or something. The second I cannot prove, but God can. That you are "aware there are no gods?" I guess you can just waste your time or entertain yourself here then. It doesn't matter if there are gods are not ATF. You'd know best.

I rather think the contrasts, and indeed some of the toxic politics in the US are down to the gene pool that is full of god genes that stepped off the Mayflower and other similarly earnest attempts to escape the persecution of others who share the same god delusion.

The Evangelical church in England is growing, even as the skeletal remains of liberal and non-relevant churches dwindle. That is good news for and what was expected for Christians. Christianity is a phoenix because God will always call people individually and so the old and dying are who is left of Christian tradition. Atheism will not be replacing that older crowd in England.

Well, I was trying to be brief. But if you want greater detail then put it this way: there is no theory of creation. For a start, it would be difficult to determine the mechanisms by observing a god that is so shy that it doesn't allow itself to be seen, heard or observed directly as it goes about its creating; there is no body of evidence or indeed any unambiguous evidence that anything has ever been created in that sense; and there is no power of prediction in creationism like there is with actual theories. With gods, anything is possible, so nothing can be predicted. That's not science.

It isn't that He is shy. Have you ever actually read the bible? There are at least 3 reasons God is not found like you are expecting, but He can be found. Even a warm beautiful day explains there is some aesthetic design to creation. If there were no 'reason' for that to be so, it wouldn't happen. Creation didn't just sit up and take notice that we needed it to be beautiful or wanted it to be beautiful, but something did. Darwin's theory doesn't allow for that, and scientists are too busy sitting in a white lab staring through a telescope and atheists are too busy contemplating their navel, but stuff like roses doesn't 'just happen.' Nice try though. lain:

If creation is not a theory, then what is it in scientific terms?

At the very least, perpetuated meaning. Well, I can't get you on board that Nothing + Nothing = Nothing (always) so I imagine Something + Something does indeed = something. It is at least no scientific faux pas to postulate if I 'have' intelligence, I came from intelligence. Whatever else you think, this does make sense, despite any protest.

It is a nothing. It is a visit to a joke 'museum' where sad excuses for human beings have placed model humans into model saddles perched atop model dinosaurs. I could feel sorry for such tragics if I didn't know that what they do is exploit and rape science just to try to get some of the light of its respectability to shine on their long disproved fantasy conspiracies.

I don't have a science museum nor frequent those websites. I do watch nature channels and science channels and even occasionally read science publications. There is no 'me' making God real to you. Only He can do that. Don't let 'things' that may or may not represent well, keep you from Him or allow those to be an excuse. I 'am' supposed to be a light on a hill and so one thing conversations like this do for me, is help me to care about what you care about so that "if" there is a God (in your perspective), He can effectively use me if He so chooses. He can, if I am inept, make rocks (science?) tell you about Himself. He said He could be found by you. I live in a house, and there is a God. I can prove neither, but He can prove the second and as far as I know, is the only way you could know He exists anyway. -Lon

That is brilliantly disingenuous. I suppose the adults in this situation have no responsibility at all for how the children came to believe fantasy conspiracy versions of natural history.

You really need to own this. Kids don't come home and say "this is what we learned in science today." Some may, but few and far between. We don't have many sermons on science, but watch a bit of this:

If the hearing of religious fantasies was banned until the age of 18 then christianity wouldn't last a generation.

Incorrect. You are missing a point: There is a God, and 'He' makes Christians. How would you stop Him? Why would (do) you want to?

Is it a tenet of your particular branch of god belief that you invent statistics to insert into conversation?

Should I call you a name for calling me a liar? The number is consistently 65% as fully rejecting Darwinism with 20% unsure in the U.S. For saying I made this up? You need to apologize after EASILY verifying these statistics yourself. Add 65 to 20 dingaling!

Then you have completely failed to appreciate how much the existence of endogenous retroviruses makes a mockery of your claim. If you are unwilling to educate yourself on that overwhelming disproof of your position then I'm not sure how else I can help you. Will you carry on with the Lego analogy even though it is disproved?

I'm sure you won't, because it is from answersingenesis.com

Stuu: OK then. How about a prediction from you. Given that you say there are these signatures, repeats of the same pattern, would you predict that the same job would be found to be done the same way in different species?

Yes, it could, but we are in hypotheticals of leading questions. You can lead me there okay, but the water has to look drinkable at the end, even if I say yes the whole way.

So is that a yes, or a no?

Just realize it is a qualified yes. I can go where you lead, I just don't like leading questions. They don't tend to serve well. I only do them when I want one to discover something on his own, or at least be given the opportunity for that ah ha moment. At the same time, those are generally exceptions to the rule. Usually the guy or gal has to be excited about the journey before we take off.

I don't know. Can a blind man believe in an elephant?

lain": Sure. Was it a set up for a snake, a tree, and, and a ratty broom joke?

Stuu: Can you suggest a method for seeing an invisible god?

So the writer of Jeremiah suggests calling upon, praying and searching with all your heart.
I'm still not clear. How is the use of the larynx and heart a means for seeing invisible things?

And you'd consider yourself capable of employing the scientific method, would you? You ask God. I've already agreed with you I can't prove I live in a house or that their is a God. Neither is a doubt in my mind. This will have to be your own hang-up.

The proverbist recommends seeking. That's not really an answer if you are trying to see something invisible.

Er, I'm no scientist, but I did get A's, despite not believing in common descent/ascent, and I've immediate family members with degrees, but I 'think' I'd suggest trying to experiment a different way, provided you are actually interested, that is.

The book is about evolution by natural selection. The photograph is of the author.

"The book is about God, He says you can't see Him directly and live." This ties into just above. "How else could you verify there is a God?" How good of a scientist are you? What would you look for?

Is your god a wind, or is it a personal god that is involved, as you claimed earlier. Is it in the same image as humans, as claimed in Genesis?

More of these leading questions, can you figure out none of these on your own? You know you can't see, at least directly, because nobody does that and lives. Touch? :nono: *(you can't touch my step father either, no reason not to believe). So you 'can' use your senses to some degree, but not directly. God is incorporeal, but so is love, and I believe in it.

Take a picture of the firmament, a solid beaten-out sky thing that doesn't exist?! Brilliant!

Before you get too uppity, I'd say the same thing about proving the wind. You can't take a picture of the wind.

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

If your god had shewed me stuff then would I be asking? You use scripture to lie to me.

:nono: Just because you ignore what is around you doesn't mean it isn't there nor that it hasn't been shown. You can play the purposefully obtuse card all you like.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse

Nope, I asked for a photograph of your god, not a photograph of stuff that you claim it made.

Reread the verse. Was the author stupid or are you obtuse? Could you 'see' the invisible things, or does that make no sense? Should it be rewritten to make proper sense, or does it convey just fine the way it is?

Realize the author further explains that, but you jumped, and quite readily, to the absurd. How does that feel? Like being that way? Why is that satisfying to you? Why did you jump to disdain and superiority?

You seem to be sprinting around the gooseberry bush to avoid the question of why there aren't photographs. Wind? Elephants? The firmament? Shewed things? Power?

:nono: I live in a house. I know there is a God. You've convinced me that I cannot prove either to you.

There are things that can't be photographed in the usual way. You can't photograph atoms because the wavelength of visible light is too long to be able to resolve particles that small. This is a well-established principle of optics.

Yet you aren't demanding that picture Still believe in Atoms? Why? :think:

If you are determined that it is not possible, can you give as good an explanation for why there is no photograph of your god available to show me?

Stuart

Thanks for the help 1) with proofs anyway, you've convinced me. I can 'know' thus have my own proof that I live in a house. I cannot pass that proof along :up: 2) I can't take a picture of the atom, but a pictures isn't necessary to believe in them or the wind 3) I can't take a picture of the universe because no telescope can, but I also believe, 'from what I have seen' (quote sound familiar?) so that I am without excuse if I disbelieve it exists. Am I in trouble for doubting the universe exists? No, just not very bright or intuitive, at least that's how another can see it. -Lon

 

[Jose Fly]

Yet it is certainly true that masses are easily led.

??????? What does that have to do with what I said? Who are these "masses" you're talking about?

If you buy into everything because "it is science" then you are a mindless science-follower and not an innovator or deep thinker. Not sure how many atheists hide behind it, but it is substantial in that small and insignificant community. Oh sure, we'll buy from the pharmaceuticals, but it is the thoughtless drone of the lab work we are supporting when we, as a nation, obviously tell you to take the vitriol and assertion elsewhere. Science needs drones to operate the machinery but I don't 'have' to buy into 'billions' of anything to do good science.

Again, I don't see how any of that relates to what I said.

Again, and pay attention both of you: The majority in America 'have' gone through evolution training and yet hold it suspect. The verdict? That you who are 'supposedly' brilliant are horrible teachers at the minimum (means 'inept' own it).

You act as if no one has ever dug into the issue and investigated the reasons Americans are outliers in the developed world when it comes to acceptance of evolution. Turns out people have looked and they found that the reasons are 1) our relatively large population of fundamentalist Christians (who are obviously predisposed to denying evolution), and 2) our Republican party and how they've made evolution denial a plank in their political platform, which is very unique in the developed world. They also found a correlation between understanding genetics and acceptance of evolution. You can read the paper HERE (PDF).

Main point: Science hasn't 'proven' thus is merely asserting. Then we can just go back to the assertion game, and evolution as a religion and 'wish-with-all-my-might' nothing-but-hypothesis-strong-on-'hype.'

Seriously? You think the determinant of whether something has been scientifically proven is the level of public acceptance? And only in one country?

 

[Lon]

??????? What does that have to do with what I said? Who are these "masses" you're talking about?



Again, I don't see how any of that relates to what I said.



You act as if no one has ever dug into the issue and investigated the reasons Americans are outliers in the developed world when it comes to acceptance of evolution. Turns out people have looked and they found that the reasons are 1) our relatively large population of fundamentalist Christians (who are obviously predisposed to denying evolution), and 2) our Republican party and how they've made evolution denial a plank in their political platform, which is very unique in the developed world. They also found a correlation between understanding genetics and acceptance of evolution. You can read the paper HERE (PDF).



Seriously? You think the determinant of whether something has been scientifically proven is the level of public acceptance? And only in one country?

As I told Stuu, kids do not come home and tell their parents 'guess what I learned in science class today.' Nor do preachers preach much on the topic. Nor have most even heard of Answersingenesis. It is questioned not for what it does well, but for it's drawn conclusions. Do I seriously think public acceptance an indicator? Youbetchersweetbippy. With what I just told you, it is your own fault, no matter how the link tries to pass the blame. This particular is indeed science and academia's fault. Something has to be 'believable' before it is believed. Just because you were an easy touch....

 

[Jose Fly]

As I told Stuu, kids do not come home and tell their parents 'guess what I learned in science class today.' Nor do preachers preach much on the topic. Nor have most even heard of Answersingenesis. It is questioned not for what it does well, but for it's drawn conclusions. Do I seriously think public acceptance an indicator? Youbetchersweetbippy. With what I just told you, it is your own fault, no matter how the link tries to pass the blame. This particular is indeed science and academia's fault. Something has to be 'believable' before it is believed. Just because you were an easy touch....

Obviously you didn't even read the paper, and now you're just re-stating your original unsupported assertions. That's not much of a conversation and it doesn't speak well of you. It's nothing more than...

Lon: X, Y, and Z are true.

Others: Actually, here's some data that shows them not to be true.

Lon: (ignores data) I don't care....X, Y, and Z are true.​

Kinda pointless.

 

[6days]

month or so ago I listed those Universities from across the world that are recognized as the premier universities for learning science. None of them support creationist views on the disputed parts of Genesis.

And, every single one of those universities taught that our appendix was useless. They were wrong about the appendix, as they were (and are) about many other evolutionary beliefs.

From pre-kindergarden through to PhD education, only evolutionism is taught.... and yet scientists emerge rejecting common ancestry beliefs. And, the rejection of Darwinism is now global. There are growing communities of scientists, in all disciplines of science who say 'evolution' is impossible. We see these small, but growing groups not just in America and Australia but also in Europe and Asia.

 

[Jose Fly]

And, every single one of those universities taught that our appendix was useless.

How do you know? Have you surveyed them all? The two I attended didn't teach that (they taught that it was vestigial).

They were wrong about the appendix, as they were (and are) about many other evolutionary beliefs.

You seem to have this view where if a branch of science has ever been wrong about anything in its entire history, then that entire field of science is therefore invalid. Is that really your reasoning?

From pre-kindergarden through to PhD education, only evolutionism is taught.... and yet scientists emerge rejecting common ancestry beliefs. And, the rejection of Darwinism is now global. There are growing communities of scientists, in all disciplines of science who say 'evolution' is impossible. We see these small, but growing groups not just in America and Australia but also in Europe and Asia.

Again, thanks for telling us that black is white and up is down.

 

[Lon]

Obviously you didn't even read the paper, and now you're just re-stating your original unsupported assertions. That's not much of a conversation and it doesn't speak well of you. It's nothing more than...

Lon: X, Y, and Z are true.

Others: Actually, here's some data that shows them not to be true.

Lon: (ignores data) I don't care....X, Y, and Z are true.​

Kinda pointless.

It was pointless. Even after reading the whole thing. Of course you'd not want to blame yourselves xyz and yadda yadda lain: