Why do evolutionist lie?

[Sender]

I really don't understand why evolutionist lie, short of trying to keep their bogus theory alive. How can anyone belive in evolution(macro)? Please enlighten me.

[Sender]

btw Jose, I am originally from Indiana.

Cool! We should do the secret handshake!

here is the modern horse arguement

the original horse, the eohippus has 18 pairs of
ribs, the mesohippus has 15 pairs of ribs, mirohippus has 19 pairs of ribs, modern horse is back to 18. (Prentis Hall Life Science 1991, page 500.) Going up and down with the rib count? Come on. thats not evolution.

You need to keep in mind that evolution has no set direction or goal. People like to think it does--and the Intelligent Design crowd automatically assume it does--so that they can put humans at the top of The Ladder of Evolution. There is no such ladder. In evolution, things happen that can happen, whether getting "better" or getting "worse," larger or smaller, etc. So, rib count going up, down, or sideways is fine. "Evolution" after all merely means "change."

Here is the problem with the horse evolution:
1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from animal fossils he picked up scattered across the world, not from the same location. (He arranged them in the order he thought it happened)
2. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than anciect horses.
3. The "ancient horse" is not a horse at all, it's a hyrax still alive in South America today. Ribs toes and teeth are different.

Point 1: there's a whole lot more fossils now than Marsh had. What he thought is no longer relevant. And, the locations of the fossils aren't such a big deal. Horses, after all, can move.

Point 2: go back to my silly analogy of Protestants. They didn't make Catholics go extinct. There's no reason to imagine that "modern" horses should make their progenitors go extinct either. This is still the same misconception we dealt with earlier.

Point 3: hyraxes aren't horses. I'm not sure where you got this one, but whoever suggested it to you was off base. Sure, they're cute little guys that look vaguely like the ancient progenitor of horses, but they're part of a different lineage.

Now you guys have to tell me what happened to cause the big bang. Where did the energy come from?

Dunno. My favorite idea is that the prior version of the universe was eventually swallowed by a black hole. They do that, you know--swallow things. Eventually, it seems, the biggest one seems likely to swallow everything else. Then what? I picture it the way I feel after eating at certain restaurants--full enough to explode. So, it did. Voila: the new expanding universe.

You've made the error of assuming that a current scientific idea is supposed to be Absolute Truth. The only thing that claims Absolute Truth is religion--and then, each one professes a different set of Absolute Truths (which, in my mind, pretty much rules 'em all out). In science, we get data and try to figure out what it tells us. If we don't have the full answer, we still put forward a hypothesis. With the big bang, you're dealing with stuff we don't fully understand, and that we can't analyze directly. No lies there--just imperfect best-interpretations.

Uhh...why would you call it a lie, anyway? Because it doesn't match scripture? Because it changes from time to time as we learn more? Is that why the horse story is a lie--because it has changed over the years? Or is it because you really, really want Certainty, and not this wishy-washy science stuff where the best we can ever say is "the data suggest ...."? Maybe if you think about how science works, and about what it can and cannot do, you'll be able to readjust your interpretations here.

What is the definition of faith?

[micatala]

Now you guys have to tell me what happened to cause the big bang. Where did the energy come from?

Why is it not OK to say "we don't know?" If I am following you correctly, you are saying that since science can't explain where the energy came from, that this means the explanation science gives for what happened after the energy was there must be bunk. I don't see how this follows.

This sometimes happens in history. For some historical figures (eg. Euclid, whose image in Raphael's School of Athens painting is my avatar), little or nothing is known of their early lives. However, we may have fairly complete or at least more robust information on their later lives. When asked questions like, "where was Euclid born" or "did he have brothers or sisters" we may have to answer simply "we don't know." In fact, it is entirely possible we may never know (and personally I think this is a good possibility with respect to the question "
what happened before the big bang?"). The fact that we don't know the answer to these questions does not invalidate the answers we have to the questions we do know something about.

After all, would we throw out the science of chemistry because chemists can't or won't say where the atoms and molecules and the properties of their interactions came from? Would we throw out physics because we can't explain how forces worked before the big bang? Would we throw out Einstein's theory of relativity because we don't have a scientific explanation of where light energy came from before the big bang?

Now, one could certainly postulate that "God initiated the Big Bang" and I don't think there is probably anyway that this contention could be refuted. Such a postulate would be, I believe, consistent with the scientific evidence we do have, as well as a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis.

[Sender]

Now you guys have to tell me what happened to cause the big bang. Where did the energy come from?

Why is it not OK to say "we don't know?" If I am following you correctly, you are saying that since science can't explain where the energy came from, that this means the explanation science gives for what happened after the energy was there must be bunk. I don't see how this follows.

This sometimes happens in history. For some historical figures (eg. Euclid, whose image in Raphael's School of Athens painting is my avatar), little or nothing is known of their early lives. However, we may have fairly complete or at least more robust information on their later lives. When asked questions like, "where was Euclid born" or "did he have brothers or sisters" we may have to answer simply "we don't know." In fact, it is entirely possible we may never know (and personally I think this is a good possibility with respect to the question "
what happened before the big bang?"). The fact that we don't know the answer to these questions does not invalidate the answers we have to the questions we do know something about.

After all, would we throw out the science of chemistry because chemists can't or won't say where the atoms and molecules and the properties of their interactions came from? Would we throw out physics because we can't explain how forces worked before the big bang? Would we throw out Einstein's theory of relativity because we don't have a scientific explanation of where light energy came from before the big bang?

Now, one could certainly postulate that "God initiated the Big Bang" and I don't think there is probably anyway that this contention could be refuted. Such a postulate would be, I believe, consistent with the scientific evidence we do have, as well as a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis.

If you thought it was ok to say you don't know, why didn't you answer me 100 post ago. Of course it is ok to say that. I knew your answer before we started. Heck, I say it all the time. So if you don't know, you have to believe something happened in order for the event to take place. You also have to take a leap of faith about intermediate fossils. Life origination you also never witnessed nor can you repeat it. So my whole point is you have to take macro evolution on faith. Therefore, it is religiuos in nature. So take it out of the class room, or put Creation back in. The tax base alone should be enough to do that, because 79% of tax payers claim to be Christian. Teach both. Can I get an amen from you guys, because I am working hard and more and more of you keep coming at me, and I believe I proved my point, that they are both religious in nature.

[Chimp]

Creationism isn't science...

If you were advocating a comparative religion class be required, I'd
champion you and your cause, but you are advocating the mixing of
the humanities with the sciences...unacceptable!

All ribbing aside, what version of creation do you propose? Will this include
the Hindi version? The Iroquois version? Or is it an "other religions need not
apply" type of thing?

[jwu]

If you thought it was ok to say no, why didn't you answer me 100 post ago. Of course it is ok to say that. I knew your answer before we started. Heck, I say it all the time. So if you don't know, you have to believe something happened in order for the event to take place. You also have to take a leap of faith about intermediate fossils. Life origination you also never witnessed nor can you repeat it. So my whole point is you have to take macro evolution on faith. Therefore, it is religiuos in nature.

Taking something on faith means that there is no evidence whatsoever, but there are tons of evidence for macroevolution, which you keep ignoring here.

Therefore, it is religiuos in nature. So take it out of the class room, or put Creation back in. The tax base alone should be enough to do that, because 79% of tax payers claim to be Christian. Teach both. Can I get an amen from you guys, because I am working hard and more and more of you keep coming at me, and I believe I proved my point, that they are both religious in nature.

If i recall correctly only half of those Christians are Creationists though.
Furthermore, what is science and what isn't isn't determined by what the majority of taxpayers believe anyway either, but by fixed criteria.

[Sender]

chimp& jwu, I would say definitely put Christianity back in, in history class if nothing else. The 50% is mostly because Christian are uninformed. If they knew what I knew, we would get that number higher. As for other religions, I would say for sure Muslim. Go with the big boys. I don't see putting a Jim Jones Guyana religion, or Harry Christner.

You can't put every Tom Dick and Harry in there. But this country was founded on Christian principles, and we are still a Christian nation. Another option...give me a voucher for my kids(mine are already in college), and let me take my kids and put them in a school of my choice. It would bring competition to the public school, and would raise the bar as far as improving the system. Right now the public school system is a FAT CAT. Lazy, complacent, and satisfied. And as a result, we have been sliding world wide when compared to the rest of the world for years.

[Chimp]

So my whole point is you have to take macro evolution on faith

Pooh...

You have ignored all the posts that suggest you re-examine your facts.
You deposit your regurgitated tibit and move on. Landing at your conclusion
that science is based on faith...ergo science is religion.

I think the phrase you should use is "current thinking" instead of faith.
Science and the scientific method fits none of the definitions of faith.

from www.dictionary.com
faith
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

[Sender]

So my whole point is you have to take macro evolution on faith

Pooh...

You have ignored all the posts that suggest you re-examine your facts.
You deposit your regurgitated tibit and move on. Landing at your conclusion
that science is based on faith...ergo science is religion.

I think the phrase you should use is "current thinking" instead of faith.
Science and the scientific method fits none of the definitions of faith.

from www.dictionary.com
faith
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Hell chimp, I thought we were making progress. You tell me your theory then on the very two questions I have been asking. Talking about ignoring a question.

[Chimp]

But this country was founded on Christian principles, and we are still a Christian nation.

The founding principles of the US have become Christian principles, more or
less, not the other way around.

Another option...give me a voucher for my kids(mine are already in college), and let me take my kids and put them in a school of my choice. It would bring competition to the public school, and would raise the bar as far as improving the system. Right now the public school system is a FAT CAT. Lazy, complacent, and satisfied. And as a result, we have been sliding world wide when compared to the rest of the world for years.

typed a reply....but the whole thing is off topic.

[Sender]

But this country was founded on Christian principles, and we are still a Christian nation.

The founding principles of the US have become Christian principles, more or
less, not the other way around.

Another option...give me a voucher for my kids(mine are already in college), and let me take my kids and put them in a school of my choice. It would bring competition to the public school, and would raise the bar as far as improving the system. Right now the public school system is a FAT CAT. Lazy, complacent, and satisfied. And as a result, we have been sliding world wide when compared to the rest of the world for years.

typed a reply....but the whole thing is off topic.

Ok men, I am resting my case on this issue. The only answer I was given was "I don't know". Everyone else has avoided the questions. I have presented my arguements, I am done responding to this thread. Thank you for your insights and candor, I do appreciate that. See you in other threads, but I am done for good on this one.