Creationists / Fundamentalists vs. Scientists

[Zzyzx]

.
Creationists / Fundamentalists vs. Scientists

Those who believe that their favorite 'God' created the universe, Earth, humans, and life forms (as claimed by ancient storytellers) display hypocrisy when 'debunking science' that conflicts with their stories – while accepting / embracing science when it benefits them.

Kenisaw says it well with:

Ah yes, the conspiracy slant. Tens of thousands of scientists across the globe, making up climate change. Or hundreds of thousands of scientists, over the last 150 years, from several different fields of study, fabricating all the billions of fossils and genetic information and geologic layers. A massive effort costing huge amounts of money and requiring silence from untold masses of human beings. And as always, the best proof that there is a conspiracy is the complete lack of proof that there is a conspiracy, because it has been hidden so well. Sure.

I would like to add, separately, that I hope you see the rather interesting double standard that cultists have in their dealing with science. They never claim science is wrong as it relates to their cell phones, or GPS, or computers, or medicines, or any time they use a plane or a car or a boat to get somewhere. Why? Because it doesn't contradict with their ancient manuscripts. But suddenly you get into the theory of evolution, and science is now some totally inaccurate mass conspiracy, incapable of getting anything right as it relates to the age of the planet or the progression of life.

It's a ludicrous self serving ploy.

Science cannot be both a highly effective and efficient form of investigation into the universe, AND a self-serving conspiracy whose main goal is hiding the truth about a particular god being that just so happens to be the basis of belief for the people claiming foul and evil intentions.

Additionally, Apologists apparently display hypocrisy when, for instance, archaeologists / anthropologists discover something that appears to verify an ancient tale, Creationists / Fundamentalists are quick to cite the study as though it was true and accurate. However, if the same archaeologists / anthropologists discover something that appears to dispute ancient tales, they are condemned as being part of the 'great conspiracy against religion'.

Likewise, most Creationists / Fundamentalists readily accept the benefits derived from science related to communication, transportation, food production and distribution, modern medicine, refrigeration / air conditioning / heating, etc – without questioning the sincerity of scientists who did the studies and work that produced those benefits.

Would any of us prefer to revert to per-scientific times and conditions? For instance, if you contract malaria, ancient tales say that diseases are punishments or tests, that prayer is the answer, and that 'God' will heal you (if he feels like it). Science and modern medicine say that malaria is caused by parasites (including Plasmodium falciparum) and that it can be treated with antibiotics (including chloroquine. Atovaquone-proguanil, artemether-lumefantrine, floquine, quinine, quinidine, doxycycline, and/ or clindamycin). Take your choice.

Are modern medicine, communication, transportation, etc part of the 'great conspiracy against religion'?

Are the thousands of scientists who are Christians part of the 'great conspiracy?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 20 by Blastcat]

Nope! Just making the observation that, "one species transforming into a completely different species", has never been, observed, demonstrated, or proven, to have actually occurred!

Christian: Observes a caterpillar transform into a butterfly. "Evolution is true!"
Scientist: "No, they are the same animal, with the same DNA, it is just growing up."
Christian: "Oh well, there you see, one animal doesn't become another, there is an all-benevolent creator!"
Scientist: "There's a what? But we showed you evolution does exist, and showed you that you have false beliefs about evolution, that caterpillars and butterflies are that same animal!"
Christian: "Yes thank you for disproving evolution, we were worried about that!"
Scientist: "We didn't disprove evolution, we showed that one animal doesn't spontaneously transform into another. Without us, you wouldn't know that natural transformations weren't evolution!"
Christian: "Exactly, they are all the same animal, so there is no evolution. Thank you."
Scientist: "But that's isn't what evolution is!"
Christian: "One animals evolves into another, isn't that what you said?"
Scientist: "Yes, but..."
Christian: "Thank you."
Scientist: "But..."
Christian: "Thank you, I have better things to do with my time than argue non-sense."

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 12 by Zzyzx]



Zzyzx, at this point you seem to be saying that, "one species transforming into a completely different species", is comparable to when I moved from one state to another, and changed my state citizenship. Well, I am having a hard time swallowing that, and I can see a lot of problems with that analogy, HOWEVER, at this point we do not even need to discuss this.

In other words, at this point, it really does not matter how complicated the process would be, for "one species to transform into a completely different species", because at this point we are discussing whether the process of, "one species transforming into a completely different species", has been, observed, demonstrated, or proven to have occurred, no matter how uncomplicated the process may be.

In fact, even if we could absolutely determine, that "one species transforming into another species", could absolutely take place, (which we have not), this would still not tell us in any way, if this process has actually occurred.

You have agreed that, "one species transforming into a completely different species", has not been observed. Therefore the point is, whether "one species transforming into another completely different species", has been proven to be a fact. How complicated the process, does not matter at this point.

You complain that, there are theist who, claim that the changes can only go so far, and when you ask what would prevent those changes, they give no answer. I fully understand your objection, but I have posed the question to you, what is it that would actually allow the changes to go this far?

In other words, I am not in any way saying that, "one species transforming into a completely different species", cannot, could not, has not, or that there is a limit to how much can occur, so the question to you is, what sort of mechanism is it, that would allow such changes, other than, it is comparable to me changing states? But again, the main question to you is, HAS the "transformation of one species into a completely different species" occurred?

Please allow me to ask this question again! Has "the transformation of one species, into a completely different species" actually occurred? Notice, I am not asking, what you believe, rather I am asking, if it indeed happened? I can tell you what I believe, and I can go on to tell you, why I believe it. What I cannot tell you for certain is, if what I believe is in fact, true.

We can observe that changes, sometimes large changes, have occurred without actually observing the change occur. For example (using some familiar terms) Christianity has evidently changed (evolved) greatly since its earliest days – from wandering preachers on foot or riding donkeys to address relatively small audiences – to elaborate cathedrals, megachurches, and televangelists addressing tens of thousands or millions. From RCC doctrine to JW, LDS, SDA, Amish, Baptist, Lutheran, and the thousands of sub-sects within 'Christianity' today.

Did anyone alive now observe those changes occurring?

This is not a very good analogy at all. You see, we have writings from back in those days, and I have studied many of them intently, and we can see the changes that have occurred over the years. In the same way, we have seen, and observed changes, and adaptations in certain animals through the years, WHICH IS HOW WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT THESE CHANGES HAVE INDEED OCCURRED. WHAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN, OR OBSERVED, WHICH IS WHY WE CANNOT BE CERTAIN IS, "ONE SPECIES TRANSFROMING INTO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES!"

In fact, there is a book that I cannot remember the actual title, but it was something to the effect of, "The Process of Christian Thought", and it reached back some 2000 years. So then, there are tools we can use, to understand what you call, "the evolution of Christianity", because although there may not be those alive today that may have actually witnessed these changes, there were those alive that recorded certain events.

The question now is, was there anyone alive to witness, "one species transforming into a completely different species", that may have recorded the events? But even it there was, I imagine that we as Christians, could question the authorship, just as many of those opposed to Christianity question the authorship, of the Biblical books! Just a joke, couldn't help myself.

You may be correct to say that these "Apologists" you speak of, simply assume that genetic change, can only go so far.

Actually, their position is that genetic change CANNOT 'go that far'.

Can you explain the difference between our quotes? I am agreeing that if they make this statement, they must be "assuming."

My position is that the amount of change possible has not been shown to be limited by any factor or mechanism.

I not only understand your position, I agree with it, which is why I say, "they have to be assuming." However, my question to you is, has the amount of change possible, been shown to be UNLIMITED by any factor or mechanism? Or, do we simply ASSUME that, since there has been some change, then this means there must be, UNLIMITED change? You see, I understand that there can be, but I also understand that, simply because some change has occurred, does not mean that the change must be, unlimited.

If we were all aware of what biologists / geneticists mean when they say 'evolution' (genetic change through generations), we would all understand that it DOES occur every time a microbe develops antibiotic resistance that is passed to its offspring.

AGAIN, I fully understand that this occurs. The question is, how does this tell us that these microbes, or anything else for that matter, transform into something other than microbes, or into "another completely different species?"

RCC can't possibly produce JW and LDS as an offspring. Right?

Right! However, someone who is born into RCC can decide to become a JW. So, are you suggesting that, one species could simply decide to become a different species?

The 'tactic', Jack, is to study what actually occurs in nature and to report it as well as possible and have it checked by other studies worldwide by disconnected investigators.

Okay! Well, have these "studies, checked out by other studies worldwide, by disconnected investigators", proven that, "one species has indeed transformed into a completely different species?"

Again, this is where many Christians could be concerned about some sort of conspiracy. In other words, many scientists, and evolutionists, seem to be saying, "one species transforming into a completely different species", HAS occurred, instead of claiming, that it is BELIEVED to have occurred!

Quite a conspiracy – that includes thousands of scientists / biologists / geneticists who ARE Christians. What are those Christian scientists thinking when they say that evolution does occur?

Whoa, wait a minute! Are these "thousands of scientists" who are claiming that "evolution has occurred", speaking of evolution, (genetic change through generations)? If so, then we have no problem. But the real question is, has there been any scientists at all, who have demonstrated, or proven, that evolution (one species transforming into a completely different species) has in fact, occurred? The point is, what exactly are all these scientists agreeing to when they say, "evolution has occurred?"

OH? Is that the question being debated when the OP questions for debate are:

Are modern medicine, communication, transportation, etc part of the 'great conspiracy against religion'?

Are the thousands of scientists who are Christians part of the 'great conspiracy?

From the OP,

But suddenly you get into the theory of evolution, and science is now some totally inaccurate mass conspiracy, incapable of getting anything right as it relates to the age of the planet or the progression of life.

I do not pretend to know how much can occur and am not aware of any limiting mechanism for the amount of change.

We seem to be in agreement here. In other words, there is nothing whatsoever that tells us these changes are limited in any way. However, there also is nothing whatsoever that would tell us, they are, unlimited. Therefore, it would be dishonest for anyone to claim, "the changes are limited." But it would be just as dishonest to claim, "these changes are unlimited" or that, "one species transforming into a completely different species is a fact, and has indeed occurred."

Those who insist that major change does NOT occur are welcome to present their evidence and to identify the mechanism that limits the amount of change.

AGREED! And those who claim that the changes that we have seen occur in certain species, are UNLIMITED, and "one species transforming into another species is possible", are welcome to present the evidence.

You see, there have been definite changes in certain species, throughout generations, and these changes have been observed. However, these changes, do not in any way necessitate, that it is even possible for one species to transform into another species. Moreover, one species transforming into a completely different species, has never been observed. Therefore, to say that, "one species transforming into a completely different species can occur", would be an assumption, just as it would be an assumption to say that, "it cannot occur."

In short, evolution, (genetic change through generations) has been demonstrated, proven, and observed. However, evolution, (one species transforming into a completely different species) has not! Correct me if I am wrong?

Agreed. That change has not been observed.

This agreement seems sort of strange, because I did not simply say, "it had not been observed", I also said it had not been, demonstrated, or proven. Can we agree on all three? If we can, I believe we would no longer have a debate concerning, evolution.

In other words, we could agree that, evolution (genetic change through generations) has indeed occurred. We could also agree that, evolution (one species transforming into a completely different species) may have occurred, but it has not been, observed, demonstrated, or proven to have occurred.

If we could do this then, we could demonstrate that there is no tactics involved, as far as you, and I are concerned.

[Realworldjack]

.

Nope! Just making the observation that, "one species transforming into a completely different species", has never been, observed, demonstrated, or proven, to have actually occurred!

Wait a minute Jack . . . is this a claim to KNOW that such observation has NEVER happened?

If so, kindly explain how one knows about all possible observations, everywhere, at all times.

In short, evolution, (genetic change through generations) has been demonstrated, proven, and observed. However, evolution, (one species transforming into a completely different species) has not! Correct me if I am wrong?

Agreed. That change has not been observed.

[Willum]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

I wonder if you realize how ridiculous this position sounds:
Expecting animals to change like "Transformers," or even over the course of years.

That property would be contrarian to evolution as well... there would be no continuity of the species if there were no species.

On the other hand we have, for example, "witnessed" the transformation of one animal to another.
Fossil records of ape to man are well exemplified.
Fossils of wolves to whales are well exemplified.

There are probably more out there, but these are easily found.
Indeed, did you know that your DNA changes from when you were born?

Evolution of a type is occurring within you, as we speak.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 22 by Realworldjack]



[center]
We should be VERY careful as to how we describe the theory of evolution if we are to CRITICIZE it[/center]

Zzyzx, at this point you seem to be saying that, "one species transforming into a completely different species", is comparable to when I moved from one state to another, and changed my state citizenship.

At this point, it should be obvious to everyone that one species doesn't "transform" into another species. One should be precise about the theory if one is to discuss the MERITS of the theory.

I think the use of the term "transform" here is indicative of a misunderstanding about what the theory is ABOUT. It's no use right now to use sloppy language about it.

Evolution is a very slow and gradual process.. it's not magic. It's not fast, it's not hocus-pocus transformation between one species and another. It may be DESCRIBED that way as a short cut, but that's not the way it actually happens.

A little learning about the theory is in order.

And perhaps NOT from the Creationists who just want to discredit the theory. Going to creationist sources to learn about the theory of evolution is ridiculous.

[Goose]

Evolution is a very slow and gradual process..

Not according to Punctuated Equilibrium it would seem.

In their landmark paper Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative To Phyletic Gradualism (1972) Eldredge and Gould made the argument that...

“(4) The history of life is more adequately explained by a picture of “punctuated equilibria� than by the notion of phyletic gradualism. The history of evolution is not one of stately unfolding, but a story of homeostatic equilibria, disturbed only “rarely� (i.e., rather often in the fullness of time) by rapid and episodic events of speciation.�

[Bust Nak]

You complain that, there are theist who, claim that the changes can only go so far, and when you ask what would prevent those changes, they give no answer. I fully understand your objection, but I have posed the question to you, what is it that would actually allow the changes to go this far?

The very same mechanisms that allows bacteria to become antibiotic resistant. i.e. variations, inheritance and selective pressure.

Please allow me to ask this question again! Has "the transformation of one species, into a completely different species" actually occurred?

Depends on what your person threshold for "completely different" is. Is it not sufficient that the transformation of one species into a different species?

This is not a very good analogy at all. You see, we have writings from back in those days... So then, there are tools we can use, to understand what you call, "the evolution of Christianity", because although there may not be those alive today that may have actually witnessed these changes, there were those alive that recorded certain events.

Right, the same applies to evolution. How is not a very good analogy?

I not only understand your position, I agree with it, which is why I say, "they have to be assuming." However, my question to you is, has the amount of change possible, been shown to be UNLIMITED by any factor or mechanism?

No, there are lots of limits. No crocoducks or frogkeys for a start.

AGAIN, I fully understand that this occurs. The question is, how does this tell us that these microbes, or anything else for that matter, transform into something other than microbes, or into "another completely different species?"

Your question seem to indicated that microbes into something other than microbes would qualify as completely different? Getting bigger makes something completely different, double size big enough? If then sure, we have directly observe that one species evolving into another completely different species.

has there been any scientists at all, who have demonstrated, or proven, that evolution (one species transforming into a completely different species) has in fact, occurred?

Yes?

The point is, what exactly are all these scientists agreeing to when they say, "evolution has occurred?"

They are agreeing that all life on Earth share the universal common ancestor.

You see, there have been definite changes in certain species, throughout generations, and these changes have been observed. However, these changes, do not in any way necessitate, that it is even possible for one species to transform into another species.

Actually, given the mechanism of changes that you've accepted has happened, changing species is inevitable, well that or extinction. It's just a question of whether it's different enough to qualify for your "completely different."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by Realworldjack]

Zzyzx, at this point you seem to be saying that, "one species transforming into a completely different species", is comparable to when I moved from one state to another, and changed my state citizenship. Well, I am having a hard time swallowing that, and I can see a lot of problems with that analogy, HOWEVER, at this point we do not even need to discuss this.

It is a bad analogy because
1) it is about a single individual
2) Changing citizenship has nothing to do with genetics
3) A child born in Washington State to a parent formerly from New York State is still able to pro-create with people from New York State.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 26 by Goose]




[center]
I think 4 billion years of changes is pretty gradual[/center]

Evolution is a very slow and gradual process..

Not according to Punctuated Equilibrium it would seem.

I didn't say that it was smooth. I didn't say that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages .

I said that evolution takes a lot of time... if it happens in a PUNCTUATED manner or not. Punctuated Equilibrium means that the graph of change is less smooth. Long periods of little change, punctuated by smaller periods of rapid change.

I am not too sure if that's an artifact of how the data has been preserved, or how we observe the data, or if it is an accurate representation of how evolution usually occurs.

One thing that we do know is that the whole PROCESS of evolution takes time. We don't go from a single cell to a human all of a sudden. It's a GRADUAL, SLOW process.. over lots and lots AND LOTS of time taking lots and LOTS of changes.

In the human case, billions of years.
If you ask me, that's pretty slow and gradual.

But it doesn't have to be a SMOOTH gradual change.
Punctuated Equilibrium means that the graph has big BUMPS.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 26 by Goose]

Punctuated equilibrium is one model of evolution, gradualism being the other. They are not mutually exclusive.

Some species appear to show punctuated equilibrium in their fossil records, like the gastropods and trilobites that Gould and Eldredge showed in their initial punc eq paper. In fact, much of the invertebrate record is probably best described as fitting the punc eq model.

Other species show gradualistic change, meaning that there is a discernible trend in morphology in their fossil record. This appears to be more common for vertebrates as far as I have seen. Gradualism also better fits most of our modern observations when observing changes in allele frequency in a population (which doesn't mean that there is any corresponding morphological changes).

And then there are instances where some sort of mixture of the two models appears a better fit, referred to sometimes as Punctuated Gradualism. This signal in the fossil record shows relatively little or no morphological change (stasis) for an extended period of time, then a period of gradual change (the punctuation in this case), followed by another period of stasis.



Take home point: Punctuated equilibrium is a model of evolution that fits best for a lot of the fossil record. Gradualism is a model of evolution that fits some of the fossil record and most modern observations of evolution.