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?

[Zzyzx]

.

You question evolution and you do not question evolution.

Theists who actually think about such things or do some research tend to find themselves in an awkward position.

Now that evolution (genetic change through generations) can no longer rationally be denied, a 'Modern Christian' position, has become 'a little bit of evolution can occur, but not much'. When asked what sets a limit on how much change can occur 'species' boundary is cited --- perhaps not realizing or acknowledging that there is no such thing as species in nature -- that it is only a label in human-made classification system. AND no limiting mechanism has been identified.

It may take centuries for religious organizations to accept evolution -- just as it took centuries to accept the heliocentric solar system (and acknowledge that the Earth is NOT the center of the solar system or universe and their ancient tales suggested).

[Realworldjack]

.

You question evolution and you do not question evolution.

Theists who actually think about such things or do some research tend to find themselves in an awkward position.

Now that evolution (genetic change through generations) can no longer rationally be denied, a 'Modern Christian' position, has become 'a little bit of evolution can occur, but not much'. When asked what sets a limit on how much change can occur 'species' boundary is cited --- perhaps not realizing or acknowledging that there is no such thing as species in nature -- that it is only a label in human-made classification system. AND no limiting mechanism has been identified.

It may take centuries for religious organizations to accept evolution -- just as it took centuries to accept the heliocentric solar system (and acknowledge that the Earth is NOT the center of the solar system or universe and their ancient tales suggested).

Exactly where do ancient tales "suggest the Earth is the center of the solar system, or universe?"

[Zzyzx]

.

Exactly where do ancient tales "suggest the Earth is the center of the solar system, or universe?"

Genesis 1:14-18, Psalm 104:5, Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22 would be a good start concerning SUGGESTING (not stating specifically) a geocentric solar system / universe. Evidently those suggestions were sufficient as a basis for church dogma /doctrine for many centuries.

It is mildly surprising when Theists appear to be unaware of such things . . .

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 61 by Zzyzx]


[center]
I think it's high time for us to CONGRATULATE creationists[/center]

You question evolution and you do not question evolution.

Theists who actually think about such things or do some research tend to find themselves in an awkward position.

Now that evolution (genetic change through generations) can no longer rationally be denied, a 'Modern Christian' position, has become 'a little bit of evolution can occur, but not much'. When asked what sets a limit on how much change can occur 'species' boundary is cited --- perhaps not realizing or acknowledging that there is no such thing as species in nature -- that it is only a label in human-made classification system. AND no limiting mechanism has been identified.

That's an excellent point.
I think "micro evolution" is an ENORMOUS concession.

I think that creationists should be heartily congratulated for that "one small step for man". It might encourage them to keep on with the learning.

It may take centuries for religious organizations to accept evolution -- just as it took centuries to accept the heliocentric solar system (and acknowledge that the Earth is NOT the center of the solar system or universe and their ancient tales suggested).

I think it might have taken so many years because we had to wait for a scientific genius to come along.. with his new fangled "telescope". I think .. after that it wasn't hundreds of more years, was it?

_______________

For the record:

I hate to admit it, but I'm a pessimist. I wish I wasn't.
But I'm not a PURE pessimist... I sometimes allow for some optimism to sneek in the back door.
________________

I believe that knowledge is not only incremental but also progresses exponentially. So, what might have taken hundreds of years in the past, might happen in months ...

The creationists will surely keep on fighting the good fight.. and cling on.
But in the future?

Only the future will tell.
I'm happy to share a venue where knowledge is advanced.


( by the way, I'm taking bets on how long Trump stays in office. Odds are against 4 years )

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

If it involves, "one species transforming into another completely different species", I could not say if it would be true, or not, since it has not been proven either way!

An early comparison of human and chimp genetics indicated that humans and chimps were about 98% identical genetically. A much longer and more thorough study has recently been completed, and it indicates that the earlier figures were off. This new longer and more thorough comparison indicates that humans and chimps are about 96% the same genetically. Slightly less then the earlier study, true, but still unmistakable evidence that humans and chimps are very closely related genetically. But you see, humans did NOT evolve from chimps, any more than chimps evolved from humans. We clearly ARE of different species of course. Two different species that diverged from a common ancestor some few million years ago.


GENOME RESEARCH

Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack
Ajit Varki1 and Tasha K. Altheide

Glycobiology Research and Training Center, Departments of Medicine and Cellular & Molecular Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA

The chimpanzee genome sequence is a long-awaited milestone, providing opportunities to explore primate evolution and genetic contributions to human physiology and disease. Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor ∼5-7 million years ago (Mya). The difference between the two genomes is actually not ∼1%, but ∼4%—comprising ∼35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions.

Copyright © 2017 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full


Christians of course will continue to deny any and all evidence placed in front of them which does not conform to what they wish to believe. But Christianity is currently withering on the vine, largely based on denial and ignorance of modern science. At some point the number of Christians will be few enough that their denial will no longer make any difference to anyone.

Allow me to stress again, I am not in any way attempting to say that, "evolution has not occurred." My point is simply, "one species transforming into a completely different species" has not been, "observed, demonstrated, of proven, to have occurred", just like the study you site, informs!

Though out the article, it continues to speak of, "likelihoods", which means that these things are still under investigation, and are not facts, as of yet. In fact here is an example,

However, despite decades of research on wild and captive chimpanzees, our overall knowledge about the chimpanzee phenome is very incomplete. Studies of intra-specific variation among great apes are in their infancy, and biomedical and physiological data are few. This lack of comparative phenotypic data represents a serious knowledge imbalance.

The point is, apes, and humans "diverging from a common ancestor some few million years ago" has not been, observed, demonstrated, or proven!

[Blastcat]

[center]
You say you support it but you demonstrate to us why you don't.[/center]

Allow me to stress again, I am not in any way attempting to say that, "evolution has not occurred."

You go out of your way to not agree with the theory, but somehow, you manage to think that you do.

How very odd.
You make no sense at all.

My point is simply, "one species transforming into a completely different species" has not been, "observed, demonstrated, of proven, to have occurred", just like the study you site, informs!

You don't support the theory of evolution.

The point is, apes, and humans "diverging from a common ancestor some few million years ago" has not been, observed, demonstrated, or proven!

You don't support the theory of evolution.
But you insist that you do.

How strange.

[Zzyzx]

.

The point is, apes, and humans "diverging from a common ancestor some few million years ago" has not been, observed, demonstrated, or proven!

Jack, why be concerned about such things unless 1) a person is actually studying archeology / anthropology / biology / genetics OR 2) a person is attempting to defend ancient tales that promote a different story?

If reasoning is applied, does it favor a century of study of the real world by thousands of disconnected people worldwide OR does reasoning favor believing tales told by a handful of ancient promoters of a religion -- who show no evidence of knowledge beyond the level typical of their era?

[Realworldjack]

.
[Replying to post 51 by Realworldjack]

RWJ, Although some would be flattered by being sited as a source TEN times in one post, I decline being idolized or cited as an authority.

Depending upon citing me to make your argument would be an example of Appeal to Authority (if our resident expert logic corrector approves).

If you think I speak truth when what I say can be used in attempts to bolster your argument (as it seems), it might be prudent to consider that I may well speak truth when OPPOSING your position. Perhaps some private reflection . . .

Have you explained why speciation is significant (central) to your argument? Species is nothing more than a label attached by humans. There are no boundary lines between groups of plants or animals in nature any more than there are boundary lines in nature between nations.

I realize that Religionists often feel compelled to attempt to discredit 'too much' evolution because it contradicts what ancients claimed in tales about 'gods'. It is interesting that this is almost always done without study of genetics . . .

RWJ, Although some would be flattered by being sited as a source TEN times in one post, I decline being idolized or cited as an authority.

I do not believe I was attempting to cite you as a "source, or as an authority." Rather, I was simply citing exactly what you had said. I was under the impression that, evolution involved "one species transforming into another species" and you seemed to have corrected me on that understanding, by giving me a definition that did not involve, "one species transforming into another species" which allowed me to then agree that evolution has indeed occurred.

Since you are a scientist, and I am not, I did take your word for this definition, but I do not believe that your word is authoritative, which is why I went on to ask, "Bust Nak" if he believed your definition was in error, and that "one species transforming into another species" should be added into the definition?

If he does, (and it certainly seems as if he does), I went on to explain that his beef is not with me, but rather with you, since I originally was under the impression, that it should have been included.

At this point, it really would be helpful, if you would let us know if, "one species transforming into another species" should be part of the definition of evolution. Also, you have already seemed to have agreed that, "one species transforming into a completely different species" has not been, observed. Could you go on to tell us, if "one species transforming into a completely different species" has been, demonstrated, or proven? And again, we are not asking what you believe occurred, along with the evidence. Simply, has it been demonstrated, or proven?

At any rate, if I have offended you in any way, by citing what you have said, then I apologize. It was not my intent to offend!

If you think I speak truth when what I say can be used in attempts to bolster your argument (as it seems),

Nope! I was not attempting to "bolster my argument!" If I was, then please demonstrate! Again, I was demonstrating, where I had been corrected, in my understanding of the definition of, evolution, and that is it! On top of this, I highly doubt that your definition of evolution is complete, as far as how most people understand evolution.

In other words, I would wager that most people have in mind, "one species transforming into a completely different species" when they think of evolution, and are not in any way thinking about, "genetic change through generations."

My point is, if evolution does in fact, only involve, "genetic change through generations", then I highly doubt that it would be as hotly debated as it is. But as we all know, there is way more involved in the definition. But if you now want to tell us that the definition has been narrowed down to, "genetic change through generations" (i.e. bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant but remaining to be bacteria), then I believe the debate concerning evolution would be mostly over, because we would mostly agree that it has been, "observed, demonstrated, and proven!"

The whole point here is, it is not as though I believed you were "speaking the truth" but rather, I was willing to go along with your definition, whether it was the truth, or not, concerning evolution. As I said, I highly doubt most people have your definition in mind when they think of evolution, even if you are correct.

it might be prudent to consider that I may well speak truth when OPPOSING your position.

I have never considered that you have been lying in any way at all, and I am sure you speak the truth about what it is you believe about certain things. However, if we are discussing things which have not been demonstrated, or proven, then both of us can only give our opinion. If this is the case, then I would highly doubt that you would be lying about your opinion.

I have never thought that you have given false information. So then, it is not as though I am refuting what you say. In fact, it seems that many times we agree concerning information, where we mostly disagree, is how this information should be interpreted. And even then, I do not insist that the evidence MUST be interpreted in the way I see things, but I rather acknowledge that it can be interpreted differently, and that one, or the both of us, are in error.

I highly respect what you have to say, and really enjoy our discussions, but this does not mean that I should agree with you at every turn. However, I do indeed attempt to "consider that you may well speak truth when OPPOSING my position."

Have you explained why speciation is significant (central) to your argument?

I have never mention the word, "speciation", and I am somewhat leery of this word. So then, what I believe you are referring too is, "one species transforming into a completely different species." Well, there is nothing, "significant, or central" here. I have simply stated, what I believe to be fact which is, "one species, transforming into a completely different species, has not been observed, demonstrated, or proven to have occurred!" THAT'S IT!

Either I am correct, or I am incorrect, but as of yet, after several days of making this statement, I have been ridiculed, but no one has been able to demonstrate where I am wrong concerning this statement.

Species is nothing more than a label attached by humans.

Okay, so do we have proof that any of these living things, that we have labeled, have transformed into a completely different living thing, over millions of years? Has it been, observed, demonstrated, or proven?

There are no boundary lines between groups of plants or animals in nature any more than there are boundary lines in nature between nations.

Exactly! Which is why I was so afraid when my wife became pregnant, because I was not sure she would produce a, human!

I realize that Religionists often feel compelled to attempt to discredit 'too much' evolution because it contradicts what ancients claimed in tales about 'gods'. It is interesting that this is almost always done without study of genetics . . .

First, I really have no business discussing science, which is why I tend to shy away from it most of the time. However, when and if I do, I never bring religion into the conversation, because religion has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

In other words, I understand that science, stands alone, and does not need religion to interfere. So why do you feel the need to bring it into the conversation?

So then, I have not "attempt to discredit 'too much' evolution." In fact, I have agreed that it may have occurred, and have not in any way set any limits upon it! Rather, I have simply stated, "one species transforming into a completely different species, has not been, observed, demonstrated, or proven to have occurred." If I sated that, "one species transforming into a completely different species, has been, demonstrated, and proven", would I be correct?

[Bust Nak]

Oh really? Well that seems sort of odd, because he did not add it into the definition that he gave, when it would have been the right time to do so.

Why is that odd? It's just redundant to add something when it is already included. Definitions are best when they are concise.

So, as you can see, he agrees that "one species transforming into another completely different species" has not been, observed, but is silent concerning whether it has been demonstrated, or proven, when he had every opportunity to do so.

Looks like he has a more strict for what qualify as "completely different."

So then, you would think that if there was certain proof concerning these things, then this would have been the time to supply it... however, up until this point, he has failed to do so.

That's where I come in.

So then, I am not so sure that, "his definition already covers one species transforming into a different species?" Maybe he can clear this up?

Or you can just refer to my explanation?

If evolution is defined as "Zzyzx" claims, "genetic change through generations", then I am not questioning evolution at all, but rather agree with evolution. However, EVEN IF evolution involves, "one species transforming into a completely different species" I am not questioning it, rather I am simply stating that "one species transforming into a completely different species" has not been, observed, demonstrated, or proven.

Saying evolution has not been observed, demonstrated, or proven, amounts to questioning it in my book.

This is sort of funny, because the only "creationist" I even know anything about at all would be, Ken Ham, and I know very little about him, and although I do a lot of reading, I have never read anything at all by him, or any other creationist, and I am on record, condemning, "creation science."

And yet here you are, saying the same things they do.

Maybe it is simply because I do not agree with you, that you assume that I must be a creationist?

No. I am not assuming you are anything. I am accusing you of using the same arguments creationists are using, that requires no assumption because we have your posts right here. Whether you are a creationist or not, doesn't change the fact that what you are saying here, is what we expect creationists to say.

No! You see, "genetic change through generations" simply means we KNOW there have been changes in certain species, over time. However, we do not KNOW, if these changes have gone as far as allowing, "one species transforming into a completely different species."

That's the thing, we do KNOW that. Speciation has been observed both in the wild and in lab environment.

I think I have just refuted this. "Genetic change through generations" simply means there have been changes in certain species. It does not necessarily entail, "one species transforming into a completely different species."

But it does, changes add up over time.

How in the world does this PROVE, "one species transforming into a completely different species?"

Because it is an example of "one species transforming into a completely different species." That is unless you don't think it is different enough to qualify as "completely different." In which case your criteria for "completely different" is where we should be focusing the discussion on, as opposed to what has and hasn't been observed.

As I said, the only thing I can think of, since I have no faith whatsoever in creation science, is that you must assume that since I may disagree with you, that I must, or have to be a creationist.

Addressed already. I am not calling you a creationist - I am accusing you of using the same argument they are. Whether you are a creationist or not is irrelevant, you should stop using their arguments because they have been debunked.

[Realworldjack]

[center]
You say you support it but you demonstrate to us why you don't.[/center]

Allow me to stress again, I am not in any way attempting to say that, "evolution has not occurred."

You go out of your way to not agree with the theory, but somehow, you manage to think that you do.

How very odd.
You make no sense at all.

My point is simply, "one species transforming into a completely different species" has not been, "observed, demonstrated, of proven, to have occurred", just like the study you site, informs!

You don't support the theory of evolution.

The point is, apes, and humans "diverging from a common ancestor some few million years ago" has not been, observed, demonstrated, or proven!

You don't support the theory of evolution.
But you insist that you do.

How strange.

You go out of your way to not agree with the theory, but somehow, you manage to think that you do.

How very odd.
You make no sense at all.

Simply stating that, "one species transforming into another completely different species has not been, observed, demonstrated, or proven, to have occurred", is NOT disagreeing with evolution! I could fully believe that evolution has indeed occurred, and still make this same statement. I am on record as saying, "evolution, and, "one species transforming into another species" may have occurred, however, it has not been observed, demonstrated, or proven to have occurred." That statement, does not disagree with either!

You don't support the theory of evolution.

I neither support evolution, nor do I deny it. If evolution is defined simply as, "genetic change through generations" then I would agree that it has indeed occurred. However, if it goes on to include, "one species transforming into a completely different species", it is not as though I am denying that it has occurred, it very well may have, I am simply stating, that it has not been, observed, demonstrated, of proven to have occurred! Making this statement does not entail, denying that it can, or has occurred! How can this, "make no sense?"