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?

[Realworldjack]

.

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?

And again, why would anyone want to bring religion into a conversation concerning science? Science can, and should stand alone apart from religion! I have not brought religion into the conversation, so why do you feel the need to do so?

No matter what I happen to believe concerning Christianity, I am perfectly able to separate the two. In other words, I am not the type of person to hold onto my Christian faith, in the face of the overwhelming PROOF against it!

Could it be that there are many who simply believe that science has overwhelming PROOF, against the Christian faith, when it does not, and this is why they continue to bring religion into the equation?

I see no need to bring religion into a conversation concerning science, which is why I am not a fan of those scientists that refer to themselves as, creationists. Religion, has no place in a conversation concerning, science. Can we leave it that way?

[Neatras]

Put me in coach, I'm ready!

__________________________________________________________

Hey, Jack! If you don't agree with the conclusion that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor, then what about genetic evidence?

I'm not gonna quote the "99% similarity" statistic, because that's old news. It should already be pretty convincing, but I can do you one better.

I will point out to you how physical events that occurred in discrete points in time in the past resulted in leaving records of those events in our genomes. And that these events, when you logically analyze their physical nature, lead to strong supporting evidence that humans and other apes share a common ancestor.

And that, simply, is endogenous retroviruses.

Individual organisms in a real, distant period of time acquired a genetic anomaly that was passed on to all of that organism's offspring. And as those offspring continued to reproduce and create new generations, that anomaly remained present in the genome. A physical branding of a real event in history. And as an immense amount of time passed, those descendants of the first organism to receive the anomaly diverged both physiologically and genetically, but those markers remain.

Now, 8% of your genome consists of over 10,000 ERV's, all of which are genetic fossils of history's anomalies in our ancestry. And our ancestry lines up exactly with the ancestry of other species. With a match in almost every single ERV when compared orthologous to other species' genomes.

Humans can only share an ERV in the same location if they share the same ancestor that originally obtained the ERV.

So please tell me how common ancestry hasn't been demonstrated.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 70 by Realworldjack]




[center]
There IS a point when repeating just gets boring[/center]

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!

People are trying to explain to you how that makes no sense.
I suggest you spend some time learning about the subject.

Good luck with your education.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 62 by Realworldjack]

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

The Google search you want to make is for "geocentrism"
Good luck with your education.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 71 by Realworldjack]

Jack, while talking about 'one species transforming into another' will you kindly address an issue that I have raised several times –

Species is a word that comes from Taxonomy ( the branch of biology concerned with the classification of organisms into groups based on similarities of structure, origin, etc http://www.thefreedictionary.com/taxonomy)

Species is a LABEL in a human-made taxonomic classification system. It is NOT something imposed by nature – but by MAN. There are NO species 'boundary lines' in nature – NONE.

The description of a given species could well change during the next few years (as has happened in the past) – to include some individuals that had been excluded, and exclude others that had once been included.

http://animaldiversity.org/animal_names ... nsistency/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_ ... scriptions

[Neatras]

One component of my religious thinking as a youth was that evolution can't produce major changes because populations appear to trend toward an average. A "default" state for each population. And while some individuals might deviate from the default, it would correct after a few generations until the population as a whole was bounded, and was therefore resistant to extreme change. After learning about biology, I learned this isn't the case. The notion that a population can only exist in a range of expressed traits is correct (otherwise they would not be able to generate fertile offspring). The notion that there is an average distribution of allele frequencies is also correct. But the idea of a default state is not justified by observed phenomena. If a population experiences a trend toward a new average distribution of traits, it will appear to be the default. But as we've just established, it's a new statistical average for the population's genes. And if the trends continue, the average continues to shift. Creationists must propose a real, physical mechanism that prevents trends from causing lasting impacts to the gene pool that would lead to trends in gene expression.

We already know that these trends produce changes in average distribution, and we know that there is often little chance of a population reverting back to its previous trait distribution. What creationists continue to maintain is that changing any one member too much will cause them to be unable to reproduce with the rest of the population, so those specific changes die out. But genetic drift is an observed phenomenon where the entire population gradually changes distribution of traits until the new "average allele frequency" is established.

Factor in geographic and reproductive isolation, and an otherwise "average" population can deviate, producing two distinct groups that are each developing new trends according to environmental pressures.

[Bust Nak]

And again, why would anyone want to bring religion into a conversation concerning science? Science can, and should stand alone apart from religion! I have not brought religion into the conversation, so why do you feel the need to do so?

Quite simply because there is a strong correlation between religiosity and hostility towards science. Science should stand alone apart from religion, but unfortunately, this is not the case in practice.

Could it be that there are many who simply believe that science has overwhelming PROOF, against the Christian faith, when it does not, and this is why they continue to bring religion into the equation?

No, it is because there are many who simply believe that science does not have overwhelming PROOF, against the creationism, when it does, and this is why religion is part of the equation.

[Realworldjack]

.
[Replying to post 71 by Realworldjack]

Jack, while talking about 'one species transforming into another' will you kindly address an issue that I have raised several times –

Species is a word that comes from Taxonomy ( the branch of biology concerned with the classification of organisms into groups based on similarities of structure, origin, etc http://www.thefreedictionary.com/taxonomy)

Species is a LABEL in a human-made taxonomic classification system. It is NOT something imposed by nature – but by MAN. There are NO species 'boundary lines' in nature – NONE.

The description of a given species could well change during the next few years (as has happened in the past) – to include some individuals that had been excluded, and exclude others that had once been included.

http://animaldiversity.org/animal_names ... nsistency/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_ ... scriptions

Sorry guys! But I have been sort of swamped at work for a couple of weeks, and have not had the time to visit the site. So then, with the little time I have right now, I would like to respond to the question "Zzyzx" has raised, and attempt to answer the rest when I can find more time.

"Zzyzx" I believe I have addressed this issue you raised in post 68.

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!

[Zzyzx]

.

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!

Jack, my mind reels with equally flippant responses. However, decorum prevents saying anything other than:

Condolences.

I have no fear that any of the women with whom I have been associated would attempt to breed with non-humans.

[JoeyKnothead]

.

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!

Jack, my mind reels with equally flippant responses. However, decorum prevents saying anything other than:

Condolences.

I have no fear that any of the women with whom I have been associated would attempt to breed with non-humans.

The lolz man, the lolz :2gun: