Social Question

DWW25921's avatar

Why do so many scientists and evolutionists lie so much to support their cause?

Asked by DWW25921 (5820 points ) December 4th, 2013

Watch the following series of short videos and see if you agree with this explanation of it. It seems strange for the most aggressive proponents of science, evolutionists, would resort to what they clearly know to be lies. After all, they are today’s principal prophets of a religion with a cardinal rule “Facts are facts.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV7Z3Qo6wjU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnhp1LiLcY4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XfYeeghEmw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7IPUJojBQI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWnlSfCF-hA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAG7IgTJwX8

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

246 Answers

Seek's avatar

I’m sorry… what?!?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Because they’re closet Christian Fundamentalists?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’m sorry, but I’m having a real hard time just getting past the intro of the first vid link. It has a way of saying “Everything after this is complete bullshit.”

but i’m trying

Seek's avatar

I dragged my way through it, looking for some charts, or diagrams, or even scripture… but didn’t see anything.

And with comments and ratings disabled and mirrors disallowed, it’s clear that the people who posted it are fully guilty of “I said it, I believe it, that settles it!!” and are not at all concerned with appearing credible or defending their position. They’re preaching to the converted, as it were.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

At 4:50, the real presenter (Roger Oakland?) demonstrates his lack of understanding about the subject, stating the “two views” of “origins”... One being “evolution”.

I personally don’t know of anyone, theist or atheist, who believes that evolution is a cause of origins. Evolution may propel life, but it has nothing to do with anything before life all the way to the big bang.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

At 9:20, “We begin where evolutionists say it all began. With the big bang, and the evolution of the universe”.

Blatantly and shamefully wrong.

Evolutionists don’t say it all began with the big bang. Cosmologists and physicists do. And no one that I know of claims the the universe evolves… not evolutionists, not cosmologists, not physicists. In fact, the roiling chaos of the universe is practically the opposite of evolution.

This first video is promoting some extremely erroneous concepts. It is very misleading to what true evolutionists believe, which is simply that where living organisms are concerned, time plus pressure equals adaptation.

Star dust does not adapt. It can’t. It doesn’t have a preexisting code to modify.

Blackberry's avatar

Indeed, some people confuse the theory of evolution/natural selection with abiogenesis.

ragingloli's avatar

*headdesk

Lightlyseared's avatar

Unfortunately you are just adding more evidence to the question “why do all creationists lie to support their cause?”.

kounoupi's avatar

Oh MY GOD, seriously?

flutherother's avatar

Science doesn’t lie and it doesn’t have a cause. It is the opponents of science who have a cause and who lie. Science may not be the whole truth but it is part of the truth and it cannot be dismissed.

LilCosmo's avatar

Oh my. @DWW25921 is this kind of a joke question? Those videos are pure garbage and imagination. It is ridiculous things like that that create anti-atheists.

tom_g's avatar

@DWW25921 – I don’t have time to watch all of these videos unless there is legitimate reason to think that a handful of youtube clips will overturn all we know about biology. Can you summarize?

snowberry's avatar

Hey, turnabout’s fair play! And I haven’t even watched the videos! Awesome! ROFL!

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

If we’re going to do this, if we’re going to spend this holiday season snidely attacking each other’s personal beliefs with loaded questions and the inevitably angry responses, I want the hot dog and soft drink concession.

snowberry's avatar

Hey, @Espiritus_Corvus it’s how Fluther rolls! LOL

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

^^ Nope. Just your part of it. That is how Sodahead rolls.

snowberry's avatar

Ah, you’re in fine form today, @Espiritus_Corvus Keep it up. LOL

Seek's avatar

I know, instead of having a traditional debate, let’s just post YouTube clips.

You can post Ken Ham claiming the flood set fossils in layers, I’ll post a test showing how much bullshit that is. You can post William lane Craig running his mouth, I can post Hitchens tearing him a new one in a more accurate location. You can post stuff about biblical inerrancy, I can post my favorite satirical stick figure quiz show.

No actual arguments needed.

Whoever gets to the bottom the internet first loses.

marinelife's avatar

They don’t lie. They don’t need to.

Bill1939's avatar

When one posits their belief, whether it is true or not, it is not a lie. Scientists conjecture. They seek evidence that supports or refutes their postulations through experimentation. While often their expectations bias their conclusions, over time this usually unconscious distortion of facts is uncovered by further testing of their assumptions by other scientists.

The only valid points that creationists have (in my opinion) are that what existed before the beginning is not known and where an initial force, which produced the matter and energy existing today, came from. That evolutionists (actually cosmologists) have many unanswered questions (some that may not be within human ken) and many proposed answers with which they are not in agreement, does not prove the core premises of their thought false.

GoldieAV16's avatar

If blue is a color, and apples are fruit, why do so many people hate maths?

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I have no problems with a debate. I used the exact same format with this question as another flutherer used for the opposing side. So, why is this bad and that question good?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Thanks for trying at least. Our world if full of different views and knowledge and respecting and understanding others is the best way towards unity. Honestly, I couldn’t care less if folks believe this or not.

@Lightlyseared Have I lied about anything? Feel free to share your thoughts.

@snowberry I thought to myself… I wonder what would happen if… Phil. 4:13

@Espiritus_Corvus I don’t feel attacked and I haven’t attacked anyone else. Up to this point folks have been respectful and even inquisitive. Please, do not assume malice upon others. This is a very interesting topic!

@Bill1939 @marinelife @GoldieAV16 Thank you for your feedback.

I found a very interesting video if you’ll bear with me. Thank you all for your time. Please let me know what you think!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PY0zzh8G3c

DWW25921's avatar

@LilCosmo Not a joke, it’s real. Thanks for your feedback!

@tom_g I posted a more concise overview above. Thanks for your interest!

poisonedantidote's avatar

Evolution is not a “cause” and to suggest that it is a cause, and that there is a formal conspiracy to get people to believe it borders on madness.

Why would anyone want to convince anyone about this, Evolution does not have a collection plate, leader, or end goal.

It is simply another field of science, and none of the scientists working on it are trying to disprove christianity or anything like that.

If the bible said that everything floats away from the earth, then creationists would have a problem with the theory of gravity.

As for the user who asked the same question but from the other side, that is totally different, because creationists do infact lie all the time, and are willing to do anything to support their cause.

Sure, 1 or 2 scientists have been known to glue some bones together and claim it is some kind of missing link, but they did not do so to support any cause, they did so for fame and money and personal gain.

Every single scientist who has been caught fudging figures or acting dishonestly has been thrown out of the scientific comunity and been discredited for life, while creationists who lie, are welcomed with open arms by their piers, and allowed to continue doing so.

It really just comes down, to the fact that the bible says god put the animals here as is. If the bible said something different that has been disproven by science, they would have no problem with evolution and would instead want the other thing taken out of the science classrooms.

DWW25921's avatar

I should explain myself personally so you know where I’m coming from. Paraphrasing the creation story and approximate history until today. (Extremely old school style)

(Literal) Day 1 Genesis 1:1–5 states that God created the earth. On this first day the earth was a void in space staring at the sun. This was not the earth we know today. No plants and animals, a complete barren ball of water as land had not yet been introduced.

(Literal) Day 2 Genesis 1:6–8 states that God separated the waters above and below. A shield of ice or mist was introduced into the atmosphere. The expanse between the waters was called “sky” and this was the second day. Basically, this is when He made our atmosphere.

(Literal) Day 3 Genesis 1:9–13 states that God created land and divided it from the water. The world looked somewhat “Pangea” like in form, as the continents were all together. God than created all the plant life we see today.

(Literal) Day 4 Genesis 1:14–19 states that God created the stars in the sky and the moon and set the revolution of the earth in motion around the sun. The Earth was not capable of sustaining life before this step.

(Literal) Day 5 Genesis 1:20–23 states that God created the creatures of the sea and the air and he blessed them. Incidentally, this is the first blessing in the Bible.

(Literal) Day 6 Genesis 1:24–31 states that God created all the land animals and than humans and gave us humans dominion over the Earth and told us to take care of it.

(Literal) Day 7 Genesis 2:1–3 states that God rested on the seventh day and made it holy as an example for us to use one day a week as a day of rest.

There was about 2000 years between the great flood when the waters above came and flooded the land and creation. Before the flood, people lived to be several hundred years old and the differing atmospheric conditions allowed for constant growth. As for dinosaurs, there were never any different species than what we see today. For example, if my dog never stopped growing over his 600-year life I’m sure he’d be as big as a house!

During the flood the earth below the waters broke apart creating the continents we have today. The flood also dramatically changed the atmosphere, as there is no longer water above the earth. The new atmosphere accounts for the differing atmospheric changes and climate we see today as before the flood the earth would have been fairly temperate.

After the flood there was 2000 years before God came to Earth in the form of Jesus. It has almost been 2000 years since Jesus came. His return is foretold in Revelation and many prophesies about that return are being fulfilled now.

If you have any questions about creationism please feel free to let me know.

DWW25921's avatar

@poisonedantidote There are differing views on creation and I find that frustrating. Although I have never encountered a Creationist that lies, to be fair, there are many different schools of thought in the midst of creationism and just because I haven’t encountered lies that doesn’t mean they aren’t out there somewhere.

Is there anything that I’ve written above that has been dis-proven? I personally doubt it but as I said in another thread, truth is relative to the circle of belief that one resides and finding “proof” on any subject is as easy as going to Google.

I’m not here to convince anyone. I’m here to display my truth.

poisonedantidote's avatar

If by “above” you mean the genesis stuff, then yes, all of genesis has been disproven.

The moon is not made of light, the sky is not a solid object, there has never been a worldwide flood, and so on.

tom_g's avatar

@DWW25921 – Thanks for description above. It helps. I did have a chance to check out your latest link. I think you might want to rephrase your question or at least be honest in what you are doing here. You are declaring the fields of biology, geology, oceanography, chemistry, physics, astronomy, and astophysics to be all part of a grand conspiracy.

I think you’ve been honest in that you’re “not here to convince anyone. I’m here to display my truth.” But where does that leave us? What is there to talk about, and why even post the “question”?

I’m not going to try to provide you with scientific explanations that will dispel some of the confusion. Why waste my time – and your’s? In fact, why don’t we just wrap this one up right now?

DWW25921's avatar

@poisonedantidote I’d love to see your “proof”. I’ve already explained how “proof” works these days. Tidbits are regularly focused on and discarded depending on your world view. For you see, as far as I’m concerned, evolution is complete hogwash and has been dis-proven. You would dismiss my “proof” as quickly as I yours.

Are we than at an impasse? I don’t think so. Consider this an opportunity to learn something about the opposing side. I mean, I’m not at all offended by folks that don’t believe as I do. I think this sort of banter can even a positive thing if it’s done constructively and respectfully.

poisonedantidote's avatar

Okay, you caught us. We are all reptilians from planet X, come here to disprove god so that we can sin and have a good time.

Really? you really want me to provide proof that the sky is not solid?

I give up. All praise Jesus! amen.

DWW25921's avatar

@tom_g “You are declaring the fields of biology, geology, oceanography, chemistry, physics, astronomy, and astophysics to be all part of a grand conspiracy.”

Not at all! I think people regularly flub the data according to their own needs. I mean, why help out the other side? Geneticists and archeologists have regularly found young earth evidence but you won’t find that in textbooks. The frustrating thing is, as I’ve said before, people find “facts” realitive to their own needs. There’s so much out there and it’s all “true” it’s hard to sift through.

DWW25921's avatar

@poisonedantidote Frustrating, isn’t it. I’m at the other end thinking the same thing. We could come up with all kinds of “facts” to throw at each other. That would do nothing but cause stress. I’m not feeling that road would be productive. I think a more productive route would be to acknowledge that there is more to our existence than boxing it up in a fantastic theory. Anyway, thanks for your time.

glacial's avatar

@DWW25921 ” I think a more productive route would be to acknowledge that there is more to our existence than boxing it up in a fantastic theory.”

I’m with you on that one. But I assume we disagree about which theory is more fantastic.

DWW25921's avatar

@glacial I have no problem with that. Thanks for your input!

poisonedantidote's avatar

Evolution does not define my existence, I have no needs for it to be true. If evidence came forward showing evolution to be false, I would say “okay” and shrug my shoulders and get on with my day.

It is not even frustrating, its just silly

If evolution turned out to be false, I would not fall to my knees, look to the sky and shout “nooooo”, I simply would not care, it has no effect on my life.

To me, saying animals evolve, is just like saying spheres are round, or that things fall to the floor, or that fire is hot.

If it turns out that fire is actually cold, I could not care less, if it turns out that gravity is an optical illusion, I would not care, I would simply find it mildly interesting.

Even if all of science turns out to be disproven, I will not care, and will not lose any sleep about it.

I just find it a bit interesting is all, that in 2013, there are people doing the equvalent of arguing that fire is cold, because some bronze age book says so.

I realized that religion is all nonsense at the age of 6, before I even had any idea what evolution is. I did not even know it existed.

None of this offends me, or bothers me, I’m just here passing the time until I go for coffee in 15 minutes.

This is not even a debate, the only argument going on is the internal argument you are having with yourself.

I have read about 5 or 6 books on evolution, I consider myself to know a fair bit about the topic, and even then, I don’t feel I have enough understanding of evolution, to debate a scientist on the topic, because I simply am not qualified to stack my 5 or 6 books of info, against 200 years of evidence, so I don’t really see how you can claim evolution has been disproven, unless you have spent the last 50 or 60 years researching and testing it day in and day out.

Evolution has so much evidence for it, that if I started reading it all today, and dedicated 20 hours to it a day, I would wind up dead from old age before I even got half way though it.

On the other hand, genesis is a couple pages long at best, so yes, there is enough time for me to come to the certain conclusion, that the claims of genesis are just mythology from the past.

Personally, I don’t care where animals come from, or how they are different from one another or how they change. As long as bacon still tastes like bacon I am not going to complain.

Don’t you see, that I am not even trying to win any kind of argument here. It is just a curiosity for my free time. Unlike creationists, I have no desparate need to believe anything in particular.

If there is a god, then fine, there is a god, I still have bills to pay, and if there is no god, I still have to pay those bills. Evolution or no evolution, my life is 100% the same.

I am not the one who has an entire life view that depends on evolution being either true or false. It is just 1 of 1,000,000 things that I believe to be true or false, and if I am wrong, it really is no big deal.

The only people breaking sweat on the evolution debate are the ones against the idea, those who accept it simply accept it like you accept trees are made of wood. There is nothing to fear on this side of the fence.

Anyway, time for that coffee I mentioned.

Take care all.

Seek's avatar

@DWW25921 The main difference is this:

If you go “up”, you don’t hit the ceiling and risk cracking the firmament and collapsing a wall of water from the split pre-Earth sea.

If you dig, you find species in predictable layers. Never has there been a fossilized rabbit found in Pre-Cambrian layers.

The idea that dogs that live for 600 years become reptiles is patently laughable.

We get a flu shot every year because evolution happens. It’s not a fantastic guess. It’s a fact.

DWW25921's avatar

@poisonedantidote Your honesty is refreshing! “Don’t you see, that I am not even trying to win any kind of argument here. It is just a curiosity for my free time.” Have I really gone out of my way to try to convince you of anything… Really? We’re on the same page really. I’ve already had my morning coffee and am procrastinating doing some advertising work for one of my stores. It’s dreadfully dull. Have a great day!

@Seek_Kolinahr It’s not that really. Species don’t change. A dog is a dog, always has been and always will be. I know I’m not going to convince you of anything and that’s ok. I think it’s good to know where the other side is coming from. Thank you for your input!

Kropotkin's avatar

Well, this answers ETpro’s question. They’re not all lying.

@DWW25921 You may be sincere in your beliefs, and the creationist narrative may make more sense to you than evolutionary theory (and the 150 years of unparalleled research and evidence which supports it.)

It may be an emotionally more satisfying narrative to you. It may be that it seems more logical. It may support your religious convictions and seem more compatible with your faith.

But, whatever the motivations and reasons for you believing in creationism rather than evolution, one thing creationism does not offer is a useful model in terms of medical and scientific applications.

Evolutionary theory is useful in medical research and the development of drugs and antibiotics. In disease control. In producing higher yield crops, fish, etc. In producing genetic algorithms (which are themselves a sort of evidence of evolution itself). And a whole host of other applications that I’m only dimly aware of.

The practical application of creationism is… well. Nothing at all. Building more churches? I don’t know. Maybe you can help me out here. Even if evolutionary theory really is somehow actually false, it is unquestionably and patently the infinitely more pragmatic theory.

zenvelo's avatar

@DWW25921 That “creation story” is wrong. This is how the world was created, this is the truth, not your fairy tale that took a week:

In the beginning nothing existed—no earth, no sky, no sun, no moon, only darkness was everywhere.

Suddenly from the darkness emerged a thin disc, one side yellow and the other side white, appearing suspended in midair. Within the disc sat a small bearded man, Creator, the One Who Lives Above. As if waking from a long nap, he rubbed his eyes and face with both hands.

When he looked into the endless darkness, light appeared above. He looked down and it became a sea of light. To the east, he created yellow streaks of dawn. To the west, tints of many colours appeared everywhere. There were also clouds of different colours.

Creator wiped his sweating face and rubbed his hands together, thrusting them downward. Behold! A shining cloud upon which sat a little girl.

“Stand up and tell me where are you going,” said Creator. But she did not reply. He rubbed his eyes again and offered his right hand to the Girl-Without-Parents.

“Where did you come from?” she asked, grasping his hand.

“From the east where it is now light,” he replied, stepping upon her cloud.

“Where is the earth?” she asked.

“Where is the sky?” he asked, and sang, “I am thinking, thinking, thinking what I shall create next.” He sang four times, which was the magic number.

Creator brushed his face with his hands, rubbed them together, then flung them wide open! Before them stood Sun-God. Again Creator rubbed his sweaty brow and from his hands dropped Small- Boy.

All four gods sat in deep thought upon the small cloud.

“What shall we make next?” asked Creator. “This cloud is much too small for us to live upon.”

Then he created Tarantula, Big Dipper, Wind, Lightning-Maker, and some western clouds in which to house Lightning-Rumbler, which he just finished.

Creator sang, “Let us make earth. I am thinking of the earth, earth, earth; I am thinking of the earth,” he sang four times.

All four gods shook hands. In doing so, their sweat mixed together and Creator rubbed his palms, from which fell a small round, brown ball, not much larger than a bean.

Creator kicked it, and it expanded. Girl-Without-Parents kicked the ball, and it enlarged more. Sun-God and Small-Boy took turns giving it hard kicks, and each time the ball expanded. Creator told Wind to go inside the ball and to blow it up.

Tarantula spun a black cord and, attaching it to the ball, crawled away fast to the east, pulling on the cord with all his strength. Tarantula repeated with a blue cord to the south, a yellow cord to the west, and a white cord to the north. With mighty pulls in each direction, the brown ball stretched to immeasurable size—it became the earth! No hills, mountains, or rivers were visible; only smooth, treeless, brown plains appeared.

Creator scratched his chest and rubbed his fingers together and there appeared Hummingbird.

“Fly north, south, east, and west and tell us what you see,” said Creator.

“All is well,” reported Hummingbird upon his return. “The earth is most beautiful, with water on the west side.”

But the earth kept rolling and dancing up and down. So Creator made four giant posts—black, blue, yellow, and white to support the earth. Wind carried the four posts, placing them beneath the four cardinal points of the earth. The earth sat still.

Creator sang, “World is now made and now sits still,” which he repeated four times.

Then he began a song about the sky. None existed, but he thought there should be one. After singing about it four times, twenty- eight people appeared to help make a sky above the earth. Creator chanted about making chiefs for the earth and sky.

He sent Lightning-Maker to encircle the world, and he returned with three uncouth creatures, two girls and a boy found in a turquoise shell. They had no eyes, ears, hair, mouths, noses, or teeth. They had arms and legs, but no fingers or toes.

Sun-God sent for Fly to come and build a sweathouse. Girl- Without-Parents covered it with four heavy clouds. In front of the east doorway she placed a soft, red cloud for a foot-blanket to be used after the sweat.

Four stones were heated by the fire inside the sweathouse. The three uncouth creatures were placed inside. The others sang songs of healing on the outside, until it was time for the sweat to be finished. Out came the three strangers who stood upon the magic red cloud-blanket. Creator then shook his hands toward them, giving each one fingers, toes, mouths, eyes, ears, noses and hair.

Creator named the boy, Sky-Boy, to be chief of the Sky-People. One girl he named Earth-Daughter, to take charge of the earth and its crops. The other girl he named Pollen-Girl, and gave her charge of health care for all Earth-People.

Since the earth was flat and barren, Creator thought it fun to create animals, birds, trees, and a hill. He sent Pigeon to see how the world looked. Four days later, he returned and reported, “All is beautiful around the world. But four days from now, the water on the other side of the earth will rise and cause a mighty flood.”

Creator made a very tall pinon tree. Girl-Without-Parents covered the tree framework with pinon gum, creating a large, tight ball.

In four days, the flood occurred. Creator went up on a cloud, taking his twenty-eight helpers with him. Girl-Without-Parents put the others into the large, hollow ball, closing it tight at the top.

In twelve days, the water receded, leaving the float-ball high on a hilltop. The rushing floodwater changed the plains into mountains, hills, valleys, and rivers. Girl-Without-Parents led the gods out from the float-ball onto the new earth. She took them upon her cloud, drifting upward until they met Creator with his helpers, who had completed their work making the sky during the flood time on earth.

Together the two clouds descended to a valley below. There, Girl- Without-Parents gathered everyone together to listen to Creator.

“I am planning to leave you,” he said. “I wish each of you to do your best toward making a perfect, happy world.

“You, Lightning-Rumbler, shall have charge of clouds and water.

“You, Sky-Boy, look after all Sky-People.

“You, Earth-Daughter, take charge of all crops and Earth-People.

“You, Pollen-Girl, care for their health and guide them.

“You, Girl-Without-Parents, I leave you in charge over all.”

Creator then turned toward Girl-Without-Parents and together they rubbed their legs with their hands and quickly cast them forcefully downward. Immediately between them arose a great pile of wood, over which Creator waved a hand, creating fire.

Great billowy clouds of smoke at once drifted skyward. Into this cloud, Creator disappeared. The other gods followed him in other clouds of smoke, leaving the twenty-eight workers to people the earth.

Sun-God went east to live and travel with the Sun. Girl-Without- Parents departed westward to live on the far horizon. Small-Boy and Pollen-Girl made cloud homes in the south. Big Dipper can still be seen in the northern sky at night, a reliable guide to all.

ragingloli's avatar

@DWW25921
Look at the difference between a tiny poodle and a wolf.
200 years ago, they would have been considered separate species.

ragingloli's avatar

@zenvelo
Damn, I first read it as “girl-without-pants”-

Seek's avatar

@DWW25921Species don’t change.

Yes they do.

I have no need to convince you of anything. You have a right to be wrong. And I have the right to laugh maniacally at the willful ignorance you are displaying.

Seek's avatar

I would also argue that young earth creationists should have to wear a warning sign, so the rest of us know we’re dealing with people who think their personal viewpoint overrides observable reality.

These people have to be restricted from operating heavy machinery, for the safety of others.

Kropotkin's avatar

@DWW25921 You claim that a dog is a dog, and that species do not change. There’s an implied assumption in this that I think is untenable. I mean, define “dog” or define “species” for me, if you may, using your creationist perspective.

Once you’ve done that, perhaps you could give me a creationist explanation for ring species.

I’d be most interested in reading your response. Thank you in advance.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@zenvelo That was awesome! Sounded like Kipling!
Of course you did ragingloli!

DWW25921's avatar

@Kropotkin Evidence is only relative to the person doing the research you know. I can find practical applications for Creationism quite easily. I’m not going to bother to look. You will come up with evidence I won’t buy either. That’s the fascinating part of all this. Two different schools of thought with loads of evidence the other side dismisses. Fascinating.

@zenvelo That’s an impressive display! I thank you for your input.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK, Scientists postulate their hypothesis’ and theories. Then they test them. Then they post their results. The most important thing they do, though, is to lay it all out on the line for other people to test for themselves.

Creationists don’t. They just tell you you have to believe what they’re saying or you’re going to hell.

DWW25921's avatar

@ragingloli That’s not the best example as wolves have been known to adapt very quickly and in fact become smaller in as little as 1 generation of being near humans.

@Seek_Kolinahr I’m actually pretty good with a forklift. I haven’t tried to impose anything… Actually, I don’t care if you believe it or not. I just think it’s an interesting topic. Thank you for your input!

@Kropotkin I’ve never heard of the term “ring species”. I mean, I could look it up and find some info that ties it into creationism somehow but you wouldn’t buy it and I’m not even sure what it is. So… I guess you win that one! Congrats! :)

@Dutchess_III I beg to differ… “They just tell you you have to believe what they’re saying or you’re going to hell.” I’m a Creationist and I honestly couldn’t care less if you believe it or not. I also have no idea if you’re going to hell or not. I certainly hope not. Thank you for your input!

Kropotkin's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I don’t think one’s rejection of a particular scientific theory or belief in a young Earth has much if any bearing one’s ability to operate heavy machinery. Heavy machinery has been widely in use since the beginning of the industrial revolution, decades before Darwin even proposed his theory.

Seek's avatar

It’s the denial of observable evidence that worries me.

I mean, if someone working at a desalinization plant reads the Koran and becomes convinced that salt water and fresh water can’t be mixed together, they could wreak havoc on a city’s water system.

DWW25921's avatar

Everyone gets a “great answer” as I’ve learned a lot about the other side through this question. You know, I find the quest for understanding fascinating. Especially when it involves views I don’t share. I really must make it clear that I am not trying to annoy anyone or anything that way. I think both sides should understand and respect each other.

@Seek_Kolinahr I could say the same thing you know. I know and see undeniable facts all around me every day! Your interpretation of the same information is simply different. I’m not trying to impose my views, just explaining them. I’m not at all worried about your capacity to live a productive life simply because you don’t believe the same way. In fact, I find it fascinating that different people can see the same things so differently. It’s what makes humans such an amazing creation!

Facts are in abundance and someone somewhere has absolutely proven and dis-proven everything under the sun. A persons interpretation of this information has a lot to do with their surroundings and personal experiences. I find that fascinating!

Dutchess_III's avatar

Ok @DWW25921 Then just address the first part of my statement: “OK, Scientists postulate their hypothesis’ and theories. Then they test them. Then they post their results. The most important thing they do, though, is to lay it all out on the line for other people to test for themselves.”

glacial's avatar

The OP has stated very clearly that he is not interested in being swayed on the topic of young Earth creationism. He is being quite vocal about the fact that he is not listening to evidence for evolution. Given this, there is no point in continuing to offer it here.

At best, we can try to answer the question “Why do so many scientists and evolutionists lie so much to support their cause?” Unfortunately, this question is based on two faulty premises: (1) Science and evolution are not causes, and (2) while it is pointless to say that scientists and “evolutionists” are incapable of lying, the fact is that there is no basis for a claim that their science is founded in lies or requires lies in order to persuade people that it is real.

So, @DWW25921, is there anything that you are interested in learning from people’s answers here? Do you want to know more about the scientific method, or how scientists do their jobs on a day-to-day basis, or what constitutes evidence for scientists? In other words, is there anything that we can say to show you that your premises are faulty? Because if the sole point of your question was to poke fun at @ETPro for his recent, similarly-worded question, then I think we’re done here.

tom_g's avatar

@glacial is correct here.

@DWW25921, considering this topic was stillborn, would you be willing to answer some questions about your beliefs and how/where you live? I’m fascinated by the existence of young-earth creationism in 2013, and I have no access in real life to anyone who holds these views.

Seek's avatar

@DWW25921

Was Man created before or after the animals?

Were man and woman created at the same time or different times?

Was woman made from dust or taken from a rib?

Just wondering which infallible Genesis account of creation you believe in unquestioningly to exclusion of all observable evidence.

DWW25921's avatar

@Dutchess_III They do that on both sides of the argument. It seems one side dismisses the other and every time something new is discovered a new impasse has been revealed! I don’t disagree that scientists do this, I just wish to point out that it’s done this way on both sides. Science is not the enemy of Christians. I don’t think so anyway.

@glacial Interesting observation and yes, there is a method to my madness. I think it’s fascinating how both sides can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions and both be right. As for the way the question was written, the opposing view had a similar question written in the exact same format just days ago. I figured it was fair to ask the same thing from the opposing side.

Seek's avatar

There is no impasse.

There’s no argument.
There is no controversy.
There is no debate.

There is reality and those who try to learn about it, and then there’s about 6,000 various fairy tales, none of which are any more credible than the other.

DWW25921's avatar

@tom_g I’m in West Virginia and I have no problem with that.

@Seek_Kolinahr Before, Different, Rib and ha ha. Thank you for your input.

Seek's avatar

So, Genesis 1 is wrong, and Genesis 2 is correct?

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I’m not sure where you got that from. Please explain.

glacial's avatar

@DWW25921 “I think it’s fascinating how both sides can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions and both be right. ”

If this were true, I would find it fascinating also. But it is not possible for both a literal interpretation of the bible (whichever translation that might be) and science both to be right. I will grant you that it’s entirely possible to choose to see the bible as metaphor, and have it not contradict science. Frankly, I don’t know why more theists don’t do that, because it’s a viewpoint that is virtually impossible to disprove.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, OK @DWW25921. Both sides lay it out on the line. And that’s how all of the young earth “evidence” gets debunked.

Seek's avatar

Genesis chapter 1: Man and woman are created at the same time, after the other animals.

Genesis 1:25–27)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image…. So God created man in his own image.
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

then, Genesis chapter 2: Man is created, then animals, then woman is taken from his rib.

Genesis 2:18–19
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis 2:18–22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them…. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

If it matters, Jesus weighed in on this, and he says Genesis 1 is correct, according to the book of Mark (which, you might know, is the oldest of the Gospels)

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Don’t fuck with an apostate. I know your Bible better than you do.

ucme's avatar

Massively exaggerated yawn

Seek's avatar

^ Agreed.

tom_g's avatar

When did you become exposed to these ideas, and did you ever have a chance to explore learning (science) outside of a religious school?

With even most creationists discrediting most of the stuff presented in that video because they can’t even pretend any more, what is the environment like between your standard creationist and young-earth creationist? Is there debate within these communities?

Do you feel uncomfortable with modern medicine or using a phone, car, plane, etc – all of which are the products of our understanding of the world derived by the very method you object to? In other words, are you aware of the compartmentalization that is involved in living a 21st century life and only occasionally rejecting science due to ideological reasons? Is there any discomfort in that?

I’ll leave it here for now, but I have many more questions…

DWW25921's avatar

@glacial My take on it is pretty old school but at the same time being a Libertarian I have a very staunch “live and let live” stance on things. I’m a walking irony I suppose. I argue with Christians all the time too about that point.

@Dutchess_III There has been a tennis match of “debunking” going on for years and both sides have their staunch proponents who claim constant victories over the other. How is this not fascinating?

@Seek_Kolinahr It’s mentioned a few times, one in better detail as to how it actually happened. There are several instances as to stories and their references made in the Bible. Some are simply more in depth than others. Stating that they were created is different than stating how, for example.

Seek's avatar

There’s a difference between “better” detail and “different” details.

This is the latter.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

<—- Card carrying Theist. One that believes in, and understands, evolution.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The Toyota Camry evolves. The Orion Nebula does not.

glacial's avatar

@DWW25921 It has to be tough being a libertarian and a biblical literalist. :)

DWW25921's avatar

@tom_g I attended public school for most of my life. I was actually in a Christian school for a few months but they kicked me out for fighting. I discovered later in life, for myself, what information made the most sense for me to cling to. Yes, there are heated debated upon Christians as to how much, if any evolution they want to incorporate into the Bible. I personally feel that laziness is the path to destruction and giving in is not a victory but only makes the cause weaker. I don’t think Science is the enemy at all. I think it’s interpretation and popular propaganda encourages certain findings.

@Seek_Kolinahr I honestly see it that way. I don’t know what else to tell ya.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I have no problem with that at all. I don’t even think this issue has any affect on salvation to be honest. Some people would disagree with that but it’s where I’m at.

DWW25921's avatar

@glacial I know right? I honestly think Libertarianism is the best thing for my country.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@DWW25921 You’re so funny. I have to admit I’m amused by the responses, so thanks.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Why are they saying “Evolutionsists” rather than “Darwinists”?

Or Darwinian Evolutionists?

Don’t get me wrong, the theist presentation videos are embarrassingly misleading about what DE’s should actually believe. But many DE’s don’t really have a grasp on the subject either. For if anyone is a Darwinian Evolutionist, I must ask, are you a Classic Darwinian, or a Neo Darwinian?

Much misinformation from all sides.

DWW25921's avatar

@KNOWITALL I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the input here and learning about the thought processes and opinions about other folks is fascinating to me.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Breaking it down to another level! Wow, I didn’t catch that but it’s a good question.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’d highly doubt any of the video presenters, or even evolutionists have actually read THIS.

Truth is free. But you gotta reach out and grab it.

tom_g's avatar

@tom_g: “Do you feel uncomfortable with modern medicine or using a phone, car, plane, etc – all of which are the products of our understanding of the world derived by the very method you object to? In other words, are you aware of the compartmentalization that is involved in living a 21st century life and only occasionally rejecting science due to ideological reasons? Is there any discomfort in that?”

@DWW25921: “I don’t think Science is the enemy at all. I think it’s interpretation and popular propaganda encourages certain findings.”

No, what I mean is that you outright reject the scientific method and the whole enterprise when the evidence doesn’t fit your beliefs. But most of the time, you get in your car or fly across the country, use a computer, or go get treated for an illness at the hospital. What does it feel like to then bump up against this when ideology enters the picture? I mean, you would have no problem with the facts about biology or physics if the bible didn’t have a few lines about the age of the earth. We’d be talking about something else.

Seek's avatar

I don’t believe in evolution. I accept demonstrable facts in evidence and the implications of the data.

Darwin was revolutionary. Some of his details have been disproven and the theory has evolved along with the new discoveries. This is a good thing. We’re learning more. Getting stuff wrong happens all the time in science. That’s how we discover new things.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@poisonedantidote “Every single scientist who has been caught fudging figures or acting dishonestly has been thrown out of the scientific comunity and been discredited for life…”

Not exactly every one. Science (the humans that pursue it) have themselves a pressure on their own system, which can lead to less than perfect evolution of the discipline. That pressure is called “finance”.

Barbara McClintock was forced underground with her research for two decades, because the implications of her work contradicted established views of random mutation at the time. She was ultimately awarded a Nobel Prize and even has her own stamp. But those in power during her time would never let anything jeopardize their research, and the funding it depended upon.

It happens everywhere in science. It’s no mystery that BetaMax was superior to VHS. But the corporatocracy swayed public perception to choose VHS. It wasn’t a natural selection based upon beneficial adaptation. It was a swayed selection that intentionally influenced the evolution of the industry.

Same identical story could be told of any alternative energy source beyond fossil fuels. The good science doesn’t always get promoted to the benefit of the organism it serves.

DWW25921's avatar

@tom_g I don’t reject the scientific method. Creationists use it all the time when they uncover new findings to support it. It’s just amazing how differently the data gets processed.

@Seek_Kolinahr I can dig it. Everything in life, even every moment is an opportunity to discover something.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I really should have brought that up at some point. I hadn’t thought of that.

tom_g's avatar

@DWW25921: ”@tom_g I don’t reject the scientific method. Creationists use it all the time when they uncover new findings to support it.”

Ugh. Well, I think we’ll have to leave it there. Creationism is quite the opposite of science. Maybe I should have used “don’t understand” rather than “reject”.

ragingloli's avatar

and they ignore it when they do not want to see findings that contradict the creation myth. which means they do reject the scientific method

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The biggest problem with science, is that some, less mature of atheists perceive it to be some type of force which substantiates their belief system. They would have a great deal of trouble accepting any science which promoted any notion of creationism.

If science is valid, then it should be accepted as best knowledge of the time and data available… no matter what it infers.

DWW25921's avatar

@tom_g Creationism is regularly confirmed by science. It’s a simple matter of looking it up. As I said before, proof is out there… Unfortunately, there’s “proof” for everything. Here’s an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flrhqjN5BHo

DWW25921's avatar

@ragingloli The same can be said for evolutionists. It’s just more “main stream” right now.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies In a way I think it’s right to say that ignorant people reject science. The problem is that a lot of evolutionists are of the impression that creationists reject science. This is simply not the case. I was actually turned on to creationism by the science! Also, the “big bang” just sounds silly to me.

ragingloli's avatar

@DWW25921
The same can be said for evolutionists”. No, it can not. You are projecting again.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

We invented a spaceship that flew us to heaven. Theists and Atheists aboard, we landed in God’s back yard and were invited inside for tea.

“So you’re God?”, the Atheist says.

“Yup”.

“Prove it”.

“How”?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“So you’re God?”, the Theist says.

“Yup”.

“I believe you”.

“Why?”.

Rarebear's avatar

Damn. You found us out. We all lie. Oh wait, WAIT! I’ve found Jesus! I’m saved! Thank you THANK YOU!

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

^^^ he lies about lying ^^^

DWW25921's avatar

@Dutchess_III @ragingloli @Seek_Kolinahr

The hardest part of my argument is finding a source you will trust and making it short enough to not take up too much of your time. I appreciate your feedback and interest and please bear with me here. How about a BBC interview?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sP63mfn0gg

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

A source to trust for what? Truth? The final say? Sushi on the South side?

DWW25921's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Seemed like a good idea at the time. :) I mean, I found it informative anyway.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

But what is it a “source” for? And why should we “trust” it?

Seek's avatar

A BBC interview is not evidence.

Evidence is evidence.

I’d read an entire book if the methodology was sound. However, you don’t have any studies with sound methodology.

The Mount St. Helens thing doesn’t prove anything in your favor. Scientists know how volcanoes work. In fact, volcanic eruptions are an ideal situation for comparing archaeological strata from various locations around the world.

See, most artifacts are only found in sedimentary rock. But sedimentary rock can’t be dated, as it’s made of particles of various ages. But you can date volcanic ash between sedimentary strata, and compare it to volcanic ash in sedimentary strata around the world, taking into account the time it would take for the ash from, say, Pompeii to get to Australia. So the best place for a scientist to find artifacts is between layers of volcanic ash.

For much older fossils, we can actually use radiometric dating to tell us when volcanic igneous rock formed. So if we find a dinosaur egg underneath a layer of igneous rock that shows 70 million years of radiometric decay, we know the egg was laid in that spot some time before that volcanic rock cooled 70 million years ago.

DWW25921's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies It’s a source for a debate hosted by the most respected news organization on the planet. It is what it is.

@Seek_Kolinahr That was to easy. http://sententias.org/2013/08/23/qa-32/ (creationism methodology) Like I said before, there is evidence on the net to prove and disprove everything under the sun. Look, I’m not even trying to convince anyone to take this road. What I want to get across is creationism doesn’t necessarily have to be a result of mindless religious fervor. My beliefs are not that simple. I would venture to guess your beliefs are grounded in thought, discovery and research. Well, so are mine.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You go @Seek_Kolinahr!

I don’t understand why it would be important to some one for the Grand Canyon to have been created in a day by a catastrophic event, anyway. What’s wrong with the river explanation?

Seek's avatar

@DWW25921

You can’t google “creationism” and “methodology” and post the first link, thinking that’s what I asked for.

The methodology of a scientific study is the system used to gain results.

Your link is meaningless, as it’s not a study of any sort.

Seek's avatar

Also, your link is anti-Young Earth Creationism.

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr You’re right, I put no thought in to that link whatsoever. I did that to relay the point that everything can be proven. Everything can be dis-proven. It just depends on your circle of thought and how much you want to dig. Would it have made any difference at all if I dug a little deeper and came up with the exact thing? Not really. I mean, why would I do that if I don’t even care if you believe it or not? I think you’re very smart, very stubborn and you’ve chosen your path. I have no problem with that. Why would I tax my brain trying to come up with reasons to convince you when I respect your right to think a different way?

@Dutchess_III There’s nothing wrong with it, it’s perfectly creative. I mean, I think evolution is the best attempt for folks that don’t believe in God at coming up with a way we may have begun. A long time ago a big explosion eventually created planets which eventually made animals that can change into different species over time. For me, that just sounds silly. We just look at things differently I suppose.

Seek's avatar

Would it have made any difference at all if I dug a little deeper and came up with the exact thing?

If you had dug until you found a sound scientific study with repeatable test methodology that gave credence to the notion that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Yes, it would absolutely have made a difference.

syz's avatar

Sorry, the premise of your question is too foolish, I’m not wasting my time with videos.

glacial's avatar

@DWW25921 ” I did that to relay the point that everything can be proven. Everything can be dis-proven. It just depends on your circle of thought and how much you want to dig. Would it have made any difference at all if I dug a little deeper and came up with the exact thing? Not really.”

You keep saying this, but of course it isn’t really true. It can appear true if everyone stops digging before any actual truth is found. This is the very basis of false equivalence. But if you keep asking questions and listening to the answers, eventually you will see that young Earth creationist claims are demonstrably false.

@Seek_Kolinahr beat me to it, of course. :)

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Therein lies the dilemma of the day as my best sources are often the most dismissed. I do have what you seek, you probably won’t like the source though. Personally, I think they’re great! http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence

@glacial I have one for you too. I doubt you’ll like the source but it is what it is. http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

DWW25921's avatar

@syz Cop out. Hey, lets just poke a guy with a stick than run away! Ok, so what’s foolish about coming to a conclusion based upon personal experiences and research?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@DWW25921 humans tend to reject things they can’t conceive. Billions of years is hard to conceive. So is eternity.

It’s odd that you see natural progression over billions of years as silly (and which we have fossil records of) but don’t see humans just appearing (poof,) out of nowhere, as silly. Even when I was a practicing Christian I thought that was ridiculous.

Seek's avatar

* facepalm *

Answers in Genesis is not concerned with being valid, credible, testable, or accurate.

There are no scientific studies of any kind.

I’m very honest about what I want. I do not want philosophy, apologetics, or conjecture.

I want science.

If the natural world is less than 10,000 years old, there will be proof of it. Give me that proof.

Seek's avatar

^Edited, please refresh.

DWW25921's avatar

@Dutchess_III I guess it’s up to the individual to find their own understanding. Wow, that sounded very liberal! LOL

@Seek_Kolinahr I told you that you wouldn’t like it! Nope, you wanted a source. There ya go! So I suppose we’re at another impasse… I have no problem with that. I do find them to be very informative and their sources do check out. Some schools of thought dismiss them entirely while others take bits as they will.

Seek's avatar

We are not at an impasse, because you haven’t presented anything for me to disagree with.

You’ve posted a link to AIG.com.

Which, just poking around, will only give you their “disproof” of radiometric dating if you buy a DVD.

Dutchess_III's avatar

.Back in the 80’s, when I was attending Christian seminars, science as a whole was dismissed as the work of the devil. It was a conspiracy, designed to take our attention away from God. There were never any dinosaurs. The bones were planted there by evil scientists.
Obviously it couldn’t be dismissed. It was too powerful and it rang of the truth, so now it has “evolved” so that Christians are trying to find “scientific back up” for their claims

Seek's avatar

HOLY BALLS!

Their “science” homeschool curriculum is $400!

That’s outright thievery.

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I think they’re right on. I think I’ve presented some pretty great stuff! To be fair though, if I were honest, I’d dismiss anything you gave me as hype, propaganda or something that way too. I say it’s an impasse for that reason. Like I said before, information tends to be better accepted by people who trust the presenter. If you don’t trust them of course you’ll dismiss it!

Seek's avatar

They’re right on about what?

Seek's avatar

Be specific. What do they say that convinces you they are right?

DominicX's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr You’re not going to get any science, because science doesn’t support the idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Apologetics and conjecture might, but not science. I have no problem with people believing the earth is 6,000 years old. Believe all you want. But don’t insult science by pretending that that belief has anything to do with science. Confine it to philosophy, apologetics, and conjecture, where it belongs.

I just find it interesting that science at large supports the idea that the earth is billions of years old. Yet YECs will come in and say “dating is flawed” and think they have proven the earth was created 2000 years after the ancient Sumerians peaked…

DWW25921's avatar

@Dutchess_III That’s unfortunate that some Christians are like that.

@Seek_Kolinahr Over the years I’ve noticed a consistent Biblical background with their articles and I find that refreshing.

@DominicX I have no problem with differing beliefs. Science is a very broad field of study and I wouldn’t try to box it up and give it a single definition. If it were possible to do so there wouldn’t be so many varied sub-fields.

Seek's avatar

You’re incredibly vague.

Is there anything that you believe that you can put a pin on?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@DominicX, ”Science doesn’t support the idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.” GA.

Seek's avatar

What I’m getting at, @DWW25921 is that your reasoning is circular.

I believe in the Bible because this source says the Bible is accurate and this source is accurate because it agrees with the Bible.

I’m not even really getting a feeling that you’ve read any of it. You’re so sure that you’ve already got the right answer that you’re not even reading the sources you’re posting to me (further evidenced by the fact that you posted a creationist source that agrees with evolution and modern cosmology).

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I have found and discovered things on my own and came to conclusions myself based upon my life experiences and personal leanings. I don’t know what you want but that’s what I got. I like their consistency. They don’t waiver. That’s a pretty specific trait! I will admit that I’ve been lazy about research, I’ll give you that. I just didn’t feel like it. I mean, folks aren’t going to believe it anyway. Being honest.

Seek's avatar

But that’s just it:

If the evidence were valid, I would believe it.

Beginning your argument with “I’m not even going to try because it’s not going to convince anyone” is losing before you started.

And if you’re so convinced that your position is that weak, why do you espouse it?

And don’t tell me that you didn’t intend to discuss your position, because if you didn’t you wouldn’t have posted this question.

tom_g's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr: “And if you’re so convinced that your position is that weak, why do you espouse it?”

I know it’s a rhetorical question, but check out this screen capture from the link he provided earlier. It describes right in the beginning of the video why this is so important.

@DWW25921 – It’s ok to just say, “It’s important that I hold this position because my faith depends on it.”

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I don’t think I have a weak position at all. I just honestly don’t care if you believe it or not. If that attitude offends you than I’m sorry. I don’t really debate much and have never really been interested enough in it to learn how. I just found a list of scientists and smart people that believe in a young earth. Maybe you’ll find it interesting. Maybe you won’t. Here ya go! http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-of-scientists-who-consider-young-earth-creationism-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk

DWW25921's avatar

@tom_g I don’t believe that this issue has anything at all to do with whether or not a person goes to Heaven and therefore would not affect my faith one way or another. I find it to be an interesting school of thought.

Seek's avatar

@DWW25921 – That’s called an “Argument from Authority”, and no, I don’t care how many supposedly smart people believe in creationist fairy tales. That doesn’t make the fairy tale true.

mazingerz88's avatar

Haven’t read all the posts. Too long at this point. Only saw a few seconds of the first video link then stopped. All I can say is we’re all gonna die. That’s a fact you can count on.The truth-telling or lying of scientists and God believers alike amount to NOTHING in the end for each of us.

Believers in a God, I wish you all the good luck my brain thoughts could ever project. And please forgive the scientists’ and evolutionists’ lies…they’re biological like you, therefore not immune to committing mistakes, whether honest or dishonest mistakes.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’m having a hard time finding any information on any of them that doesn’t tie right back to the creation thing. I get more information when I google my own name! Are you certain those are real people and not just made up names @DWW25921? Continuing to check…

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I really don’t know that there’s anything I can do about that. Thank you for your time and input nonetheless. I appreciate the feedback!

@mazingerz88 I can dig it. It really doesn’t matter in the end.

@Dutchess_III They are people. I can’t do anything about the links on that site. I posted it to display some folks who are of a similar school of thought. I was trying to find Seek a link that I agreed with that wasn’t Christian and had a lot of factual information. Ha! Right!

Dutchess_III's avatar

But it doesn’t count if they aren’t real people!

BhacSsylan's avatar

Well this is funny. Besides the obvious hilarious entries on the list, such as listing people that lived centuries before Darwin as legitimate entries, there are indeed total falsehoods (not quite, but useless people all the same, with no useful contact info). I happened to, upon a similar search as @Dutchess_III, I happened on “John P. Marcus”, which has a whole entry! It says he’s a “research officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia”, even!

Except, the University of Queensland has no such department. Or has a “John P. Marcus” employed. Googling such a name turns up only some random OBG/YN.

Oh, huh, I see his name on a single press release as a postdoctoral fellow, in 1997. Nothing about him anywhere since. So I suppose at one point he may have been employed. On something about Macadamia nuts. So, uh, that’s useful, I guess…

Also, @DWW25921, but that link doesn’t provide any evidence. It doesn’t have anything to do with what Seek asked you. Seek asked you for evidence, people saying “i agree!” is not evidence. If we go with just that ~99% of biologists accept evolution so why do you not? You have yet to provide any real reason for us ‘lying’ and creationism being right other than’ the bible says so’

DWW25921's avatar

@Dutchess_III I don’t know. They’re probably real. You think I should try harder? I can’t suddenly care if you believe it or not. I just gotta be me. I mean, I could stress myself out but if you’re not receptive it wont matter. Even if you were receptive you’d just go and figure it out for yourself anyway. I’m just the middle man. Planting seeds I suppose.

@BhacSsylan It’s just like @RealEyesRealizeRealLies said earlier…

“Science (the humans that pursue it) have themselves a pressure on their own system, which can lead to less than perfect evolution of the discipline. That pressure is called “finance”.

Barbara McClintock was forced underground with her research for two decades, because the implications of her work contradicted established views of random mutation at the time. She was ultimately awarded a Nobel Prize and even has her own stamp. But those in power during her time would never let anything jeopardize their research, and the funding it depended upon.

It happens everywhere in science. It’s no mystery that BetaMax was superior to VHS. But the corporatocracy swayed public perception to choose VHS. It wasn’t a natural selection based upon beneficial adaptation. It was a swayed selection that intentionally influenced the evolution of the industry.

Same identical story could be told of any alternative energy source beyond fossil fuels. The good science doesn’t always get promoted to the benefit of the organism it serves.”

dxs's avatar

I can’t wait to sit down and read all of this! Too bad I had a shitton of work to do today.

Kropotkin's avatar

@dxs I suggest placing a cushion on your desk to avoid any head injuries.

BhacSsylan's avatar

Doesn’t answer the question at all. Do you know why McClintock won the Nobel? Because she had the evidence. She didn’t get it by saying “hey, some random people agree with me!”

Also, the classification of her has being ‘forced underground ’ is rather disingenuous. She continued to publish in very high-profile journals for those years, and continued to be funded. So… how was she underground? Her papers that led to the Nobel on control elements were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and Genetics, two highly influential journals.

DWW25921's avatar

I keep getting trouble for being apathetic and not fully reviewing the links I post. Surly I would learn my lesson…

http://godfatherpolitics.com/12344/scientists-lie-evolving-bacteria/

Nah, it’s probably fine.

DWW25921's avatar

I’ve actually looked over this one. Seems pretty good.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

ragingloli's avatar

@DWW25921
Dear fucking lord. The author of that article is a liar.
Change within a species IS evolution, and this fucktard claiming otherwise is simply infuriating.
And the second one is just the same.

Really, is this the sort of nonsense that you want to peddle?
Holy Kal El.

dxs's avatar

@Kropotkin Oh please. I grew up in a conservative Catholic house I think I can deal with it.

DWW25921's avatar

@ragingloli This one than? I didn’t look it over though. I hope it helps! http://phys.org/news/2013-05-evolution-lying.html

BhacSsylan's avatar

Both articles are making the same argument, that ‘microevolution’ and ‘macroevolution’ are different. This is false and a complete misunderstanding of the principle of evolution. Changes in organisms over time is evolution, full stop. That we don’t have a fruit fly giving birth to a bird doesn’t change anything, because evolution never predicts that.

Also, good lord, stop. That link is about the evolution of lying. Give it up, man.

ragingloli's avatar

@DWW25921
Oh my god, my sides lol
THAT article is about the evolution of the habit of lying within primates.

Seek's avatar

Observed speciation in Galapagos finches

HAHAHAHAHA! @DWW – the last one is talking about how the concept of lying evolved into Humans.

Seriously, just stop.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Just glancing at the one link you provided, right off the bat I read “Developmental changes within a species takes place all the time. My grandfathers were barely 5’ 5” tall. I’m a fraction of an inch over six feet. I did not evolve. I’m still a human being. My youngest son is an inch taller than I am, and my older son is a tad shorter. This is not evolution in action.
And that is the fundamental problem that creationists have. They just can’t conceive of the concept of millions and billions of years. If it doesn’t happen with their own time frame, then it must be false.

ragingloli's avatar

@DWW25921
I didn’t look it over though.
And that is just the problem and why you are a creationist.

DWW25921's avatar

Oh dear. Ok, random links aside than. LOL Sorry! :)

DWW25921's avatar

I mean, you guys don’t acknowledge the links to the references that I like. When you’re in the rhelm of the absence of God you live in a completely different bubble of information. You have to admit though, this has been fun. I’ve enjoyed it.

ragingloli's avatar

To your defence though, I run into that problem at times, too.
When I read about Ufology and people that claim to have been part of secret government projects or handled alien corpses.
It sounds so great, and mysterious and convincing.
And if I stopped reading there, I would probably believe them.
But I then go on to search for sources that counter them, and then everything they said or claim to be completely falls apart, every single time (see Bob Lazar or Edgar Fouche).
You need to do the same thing. Find out what actual scientists say about evolution. What the evidence is, they provide.
www.talkorigins.org is a good place to start.

Seek's avatar

Sweetie, I probably taught your Sunday School class.

I know how the believer’s mind works. And trust me, you’re not thinking logically.

glacial's avatar

Ummm…. why is anyone engaging with @DWW25921 at this point? He’s posting random crap that he can’t even be bothered to read, just so that he can laugh at how upset you are getting. This is the very definition of a troll.

DWW25921's avatar

@ragingloli The difference being that I have sources. Sadly, all the decent ones happen to be on Christian sites. Actually, that’s not true. Zion’s Hope is Jewish and it’s there too! LOL Think that’ll help?

Dutchess_III's avatar

It shouldn’t matter WHERE your sources are located as long as you can follow them up with research. In your case we can’t. We tried.

Seek's avatar

Mostly, @glacial I’m bored and it’s been a while. Haha.

It is kind of disappointing that he’s not even really trying, though. It’s much more fun to debate someone that actually reads their own source material.

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I know. I’m thinking like someone who doesn’t have any ADD medication so I look up articles and end up watching silly cats for 20 minutes.

glacial's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I know, right?

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Or even if I cared that would help. Man. I totally feel ya.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You’re learning @DWW25921. You gotta read every word in your links because THEY will, so be ready! :)

Seek's avatar

You’ve cared enough to ask the question and stick around for three hours.

DWW25921's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr You bring up another valid point. You’re pretty smart. Ever written a book or something? I’d totally read it. Oh, saw your art site. Awesome!

@Dutchess_III To my credit, I can write a question like that and have fun all afternoon. I’ve really enjoyed the conversation. Mistakes were made but the quality entertainment was priceless. I knew I wasn’t going to sway anyone anyway.

ragingloli's avatar

You can not sway someone with what basically amounts to nothing.

Dutchess_III's avatar

But…Raggie! 6.9 BILLION people can’t be wrong!

DWW25921's avatar

@ragingloli I clearly wasn’t trying to sway anyone. My motives are my motives.

@Dutchess_III Bah… Most of them incorporate evolution.

Dutchess_III's avatar

That is the number of Christians in the world. If they incorporate evolution then they aren’t “real” Christians, are they.

Seek's avatar

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Fluther usually dies down in the afternoon, but this question kept it going!

Dutchess_III's avatar

I hate it when that happens @ragingloli!

DWW25921's avatar

@ragingloli That made me erupt in laughter! Don’t feel bad. You can’t always be right! (See what I did there? I totally turned it around!)

@Dutchess_III As I’ve said before. Believing in this issue one way or another has no bearing on whether or not you’re going to heaven. I don’t think so anyway. I should get a free T-Shirt for keeping the site interesting

ragingloli's avatar

That made me erupt in laughter! Don’t feel bad. You can’t always be right! (See what I did there? I totally turned it around!)
Only if you completely disregard this entire thread.

DWW25921's avatar

Maybe people keep responding because I pass out “good answers” like candy at a parade.

@ragingloli Wait… What? Bah… Never mind than. (sigh)

Rarebear's avatar

I can’t be bothered to read through this entire thread let alone watch silly videos. I am saddened by the evident fact that otherwise perfectly reasonable can be so blinded by their faith in God that they completely ignore absolute scientific fact.

If you want to say that God started the Big Bang, or even was in charge of abiogenesis, fine. It’s as good a hypothesis as any scientific hypothesis at this point. Study it and test it.

But to say that the world is only 6,000 years old, or whatever the Young Earthers say it is, is just plain head thumping ignorance and stupidity. And if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s ignorance.

DWW25921's avatar

@Rarebear Thank you for calling my entire belief system “stupid and ignorant”. That was just rude and uncalled for. I would venture to say that I’ve studied evolution more than you have found it to be fundamentally ridiculous at the core, in my opinion. (See what I did there, instead of an inappropriate personal attack like the one you launched, I said it was my opinion.)

I don’t think that it’s genetically or scientifically possible for an animal to morph into another animal. Animals adapt regularly but to say that after time they become another species is nonsense. It’s pure fantasy and takes a lot of faith to believe that a mystical “bang” in the cosmos somehow created anything at all… Much less planets. This goes against observable nature which shows us that explosions destroy, they don’t create.

It amazes me how I can have an entertaining and frankly lighthearted discussion all day and you come in running your mouth with insults and jabs. Now THAT’s what I call ignorance. If you can’t be civil and refrain from being condescending towards others you are more than welcome to join one of the teenager sites where that sort of thing is accepted. Now, act like an adult, watch your mouth and be civil.

I have a lot of respect for all the posters here who have added their thoughts and explained themselves. Than there’s you… It takes a certain lack of respect for your fellow human to go in guns blazing, insulting someone like that. I won’t report it though. I want others to see this side of you. I’m ashamed for you.

RocketGuy's avatar

I think calling scientists liars is incendiary, and arguing against theories where you don’t fully understand the concept is dumb. You don’t have to believe them, just have to correctly understand what they are talking about.

Rarebear's avatar

“Thank you for calling my entire belief system “stupid and ignorant”.”
Actually, I wasn’t directly talking about you. But if you believe that, then yes, you are ignorant.

“That was just rude and uncalled for”
No, actually it wasn’t.

” I would venture to say that I’ve studied evolution more than you have found it to be fundamentally ridiculous at the core, in my opinion. (See what I did there, instead of an inappropriate personal attack like the one you launched, I said it was my opinion.)”

That sentence doesn’t make any sense.

“I don’t think that it’s genetically or scientifically possible for an animal to morph into another animal. ”
That’s not what evolution is.

“Animals adapt regularly but to say that after time they become another species is nonsense.”
That’s not what evolution is.

” Much less planets.”
This is a fragmented sentence. Doesn’t make sense.

“It’s pure fantasy and takes a lot of faith to believe that a mystical “bang” in the cosmos somehow created anything at all”
Big Bang and evolution are completely different and unrelated to each other.

“This goes against observable nature which shows us that explosions destroy, they don’t create.”
How exactly do you think that helium is created?

“It amazes me how I can have an entertaining and frankly lighthearted discussion all day and you come in running your mouth with insults and jabs.”
Actually, I was pretty laconic.

“If you can’t be civil and refrain from being condescending towards others you are more than welcome to join one of the teenager sites where that sort of thing is accepted. Now, act like an adult, watch your mouth and be civil.”
No, I don’t think I will.

Thank you for proving my original point.

DWW25921's avatar

@RocketGuy This question was based on an earlier question here of opposing views and was written exactly the same way. I wrote this question as a way of pointing that out and explaining my beliefs to others in a civil format. I don’t honestly care who believes it or not. I do however want to get the point across that creationism isn’t all about religious fervor. There is much more to it than that.

Rarebear's avatar

^^Show an example of one atheist Creationist and I will accept your point.

RocketGuy's avatar

Details of Creationism are not consistent among Christians, and completely different from beliefs of other religions. That would make it non-credible to me.

Science can be duplicated consistently by anyone. Some things just need more time to see the effect, some things need special equipment, but results are always repeatable.

glacial's avatar

@DWW25921 ” I would venture to say that I’ve studied evolution more than you have”

This is just not going to fly here. Many of us have studied evolution, and many of us have also studied the bible. None of what you have posted on this thread indicates anything more than a very, very shallow consideration of evolution. You have so many of the most basic facts wrong, that I can only conclude that you’ve taken all of your knowledge of evolution from badly-researched creationist blogs. @Rarebear has pointed out some glaring errors which should not be possible from anyone who has actually studied evolution – you really do not seem to grasp what it is at all.

Now if you wish, you may call that a personal attack or insult. But let’s be fair. Your question (regardless of your intention to call out ETPro) accuses scientists of being liars. We cannot answer that accusation without pointing out the inconsistencies in your claims.

RocketGuy's avatar

What brand of Christianity rejects evolution? Not the Catholic Church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

JLeslie's avatar

I think the Catholics are in the minority of Christian religions that accept evolution.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Evolution will rest
Unless the system is stressed
And new mutations can test what will survive

Competition will fade
When good selection is made
From information conveyed to stay alive

Evolve or die

Dutchess_III's avatar

Now it’s getting interesting!

BhacSsylan's avatar

“Thank you for calling my entire belief system “stupid and ignorant”. That was just rude and uncalled for.”

Says the person who has made multiple question accusing people who belong to a political party mentally deficient.

DWW25921's avatar

@BhacSsylan Those questions were a lot easier to defend.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I used to do poems years ago. Good times.

I leave for a few minutes to tend the cat’s box (eewww) and I come back to like 100 replies…

ragingloli's avatar

”“Thank you for calling my entire belief system “stupid and ignorant”
This sentence would not be as hilariously ironic and hypocritical, were it not posted in the thread that is titled: “Why do so many scientists and evolutionists lie so much to support their cause?”
By the same author, no less.

DWW25921's avatar

@ragingloli So it’s only ok if evolutionists ask the same question about creationists than? That’s a double standard. Pointing that irony out is one of the reasons I’m doing this one. I think it’s coming along nicely, all things considered.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@DWW25921 “I would venture to say that I’ve studied evolution more than you have found it to be fundamentally ridiculous at the core”

Considering that you can’t even be bothered to read the links you’ve posted in this thread to try and support your argument, and the fact that you’ve shown that you don’t even grasp the basics of evolution, I highly doubt that

Dutchess_III's avatar

I don’t think anyone was particularly thrilled with ETPro’s questions either @DWW25921. They didn’t find them “OK.”

glacial's avatar

@Dutchess_III You know, I didn’t either, but I agree with whoever it was that wrote in this thread that a lot of what the OP has posted here provides good evidence for ETPro’s claim. And then claiming to have studied evolution… pretty much lands him in the same soup.

So rather than “pointing out [nicely]” the “irony” of ETPro’s question, he has unwittingly justified it.

Michael_Huntington's avatar

If Americans came from Europe, why do we still have Europeans?

ETpro's avatar

@DWW25921 By posting links to 6 YouTube videos that do exactly what I said creationists do, you did not show that my question was ironic, you showed that it accurately describes what young-earth creationists do to justify their position. The videos are full straw man arguments that falsely state what the theory of evolution claims, then seek to prove the false argument they erected is false; which of course it is, being as they designed it to be false.

jerv's avatar

Epic trolling. Bravo!

/gets popcorn and a comfy seat.

DWW25921's avatar

@ETpro I didn’t try very hard. I just… Don’t really care enough. Is that so wrong?

ETpro's avatar

@DWW25921 Just present ONE claim that is irrefutable and points to the earth being only 6,000 years and the Universe the same. Just one piece of evidence. I can provide many pieces of evidence that the Universe is just about 13.73 billion years old and the Earth formed about 4.54 billion years ago.

If it’s too heavy a lift for you to supply just one piece of credible evidence for young Earth creation, then don’t expect me to accept that there is a mountain of evidence.

DWW25921's avatar

@ETpro That’s easy bud. Thing is, would you accept the source? I would venture to say not. But, here it is anyway. http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

ETpro's avatar

@DWW25921 Apparently it’s not so easy. You answer not with a fact, but with a link to a website that gives me an introductory video devoid of any verifiable or falsifiable claims, then a long list of links. I asked for one simple fact that proves that the Earth and Universe are 6,000 years old. Not a long list of links to videos that will take hours to listen to and present tons of what are likely to be junk-science claims, but one straightforward proof that is falsifiable by experimentation, and has withstood attempts to falsify it. It’s not a hard task. I can easily do it in support of my claims that the Earth and the Universe are not young, but are both billions of years old.

So put up or shut up. :-)

DWW25921's avatar

@ETpro I actually thought that list was pretty exhaustive. Knowing full well you won’t accept anything I provide, Here’s another! http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/ten-best-evidences

DWW25921's avatar

I found another good one, you’ll probably discard too for whatever reason. As far as I’m concerned I’ve answered your question 3 times now. I don’t know what else to tell ya man. It’s very easy to find.

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

ETpro's avatar

What part of “1 fact” is so difficult to understand? I am not asking you for an exhaustive list. If you provide an exhaustive list, I either have to cherry pick the one thing I want to refute or spend days digging through and refuting them all. This has NOTHING to do with ad hominem attacks on the sites you are posting. Don’t try to play that card.

I’m asking you for ONE FACT, and so far, you have not provided one. I don’t even want two. Just one fact.

DWW25921's avatar

I did! I’ve given you a great deal. The first link gave 101 examples! The only thing I haven’t done is cut and paste them from the websites I’ve listed. I can’t help it if you don’t acknowledge the sources. To be fair though, what you’ve provided on your question doesn’t impress me either… We’re both talking to brick walls. Oddly enough, I’m ok with that and I frankly find it somewhat amusing for some reason… I just don’t care man. In any event, it’s been fun. I’m going to try to go to sleep again. Have a great night!

ETpro's avatar

Oh. 101 = 1. Now I understand. I ask for 1. You post a link to 101 and that’s the same thing as posting 1 fact. With logic like that, I rest my case.

To be fair, while I did post links in my question for the sake of not writing a question of 50,000 words, I have offered to post falsifiable facts that point to the age of the Universe and the Solar System. I can post 1, or 2, or any reasonable number. I do understand what “1 fact” means.

DWW25921's avatar

Seriously? I don’t take your question literally and give you several and that’s your reason for denying all of it? Because I didn’t copy and paste “1” and gave you links instead? You logic in these matters makes no sense to me at all. But, if semantics is your reason for not bothering to even look than I can’t help you.

Anyway, this time I’m really going to bed. Promise. (sigh) Stupid cute kittens.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@DWW25921 It’s funny, for someone who “doesn’t care” you’re certainly spending an awful lot of time trying to prove yourself (and doing a rather poor job of it).

jerv's avatar

Funny thing about the “Young Earth” crowd; they adamantly refuse to accept other possibilities such as the various forms of Old Earth Creationism. Who here would go up to a being capable of creating universes and tell them how long a day is? He can take as long as he wants, and if he says he took six days then I’ll just readjust my definition of “day”! He created theeentire concept of “day”, so he probably knows more about what a day is than I do.

Notice how many Evolutionists never attempt to answer questions regarding the First Cause? They merely try to figure out how things went between then and now. And when provable evidence runs contrary to their theory they adjust the theory instead of spin/ignore/refute the evidence?

Science and religion don’t have to oppose each other. Many scientists find ways to reconcile their religious beliefs and their scientific knowledge. And there are enough differing interpretations of the Bible alone (not to mention other religion’s texts) that there is no proving any of them correct. However, there are multiple ways to determine the age of something with accuracy and repeatability that can be (and are) peer-reviewed.

Rarebear's avatar

On an iPhone so this is short. Evolution researchers don’t try to answer first cause because that isn’t evolution. That is biochemistry. Different field. It would be like asking an archeologist to answer a question about geology.

mattbrowne's avatar

Why do so many Jellies with hidden agendas ask leading questions?

Wait a minute…

Right, there are actually not many lying Jellies.

Right, there are actually not many lying scientists.

mattbrowne's avatar

Why do giraffes have 15 feet laryngeal nerves when their brain is just a short distance away from their larynx?

Right, because their ancestors were fish.

Giraffes don’t lie. Fish don’t either. Study their anatomy. And explain away.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@jerv “Science and religion don’t have to oppose each other.”

No truer words were ever spoken.

@jerv ”...there is no proving any of them correct…”

No doubt. Not even science can prove anything. Science infers. But it can never prove.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yes it can @RealEyesRealizeRealLies.

I think the problem between science and religion comes in because many religions have been so persecuted in times past that it’s just part of their psyche. When I was a practicing Christian we were warned often to beware those who would attempt to undermine our faith in the One True God. Ergo, that’s exactly what the religious see science as trying to do, when in fact, science could care less about religion.

BhacSsylan's avatar

@DWW25921 Considering that you yourself seem to rarely look at your links, why should we? You would do us all a favor by answering the question as asked: pick one that you like, and let us see. If you are so sure of your position it should not be this difficult. Open your own 101 link and pick one! @mattbrowne has already picked a good one on evolution’s side, it’s really not that hard.

Seek's avatar

@mattbrowne is one of my favourite theists. ^_^

and one of the most frustrating, because I know he is so close to the Dark Side! Come on, @mattbrowne – we have blackjack and hookers!

mazingerz88's avatar

So this is what this thread was all about. 6000 years old only-? The heck. And some Christians believe Jesus was born merely 4000 years after it all began-? Oh man.

Seek's avatar

^ Yep. It’s amazing considering 9000 years ago people living in what would be modern-day Israel had already figured out how to make knit fabrics.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Some thing’s in life are accepted even if they don’t make 100% sense to an analytical mind.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I love these questions… It’s about the only reason I frequent this dive.

Well that, and all the hot chicks too.

Seek's avatar

* Flips hair *

DWW25921's avatar

Well it’s been fun. Thanks to all for your input, I enjoyed the parley. I’ve posted some great links but admittedly some bad ones as well. Anyway, have a wonderful day all.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr If someone you didn’t know pushed you out of the path of a speeding truck, would you struggle to find the logic or just be thankful? Jesus did that for us and I don’t need it to be proved or logical to accept that gift.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Jesus pushed someone I didn’t know?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

No no… I get it now. Sorry.

glacial's avatar

@KNOWITALL But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand… at all. Several of us have repeated that evolution and religion need not be at odds with each other. The only thing being refuted here is the idea of a 6000 year old Earth. You don’t even believe in that yourself.

Seek's avatar

Jesus didn’t save anyone from a speeding truck.

If one believes the mythology, without consulting humanity, God took it upon himself to murder the person Jesus as a scapegoat for the sins of those who worship him.

That means people like Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, and Stephen Morin (all horrific serial killers) get to go to heaven, and Nicolai Tesla, and Marie Curie, and Alan Turing (some of the world’s greatest minds) will be tortured for all eternity.

I would be ashamed to accept the “forgiveness” of a deity that basically amounts to a mobster offering to allow you to buy protection against what he’ll do if you don’t buy protection.

RocketGuy's avatar

Jesus was immortal, so why was his “death” such a big sacrifice?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, because he was a human when he died.

KNOWITALL's avatar

(banging head on brick wall)

Seek's avatar

^ Wouldn’t recommend that. At least put down a cushion first.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I’ve had Wicca and all kinds of thing’s explained to me and even if I don’t completely get it, I accept it. I feel no such acceptance with Christianity here, and my friends are like ‘they’ll never get it, they don’t want to’, so it’s just frustrating to me.

dxs's avatar

@RocketGuy From a Catholic perspective, this represented the idea of the Paschal Mystery, which is the belief that through suffering and death comes joy and happiness.
Also, before the sacrifice of Jesus, animal sacrifices were required by God for forgiveness.
But Jesus, as the ultimate sacrifice, ended this need for humans to be forgiven. The veil separating the temple was torn in two.

Seek's avatar

I respect Wicca to an extent because at its worst, its followers are wasting their own time, and at best, they are essentially tree-hugging hippies that believe in being nice to people.

At best, Christians want people to be nice to each other and mind their own business.

At worst… well, we’ve had that discussion and this isn’t the venue. But it doesn’t only affect Christians.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Yes. Yes. I agree, and I’m still thinking that out politically. :)

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

As of August 2009, this is how young audience contemporary Christians (probably lots of new converts) are capable of getting a good Christian science perspective. Nothing in these videos contradicts any science or math that I know of. It seems to be good science and math that any skeptic would accept as true enough.

What the skeptic, and I myself might have a problem with, are the implications drawn from the science, not to mention the corny (and I mean super corny) style of teaching. It’s a youth revival camp thing, and everyone is there for Jesus. So I guess the speaker is genuinely speaking to his audience. Can’t blame a guy for that.

But I cannot doubt that the science is good enough. A lot of folks on this thread might even learn something, if you can sludge through the presentation. I certainly did. Just watched the entire series.

I mean, what young Christian doesn’t like the idea of worshipping a “Star Breathing God”.

Who knew that genetics has proven that Jesus Christ in the form of lamanin
is the actual glue molecule that binds our bodies together. Yep it’s shaped just like the Cross of Galilee. The science is good. The implications are entertaining.

If anyone would like to see what young Christians are being taught, then have a look. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing that true enough science is taught anywhere, in any form.

P1
P2
P3
P4
P5

Don’t mind the keyboard offering background music. Pass the plate around. It’s an uplifting Christian message told under the standard of good science.

glacial's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’ll be honest, I’m not in a position to watch the videos. Can you just tell us what “true enough science” means in this context? I mean, we teach “true enough science” in classrooms all the time. We know that electrons don’t revolve around atoms like planets around the sun, and we know that there can be no real physics problems without friction, and intro-level statistical tests are almost never appropriate for real-life data.

But all of those are “walk before you can run” examples – we build slowly towards a better, more complete understanding of reality. Is that true of the “true enough science” you’re presenting here?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@glacial “we teach “true enough science” in classrooms all the time.”

This thread began with very poor science series, intended to look like a documentary. They were misleading, false, and set up a straw man to burn. The videos are disingenuous, to be polite.

The series I point to is not attempting to look like a Discovery Channel documentary. It’s a real Christian audience attending a science sermon. It speaks of things you suggest along with how many planet earths can fit inside Beetlejuice. I had no idea how large a quadrillion was until the presenter put it into perspective for me.

Then they wrap it all up with how it relates to Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for your life. It’s good for Christians, and everyone, to be exposed to good science.

BhacSsylan's avatar

“Who knew that genetics has proven that Jesus Christ in the form of lamanin
is the actual glue molecule that binds our bodies together.”

…wut? That’s not what that means at all. It’s a molecule that has a cross shape, yes, but that’s not ‘Jesus is the glue’. Come on, now. That’s like saying ‘Jesus holds our buildings together!’ because crossbeams are a structural element. I don’t mind if it’s good science, but if they’re actually saying “genetics has proven that Jesus Christ in the form of lamanin is the actual glue molecule” (which would be biochemistry that found that, by the way, not genetics), it’s not real science. I hope the rest is much better.

I mean, who knew that HIV is really the fault of the Jews? I mean, it’s obvious since an HIV coat protein makes the star of David

Darth_Algar's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “Who knew that genetics has proven that Jesus Christ in the form of lamanin”

Careful, you might pull your arm out of place reaching like that.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Why you no like Star Breathing Gods?

Rarebear's avatar

@darrh he was being facetious.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther