 |
|
|
|
| Creationism/Intelligent Design Proponents Rarely Address The Evidence That Supports The Very Same Scientific Theories They Constantly Discredit. |
| I’d like to gain the attention of Creationism/Intelligent Design proponents on this site who constantly discredit scientific theories such as evolution. Why have almost none of these people properly addressed, in detail, the documented evidence I presented in both my debates about transitional fossils and speciation? They repeatedly ask for such evidence over and over again. Yet, when it’s finally laid out for them, they appear to ignore it as if it’s not even there. Please view my post below for details on such problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that with any topic that brushes up against someone's personal beliefs (and I mean those
that one holds dear to oneself or that one has a vested interest in continuing to believe in e.g. A
social or emotional reason) people are going to approach the subject matter with a heightened
emotional state and a real desire for it no to be true. Religious beliefs (and other beliefs which
'matter' to you) are often very strongly tied into our egos and anything which contradicts those
beliefs constitutes an attack on ourselves. It isn't laudable but it is human. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's been said already. The reason people discredit or refuse to accept the fact that is evolution
is because they fear that in some way their belief will be jeopardized. It is easier to shut their
ears and eyes to the evidence at hand than to reevaluate all they have been told. It doesn't have
to be this way of course, but this is what happens. They have a pre-concieved conclusion and then
choose what they want see and hear to fit. Science works the opposite way.
The proof will be in the pudding, and hopefully we will see it unravelling if the conversation
between Hizashi and Gotfried continues under Charlees post. I always try and read Hizashis posts as
he knows his stuff and is facinating. I have followed most of the conversations he mentions below
and it is true that time and time again he answers the queries posed and yet has failed to convert
anyone. I predict this will go the same way. Gottfried, to his credit, asks some fair questions
(even if they may seem daft to some) and Hiz answers them. The gulf in knowledge between the two of
them is huge. Will Gottfried conclude at the end that what Hizashi says makes perfect sense or will
he leave the conversation through fear of learning something he prefers not to learn? Will he just
say "no, I don't care, I believe what I want to believe". I think I know what will happen, again,
but if I am wrong, i am wrong. I hope I am. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I guess I believe if you truly believe something you shouldn't have to discredit anything. This
debate is probably way over my head but I do know there is scientific proof of evolution but
something had to start the whole process. Would that be intelligent design? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I ain't gonna lie. I just disagree with referring to macro-change-of-species and the big explosion
faith-required beliefs as "theories," let alone "scientific." Comment away, go ahead. I just felt
like agreeing that the creationist arguments are poorly defended. Intelligent design is creationism.
None are scientific. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There are two ways to approach a subject or question. You can look at the evidence and make a
decision, or you can make decision then look at the evidence. The problem with the second one is you
will tend to cast a biased eye, picking and choosing the evidence that supports what you already
believe to be true. We all are guilty of this sometimes but there are those who take it so far as to
completely reject any information or argument that does not directly support their existing
paradigm. Even though they are a constant bother I can’t help but pity them a bit. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In my opinion, people ask for proof, but those who consider themselves very religious become
confused and are unable to think outside of the box on this topic. I think their line of thinking
is "if I do not verbalize my true opinions on this, I am not going against what I personally believe
about God and the Universe". When there is a difficult or uncomfortable position for some to grasp,
they simply ignore evidence, logic and act similar to a child, plugging their ears and sticking
their tongue out. I personally do not give much thought to evolution vs creationism. It matters
little to me. My belief is that God is capable of all things and some of those things are not going
to be revealed to me, at least not here in this life.
I hope this helps your confusion. I'm sure it is frustrating when you do take the time to post such
detail and get a bunch of uneducated and disbelieving arguments. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
What you describe can be attributed to almost every debate on this site. Very few people want to
take the time to consider the arguments. Some may even lack the ability to do so. Lol |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It’s been my experience, on this site alone, that the ones who discredit science constantly often
request the evidence in support of whatever theory they’re bashing. It's a reasonable request to
say the least. So, why is it that when the evidence is presented in plain view do these same people
not even bother discussing it? What’s the point in asking for something if you’re going to
ignore it in the end anyway? This has happened twice already with two debates I have created myself,
which are covered below.
In my debate I created about transitional fossils entitled “Transitional Fossils Do Exist Within
The Fossil Record”, there were four people who disagreed. However, not a single one of them
specifically addressed the twelve documented transitions I listed within said debate. It’s as if
they weren’t even there. I’ll summarized the disagreeing responses given to that debate.
Codeman: The majority of Codeman’s post within the debate was irrelevant. It spoke of
irreducible complexity, a concept brought about by Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box
that has been refuted many times over. That concept has nothing to do with the evidence I gave. The
remainder of Codeman’s post lacked substance. It claimed one of the documented transitions
presented was flawed but failed to explain how.
Charlee: Charlee’s post was similar. It lacked substance, claiming that “transitional
species” was poorly defined when I specifically defined the phrase within my post on that debate.
The rest of Charlee’s post that referred to the evidence given within the debate can be summed up
as saying “It’s not enough”, although no clue to what precise amount of evidence would be
“enough” was ever mentioned.
Webman1200: Webman1200 claimed in his post that transitional fossils just didn’t exit,
ignoring entirely my post within the debate that gave a small number of transitions.
Voov: Voov’s post, in its entirety, was simply irrelevant, as nothing within it
pertained directly to the evidence I presented.
Almost the exact same occurrence, though to a far worse extent, is seen within my newer debate about
speciation entitled “Evolution Possesses A Wide Variety Of Evidence In Its Support That Apparently
Not Many People Are Aware Of”. In said debate, I listed forty documented incidents of speciation,
the evolutionary formation of a new species. I’ll summarize the two disagreeing responses posted
on that debate as well.
Gottfried: Gottfried’s post demonstrated a lack of knowledge concerning science (as most
other creationist’s posts on this site do). However, it didn’t necessarily appear to be
attacking evolution. Although it also didn’t address any of the documented incidents of speciation
either.
Voov: Voov’s response, unsurprisingly, was completely irrelevant and did not address, in
even the slightest fashion, any of the evidence that was presented.
I’m bringing all this back up again to offer those proponents of Creationism/Intelligent Design
another chance to redeem themselves. This offer goes out mainly to Charlee, Voov, Webman1200,
Codeman, Rodney, and Created (but other creationist/Intelligent Design proponents I don't know of
are still welcome to comment as well). Perhaps some of the people mentioned, or those not mentioned,
never saw one or both of the debates I made and the evidence I presented in them. Perhaps they are
more well informed now than they were then. Whatever the reason for not addressing the evidence I
presented, now’s the chance to do so. Or, the alternative is to just look like a jackass for
discrediting certain scientific topics then covering your ears and saying “blah blah blah blah”
over and over when the evidence for such topics is shown to you. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Who is to say that evolution was not used in creation and evolution was not made by God so that the
world could grow or as we put it Evolve. I as a Christian looked over many plain teachings in the
bible soley on the fact we are taught if God did not create it then it does not exist.
Which I must say has been pretty ignorant, look how many species of Dog man has created, there is
so many things that man alone has created, I guess that is how we are made in Gods image, with
that said I am not sure I believe in all theories or points in Evolution.
My biggest problem with Evolution is that they dis credit God and give all the credit to Science and
the Earth and again we are taught if it does not give Glory to God it is wrong.
I personally think it is bigger than evolution because for Centuries Christians have been ridiculed.
Told they do not know what they are talking about, and laughed at for believing in God and that was
way before man even had knowledge of Evolution.
I think man has always looked for ways to disprove God and Evolution is a big topic that does it
often and for that reason I am against what they say or teach.
Why can't they coexist, why can't God have used evolution as parts of his divine creation? And why
is it only the christians or Creationists that cover thier ears and say "Blah, Blah, Blah, its
not, that goes for everyone on here who has a biased opinion cause it is obvious there are many on
here that are not very open to the fact there might be a God powerful enough to have created them. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hizashi, Thanks for the invite.
Before commenting, I would appreciate as detailed a definition as possible for the word,
"evolution." I think most folks recognize that species change and adapt. But, for this particular
discussion, it would be helpful for you to be as crystal clear as possible as to what we are
debating. What do you mean by evolution? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 Mar 2009 07:59
Sign In
