Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[OzSpen]

That would make sense

So, write them in 24 point and then shrink them to 12 before posting.

That makes sense. I can enlarge the font or decrease its size by using the Ctrl+ and Ctrl- signs on my keyboard. For anyone having difficulty with font size on CB, this keyboard facility solves the issue for all posts. That's OK for me as I'm still old fashioned enough to still be using my PC and not a laptop, smart phone or ipad. Does this enlarge and decrease facility also work for laptop, smart phone and ipad?

 

[StanJ]

That makes sense. I can enlarge the font or decrease its size by using the Ctrl+ and Ctrl- signs on my keyboard. For anyone having difficulty with font size on CB, this keyboard facility solves the issue for all posts. That's OK for me as I'm still old fashioned enough to still be using my PC and not a laptop, smart phone or ipad. Does this enlarge and decrease facility also work for laptop, smart phone and ipad?

On my tablet, from which I'm posting this, I can simply touch the screen with my thumb and index, then spread to make it bigger. When I post it posts normally. The same thing goes if you use the zoom feature on any browser.

 

[marksman]

it gives me a headache to read the small print. I don't know any other site that uses such a small print.

 

[OzSpen]

it gives me a headache to read the small print. I don't know any other site that uses such a small print.

But you've been shown how you can make the font on this page larger by using your keyboard or browser zoom. Why did you not take notice of that recommendation and you continued to use this large font?

 

[River Jordan]

I have two cats. sisters actually both of whom are cuddly and so friendly and loyal. Now, I am doing a little experiment on them. I am hoping for at least one of them to evolve into dog to save me having to buy one. I have put in an order for a Jack Russell. Or at least grow a beak and wings so that I can have my own personal finch.

So far, even though I have looked very closely each day no evidence of evolution has happened. Even though I feed them dog food and budgie seed to help them along. Perhaps there is a time frame for this sort of thing to happen. Maybe it take 20 years or even 100 years or even a 1,000 years before I can expect any evolutionary change.

Maybe I have missed the point and that they have evolved into cats over the last million years and it will take another million to get my dog or finch. I did ask one atheist why we have never seen anything evolve since Darwin announced his hypothesis. His answer was you just don't see it happen that is all. So be very wary my friend as one day you may wake up and that cat you thought you had has turned into a lion so you will need more than kitty litter and a tin of whiskas.

There's this thing called "Poe's Law". It's basically the idea that creationism is so ridiculous, it forces its advocates to take up completely nonsensical and silly arguments....so much so, that it is impossible to tell the difference between someone pretending to be a creationist and being absurd as satire, and a true creationist being genuinely absurd.

The post above that apparently thinks evolution is "my cat turning into a dog" is a perfect illustration of Poe's Law.

 

[StanJ]

it gives me a headache to read the small print. I don't know any other site that uses such a small print.

I understand marksman but if you put your browser on like 200% you can read everything and your posts will be normal size when others read them. It is a tad loud when read in context with the normal font size. If you're not sure how to do this, PM me.

 

[marksman]

There's this thing called "Poe's Law". It's basically the idea that creationism is so ridiculous, it forces its advocates to take up completely nonsensical and silly arguments....so much so, that it is impossible to tell the difference between someone pretending to be a creationist and being absurd as satire, and a true creationist being genuinely absurd.

The post above that apparently thinks evolution is "my cat turning into a dog" is a perfect illustration of Poe's Law.

How interesting. No Poe's Law needed when it comes to evolution. All of it is absurd. My comment only showed how absurd it is because if you believe that and that is what atheists do believe, you will believe anything, regardless of any law. When I hear what some atheists say I invoke the "Doh" law.

 

[River Jordan]

How interesting. No Poe's Law needed when it comes to evolution. All of it is absurd. My comment only showed how absurd it is because if you believe that and that is what atheists do believe, you will believe anything, regardless of any law. When I hear what some atheists say I invoke the "Doh" law.

I suppose if you really think evolution is "my cat turning into a dog", then yeah, that's absurd...just not in the way you think. And why do you keep bringing up atheists? I don't think there are any atheists here.

 

[marksman]

Some of the comments sound as though they subscribe to atheist thought. And I have read enough to know that there are plenty of atheists out there who beleive that over millions of years this became that so don't blame me. I used Control - and this is what I got. is that small enough for you?

 

[River Jordan]

I'm still not sure why you keep bringing up atheists, since as far as I know, there aren't any here. I mean, I'm pretty sure atheists are supportive of things like gravity and erosion, so does that mean we have to deny them? :wacko:

 

[StanJ]

Here's a link to someone who has ACTUALLY done the work in establishing the connection between Atheism and Evolution.

http://bevets.com/evolution.htm

 

[River Jordan]

Then how do we explain the fact that the vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists?

 

[marksman]

Then how do we explain the fact that the vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists?

And your evidence is............

I'm still not sure why you keep bringing up atheists, since as far as I know, there aren't any here. I mean, I'm pretty sure atheists are supportive of things like gravity and erosion, so does that mean we have to deny them? :wacko:

See previous comment.

 

[FHII]

Wait, are we now debating whether gravity and erosion exist?

 

[River Jordan]

And your evidence is............

I've posted this a few times here, but nevertheless...

This paper (Public Acceptance of Evolution) compiled survey data about public acceptance of evolution in the developed world, over several years. This compilation allowed them to produce the following graph...

As you can see, evolution is accepted by the majority of the developed world. Couple that with survey data showing that atheists comprise between 2-8% of the population, and the conclusion is obvious...most people who accept the reality of evolution are theists.

And we can get even more specific than that. The National Center for Science Education has compiled a list of statements from religious organizations expressing their support for teaching evolution in public schools. CLICK HERE. As you can see, this support comes from a very diverse group of faiths. And there's also The Clergy Letter Project, where clergy from different faiths have signed letters stating that religion and evolution need not be in conflict. For example, the Christian Clergy letter reads as follows....

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

So as we can see, this notion that evolution = atheism has no basis in reality at all.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Sure I have.

No, you have not.

This is what you demanded: "show... using the principles of "methodological naturalism" ... that cats and dogs have a common ancestor, without appealing to the philosophical idea that all forms of life originated from one single ancestor".

The material I took the time to find and post for you 1) describes the evolutionary history of mammals, including how cats and dogs have a common ancestor; 2) utilizes methods that fall within methodological naturalism; and, 3) do not rely in any way on universal common ancestry from a single ancestor.

What "material" are you talking about? Assuming the "evolutionary history" of mammals does not "show" how cats and dogs have a common ancestor. We are talking about science here RJ, not conjecture. What scientific facts "show" us that dogs and cats have a common ancestor?

That you can't be bothered to look at any of it only reflects badly on you, not on the science.

If you cannot show me, and the readers here, that you understand the subject matter enough to explain how it proves your point, then why should I "bother" (and pay the expenses it requires) to "look at it"? I think that reflects badly on you, not me.

Amazing how you can prove something wrong, even though you have no idea what it is

Who said I was proving anyone wrong? You are the one making the claim, I expect YOU to prove it. Instead you are throwing the burden of proof back on me. Cheap tricks, n'est pas?

Like I said, I wonder how you manage to function in real life. I suppose when you feel ill you go to random people on the street for a diagnosis, because going to a qualified doctor would be the fallacy of appealing to authority, right? When your car breaks down you don't go to a trained mechanic for the same reason.

Kinda makes you wonder why courts call "expert witnesses" to testify about technical subjects like genetics, rather than randomly pick from the general public. Crazy, huh?

Oh... the irony!! Surprisingly you didn't ask me why I use a computer as well. Your desparation is becoming even more blatant now than it has been the entire time you have been here. Being a software developer I actually "function in real life" through the use of computers, because unlike you I have the ability to distinguish between real science and conjecture. If I feel ill then I consult a doctor. If my car breaks down then I consult a mechanic. If, however, I want to know about things that are beyond the scope of observational science, such as origins, then I trust and believe that the creator of the universe is the "expert witness" to turn to.

Oh sure....I'll do that right after I get done getting Muslims to agree that Mohammed wasn't really a prophet.

Well why don't you do it now? Oh I get it... you can't... And so a smug remark is all you can come up with.

Yeah....who woulda guessed that something like the evolutionary history of mammals as determined by comparative genetics, paleontology, phylogenetics, and statistical analyses would be a complex technical subject that would actually require some time and work to understand? I mean, don't these scientists know they're supposed to do all their work in a way that's specifically tailored to young-earth creationists who have no background, education, or knowledge of biology? What's wrong with these people?

Again, all you are doing is assuming that someone who takes the time to study all these diffent fields in detail would come to the same conclusion as you (which of course you obviously haven't even done yourself!). But this is an idea that has obviously been proven false, since there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with you. So all you can do now is attack "these people".

You're demonstrating my point for me, and doing one heck of a job.

How so?

Sorry, I didn't realize you were going to take what I said about the paper in the OP and apply it to the paper about the evolutionary history of mammals. Guess I should've seen that coming.

Care to explain what you mean?

If I were you, I wouldn't bother. These scientists are probably just atheists who hate God and the only reason their paper got published in the first place is because all the people at Science are God-haters too. My apologies for tempting you with such an obvious Satanic ploy.

That's not my position, so why the childish sarcasm? Who are you trying to fool here... a bunch of 12-year-olds? I never make arguments like that. You always start out by trying to fool everyone here that you are such an expert in science ... and pretending that you can back up what you say... and yet it always ends up in a string of sarcastic, rhetorical comments that belong more in the playground than in a serious disussion. Grow up River...

 

[River Jordan]

No, you have not.

Oh, I'm sure that's what you've convinced yourself of, but then refusing to look at anything or even taking the most simple steps to learn about the subject kinda taints your opinion a bit.

What "material" are you talking about? Assuming the "evolutionary history" of mammals does not "show" how cats and dogs have a common ancestor. We are talking about science here RJ, not conjecture. What scientific facts "show" us that dogs and cats have a common ancestor?

This is Exhibit A in how I know that you didn't make your demand in good faith. You've not read a single thing I took the time to look up and provide you, nor have you done anything to educate yourself on even the most basic concepts behind the science. Yet here you are, already declaring that the things you've never looked at or don't even understand are nothing more than assumptions and conjecture!

That's exactly what one would expect from a person who issued a challenge, already convinced that it can never be met.

If you cannot show me, and the readers here, that you understand the subject matter enough to explain how it proves your point, then why should I "bother" (and pay the expenses it requires) to "look at it"? I think that reflects badly on you, not me.

And this is Exhibit B. Notice where your focus is? It's not on the subject, the data, or the information I provided. Instead your focus is entirely on me. Instead of saying "If the data or analyses don't exist, then....", you started off with "If you cannot show...".

That's exactly what one would expect from a person who has no real interest in the subject, but is instead only interested in trying to stump River Jordan.

Who said I was proving anyone wrong?

You did, when you said "Statistics show that cats are cats and dogs are dogs. They also show that only cats produce cats and that dogs only produce dogs. So statistics can obviously be used as an example of methodological naturalism to prove you wrong."

You are the one making the claim, I expect YOU to prove it.

Exhibit C. You have no interest in the actual subject; your interest is solely on me. Rather than approaching this out of genuine curiosity and a desire to learn, you've been approaching this from a desire to win points in a debate.

That's exactly what one would expect from a person who has no real interest in the subject, but is instead only interested in trying to stump River Jordan.

If I feel ill then I consult a doctor. If my car breaks down then I consult a mechanic.

Right, so you appeal to authorities when it suits you.

If, however, I want to know about things that are beyond the scope of observational science, such as origins, then I trust and believe that the creator of the universe is the "expert witness" to turn to.

Exhibit D. You've clearly already formed your conclusions not only on the subject, but on who is and isn't trustworthy to address it.

That's exactly what one would expect from someone who didn't issue his challenge in good faith.

But this is an idea that has obviously been proven false, since there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with you.

If your standard for "truth" is "every single scientist has to agree", then I have to wonder what exactly has been shown to be true? There are scientists who think the earth doesn't move and is orbited by the universe. So I guess by your standards, a moving earth that orbits the sun has been proven false! :lol:

Care to explain what you mean?

Never mind. My apologies.

 

[marksman]

I've posted this a few times here, but nevertheless...

And we can get even more specific than that. The National Center for Science Education has compiled a list of statements from religious organizations expressing their support for teaching evolution in public schools. CLICK HERE. As you can see, this support comes from a very diverse group of faiths. And there's also The Clergy Letter Project, where clergy from different faiths have signed letters stating that religion and evolution need not be in conflict. For example, the Christian Clergy letter reads as follows....

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

So as we can see, this notion that evolution = atheism has no basis in reality at all.

So many incorrect assumptions here.

First let me say again evolution is based on lies because satan is the father of lies and he invented evolution to move God out of the picture.

Second the pretty coloured chard does not prove that most evolutionists are theists.

Third. Most of the churches listed are not Christian churches.

Fourth. Religion and evolution is not in conflict. What is in conflict is that claim that evolution proves God does not exist. Evolution does no such thing. Only pseudo evolution invented by atheists does that.

Fifth. How do you know that the overwhelming number of christians do not take the bible literally? have you surveyed 2 billion of them?

Sixth. No one said the bible is there to convey scientific truth.

​Seventh. When evolution is held up to rigorous scrutiny, it is found to be a joke.

Eight. No one has said we should not love God with all out mind, heart, soul and strength. That is a beat up invented by atheists. The fact that people do is evidenced by the fact that so many educated and intelligent atheists have seen the light and embraced biblical creation.

Nine. The integrity of a School Board is evident when they allow students to think for themselves and be presented with the truth, biblical creation and lies, evolution atheist version.

Ten. As we can see, the only people attacking those who defend biblical creation is the atheists. They are so insecure about what they believe they don't want it to be held up to scrutiny. When it is we find out a few home truths as in Huxley an atheist and vigorous supporter of evolution who said that he did not defend Darwin's scientific speculations (note he called them speculations) which he considered fanciful because they were not scientific. He said he defended them because of their moral and theological implications. He saw Darwinism as a perfect refutation of the religious beliefs that he had rejected. So in this case, there was nothing scientific about Darwin's ideas according to Huxley and it was obvious that regardless of whether they had any merit or not, he was going to jump on the bandwagon to use them to discredit God and christianity.

Not exactly a commendation for rigorous scrutiny.

 

[River Jordan]

First let me say again evolution is based on lies because satan is the father of lies and he invented evolution to move God out of the picture.

Well then, it's kinda pointless to discuss the subject with someone like you, isn't it?

Second the pretty coloured chard does not prove that most evolutionists are theists.

Third. Most of the churches listed are not Christian churches.

Fourth. Religion and evolution is not in conflict. What is in conflict is that claim that evolution proves God does not exist. Evolution does no such thing. Only pseudo evolution invented by atheists does that.

Fifth. How do you know that the overwhelming number of christians do not take the bible literally? have you surveyed 2 billion of them?

Sixth. No one said the bible is there to convey scientific truth.

​Seventh. When evolution is held up to rigorous scrutiny, it is found to be a joke.

Eight. No one has said we should not love God with all out mind, heart, soul and strength. That is a beat up invented by atheists. The fact that people do is evidenced by the fact that so many educated and intelligent atheists have seen the light and embraced biblical creation.

Nine. The integrity of a School Board is evident when they allow students to think for themselves and be presented with the truth, biblical creation and lies, evolution atheist version.

Ten. As we can see, the only people attacking those who defend biblical creation is the atheists. They are so insecure about what they believe they don't want it to be held up to scrutiny. When it is we find out a few home truths as in Huxley an atheist and vigorous supporter of evolution who said that he did not defend Darwin's scientific speculations (note he called them speculations) which he considered fanciful because they were not scientific. He said he defended them because of their moral and theological implications. He saw Darwinism as a perfect refutation of the religious beliefs that he had rejected. So in this case, there was nothing scientific about Darwin's ideas according to Huxley and it was obvious that regardless of whether they had any merit or not, he was going to jump on the bandwagon to use them to discredit God and christianity.

Not exactly a commendation for rigorous scrutiny.

I'm sure that's all what you believe, and from your first comment, will always believe no matter what. It's pretty obvious from all this that trying to discuss evolution with you is like trying to discuss pork rib recipes with an Orthodox Jew.

 

[marksman]

Well then, it's kinda pointless to discuss the subject with someone like you, isn't it?

I'm sure that's all what you believe, and from your first comment, will always believe no matter what. It's pretty obvious from all this that trying to discuss evolution with you is like trying to discuss pork rib recipes with an Orthodox Jew.

Far from it. I love discussing the topic but what is pointless is trying to convince me that I am wrong and you are right. After 60 years as a Christian, if I don't know what truth is, I am a disgrace to christianity. And it does say that we are to study which I have done with one theological degree and three university degrees, study to show yourself approved to God (not you), keeping you happy is not high on my agenda.

Your second comment sounds a bit like me to you saying I am gutted that I haven't been able to convince you that you are wrong and I am right. Not going to happen for one simple reason. The scripture says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. If the Jesus I worship today is the same one as I worshipped yesterday and is the same one I am going to worship tomorrow, I see no reason to change what I believe because he hasn't.

If the truth is the God of creation yesterday, and today, it will be tomorrow as well.