Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[KingJ]

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

Evolution gives them a leg to stand on / distract them from reality as it mocks scripture from a dizzy height.

What else are they supposed to believe? R Dawkins and friends are pushing atheistic /dysteleological evolution.

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

I would go as far as to question the Christaintiy of all who disregard even a single verse from scripture. TE's are at the top of my list in how they write off Genesis and every chapter thereafter mentioning Adam, Eve and Creationism.

The argument that scripture is either inspired (all true) or not (all false) flies completely over their head. It is just a matter of time before the bible gets a place next to noddy and big ears...by '''Christians'' .

Christianity 101 = John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[River Jordan]

what is pointless is trying to convince me that I am wrong and you are right.

I see. You are infallible and it is impossible for you to be wrong. Good to know.

Evolution gives them a leg to stand on / distract them from reality as it mocks scripture from a dizzy height.

That is the fundamentalist view, yes.

What else are they supposed to believe? R Dawkins and friends are pushing atheistic /dysteleological evolution.

And people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller advocate evolution as part of God's creation.

I would go as far as to question the Christaintiy of all who disregard even a single verse from scripture. TE's are at the top of my list in how they write off Genesis and every chapter thereafter mentioning Adam, Eve and Creationism.

Of course you do.

The argument that scripture is either inspired (all true) or not (all false) flies completely over their head.

True...it's typically only fundamentalists who are so black/white in their thinking.

 

[OzSpen]

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.

River Jordan,

I note your statement, ‘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’.

You have committed the appeal to popularity logical fallacy. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html.

I’ve read through this article from which you provided this graphic. Here it is stated:

The concept of the evolution of humans from earlier forms of life is unacceptable to biblical literalists and causes concern even among some holders of less conservative religious views. Catholics and mainstream Protestants generally accept variations of a theological view known as theistic evolution, which views evolution as the means by which God brought about humans, as well as other organisms. Evolution is nonetheless problematic to some of these nonliteralist Christians, because it implies a more distant or less personal God (1–3).

The language is loaded. Take the first sentence, ‘The concept of the evolution of humans from earlier forms of life is unacceptable to biblical literalists and causes concern even among some holders of less conservative religious views’. Why is it not stated this way? ‘The concept of the evolution of humans from earlier forms of life is unacceptable to those who read the Bible as they would the local newspaper, accepting the plain language of the text. There are religious people who do not accept the plain reading of the text so they oppose those who do. What are the implications of this?’

Imagine what would happen in this article if the writers got rid of the loaded language of ‘biblical literalists’, ‘less conservative religious views’ and ‘these nonliteralist Christians’?

I find it hypocritical that scientific writers are here presenting evidence against ‘biblical literalists’ and in favour of ‘these nonliteralist Christians’ when to even understand the article I have to accept the plain reading of the text. To use their language, I have to become a scientific ‘literalist’ to even understand what they are writing.

Then the authors get into the ‘should be taught’ mode:

These results should be troubling for science educators at all levels. Basic concepts of evolution should be taught in middle school, high school, and college life sciences courses and the growing number of adults who are uncertain about these ideas suggests that current science instruction is not effective. Because of the rapidly emerging nature of biomedical science, most adults will find it necessary to learn about these new concepts through informal learning opportunities.

The article cited research where ‘individuals who hold a strong belief in a personal God and who pray frequently were significantly less likely to view evolution as probably or definitely true than adults with less conservative religious views’. Why not write it this way? ‘Individuals who accept the plain reading of the Bible and so have committed their lives to the personal Almighty God revealed through a plain reading of Scripture and pray to him, are less likely to accept a plain reading of the text that includes evolution than readers who reject a plain reading of the text and hold religious views that reject the personal God and regular praying’.

Now that is not going to happen, but these writers should be challenged on their inflammatory use of language in describing Christians of various persuasions and the kind of reading of any text one should use.

Imagine what would happen if you did not engage in a plain reading of my text. By 'plain reading' I mean to read a text according to the ordinary understanding of word meaning, grammar, sentence and paragraph structure.

Oz

 

[justaname]

River Jordan,

I note your statement, ‘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’.

You have committed the appeal to popularity logical fallacy. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html.

I’ve read through this article from which you provided this graphic. Here it is stated:

The language is loaded. Take the first sentence, ‘The concept of the evolution of humans from earlier forms of life is unacceptable to biblical literalists and causes concern even among some holders of less conservative religious views’. Why is it not stated this way? ‘The concept of the evolution of humans from earlier forms of life is unacceptable to those who read the Bible as they would the local newspaper, accepting the plain language of the text. There are religious people who do not accept the plain reading of the text so they oppose those who do. What are the implications of this?’

Imagine what would happen in this article if the writers got rid of the loaded language of ‘biblical literalists’, ‘less conservative religious views’ and ‘these nonliteralist Christians’?

I find it hypocritical that scientific writers are here presenting evidence against ‘biblical literalists’ and in favour of ‘these nonliteralist Christians’ when to even understand the article I have to accept the plain reading of the text. To use their language, I have to become a scientific ‘literalist’ to even understand what they are writing.

Then the authors get into the ‘should be taught’ mode:

The article cited research where ‘individuals who hold a strong belief in a personal God and who pray frequently were significantly less likely to view evolution as probably or definitely true than adults with less conservative religious views’. Why not write it this way? ‘Individuals who accept the plain reading of the Bible and so have committed their lives to the personal Almighty God revealed through a plain reading of Scripture and pray to him, are less likely to accept a plain reading of the text that includes evolution than readers who reject a plain reading of the text and hold religious views that reject the personal God and regular praying’.

Now that is not going to happen, but these writers should be challenged on their inflammatory use of language in describing Christians of various persuasions and the kind of reading of any text one should use.

Imagine what would happen if you did not engage in a plain reading of my text. By 'plain reading' I mean to read a text according to the ordinary understanding of word meaning, grammar, sentence and paragraph structure.

Oz

So I can understand your post to mean you are spiritualizing the data given from Rivers graph...boy I love post-modern interpretation, anything anyone says can mean whatever I want it to...

Maybe this post is an allegory for different data coming in the future for other readers of Scripture being more apt to being biblical literalists...

 

[OzSpen]

So I can understand your post to mean you are spiritualizing the data given from Rivers graph...boy I love post-modern interpretation, anything anyone says can mean whatever I want it to...

Maybe this post is an allegory for different data coming in the future for other readers of Scripture being more apt to being biblical literalists...

From what I wrote in #103. what would ever give you the idea that I am 'spiritualizing' any data?

Don't you understand the meaning of 'the plain meaning of the text'?

Why didn't you deal with the content of what I wrote?

 

[justaname]

From what I wrote in #103. what would ever give you the idea that I am 'spiritualizing' any data?

Don't you understand the meaning of 'the plain meaning of the text'?

Why didn't you deal with the content of what I wrote?

Apparently you did not see the irony or sarcasm in my post...

 

[OzSpen]

Apparently you did not see the irony or sarcasm in my post...

No I didn't. I'm too dumb on this Saturday morning Down Under to be sharp enough to catch your emphasis. My problem! :wub:
However, it's amazing the put-downs that scientific writers in that article used to give a pejorative label to those of us who believe in reading Shakespeare, Captain James Cook's journals, the local newspaper, your post and mine - in plain language. Often its postmodern imposition on the text or it can be straight-forward eisegesis of reading into the text an a priori worldview.

Oz

 

[River Jordan]

I note your statement, ‘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’.

You have committed the appeal to popularity logical fallacy. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html.

No, not at all. As you can see from your own link, the fallacy is something like "I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they must be okay." The equivalent in this subject would have been "Most people in the developed world accept evolution. Therefore evolution is true." That's the fallacy of appealing to popularity.

In my case, I cited analyses of survey data to answer the question "Are most 'evolutionists' atheists or theists?" The first step is to look at the population of people who accept evolution. We note that it's a majority position in most of the developed world. Then we look at the percentage of atheists in the developed world, and we see that overall, it's between 2-8%. From those two data sets we can easily answer our question, "Are most 'evolutionists' atheists or theists?" 2-8% of the population who are atheists cannot make up the majority of the population who accept evolution. It's mathematically impossible.

The language is loaded. Take the first sentence, ‘The concept of the evolution of humans from earlier forms of life is unacceptable to biblical literalists and causes concern even among some holders of less conservative religious views’. Why is it not stated this way? ‘The concept of the evolution of humans from earlier forms of life is unacceptable to those who read the Bible as they would the local newspaper, accepting the plain language of the text. There are religious people who do not accept the plain reading of the text so they oppose those who do. What are the implications of this?’

It wouldn't change a thing. The label "biblical literalists" is nothing more than a category for a subset of Christians in the data set. Specific to this issue, the term "biblical literalist" isn't at all uncommon.

Imagine what would happen in this article if the writers got rid of the loaded language of ‘biblical literalists’, ‘less conservative religious views’ and ‘these nonliteralist Christians’?

I guess you'd have to explain how changing the label on one of the subsets in the data would change the results or conclusions at all.

I find it hypocritical that scientific writers are here presenting evidence against ‘biblical literalists’ and in favour of ‘these nonliteralist Christians’ when to even understand the article I have to accept the plain reading of the text. To use their language, I have to become a scientific ‘literalist’ to even understand what they are writing.

Are you saying you didn't really understand the paper because there was too much jargon in it?

The article cited research where ‘individuals who hold a strong belief in a personal God and who pray frequently were significantly less likely to view evolution as probably or definitely true than adults with less conservative religious views’. Why not write it this way? ‘Individuals who accept the plain reading of the Bible and so have committed their lives to the personal Almighty God revealed through a plain reading of Scripture and pray to him, are less likely to accept a plain reading of the text that includes evolution than readers who reject a plain reading of the text and hold religious views that reject the personal God and regular praying’.

It's the same thing as above. You're talking about changing a label on one of the subsets in the data. I'm not sure what you think that would do.

these writers should be challenged on their inflammatory use of language in describing Christians of various persuasions and the kind of reading of any text one should use

I wasn't aware that the term "Biblical literalism" was so terrible. I've seen more than a few people use the term "literal" when describing how they read scripture, especially Genesis 1.

 

[OzSpen]

It wouldn't change a thing. The label "biblical literalists" is nothing more than a category for a subset of Christians in the data set. Specific to this issue, the term "biblical literalist" isn't at all uncommon.

River,

It most definitely would change a great deal because 'biblical literalists' has become pejorative language to put down people who accept a plain reading of ANY text. I note that in your response you made no attempt to address what I had stated about the need for all reading to involve the plain reading of a text - including your and my posts.

I guess you'd have to explain how changing the label on one of the subsets in the data would change the results or conclusions at all.

It would involve a radical change in mind-set by the thinkers and writers.

Are you saying you didn't really understand the paper because there was too much jargon in it?

I find that to be a pathetic response after I spent a deal of time in preparing a response to a paper that was loaded with its own kind of jargon. That jargon needed challenging and I attempted to do that.

I wasn't aware that the term "Biblical literalism" was so terrible. I've seen more than a few people use the term "literal" when describing how they read scripture, especially Genesis 1.

How much time have you spent reading theological liberal literature, whether modernist or postmodernist? Then you would know that theological liberals have many disparaging comments to make against those who accept the plain language of the Bible, which they label as that of 'biblical literalism'. I'm no novice at this. I've spent the last 5 years immersed in theological liberalism (postmodernism) in a critique of a major scholar in the field (my PhD dissertation, which is almost finished). They detest 'literalists'. When literalism is used in such a disparaging way by theological liberals or scientific 'experts', it is difficult to use the term 'literal' without explaining it further. That's why I use language such as a plain reading of the text.

When I was in seminary a good number of years ago, we used A Berkeley Mickelsen's text on Interpreting the Bible (Eerdmans 1963). In that text, we learned that in the School of Antioch - represented by Theophilus of Antioch (ca 115-188), Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 393), Theodor of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428), Chrysostom (354-407) and Theodoret (386-458) - that

'these interpreters all emphasized historical interpretation. Yet this stress was no wooden literalism, for they made full use of typology. The school of Alexandria felt that the literal meaning of the text did not include its metaphorical meaning but the school of Antioch insisted that the literal meaning cannot exclude metaphor. "Literal" here means the customarily acknowledged meaning of an expression in its particular context. For example, when Christ declared that he was the door, the metaphorical meaning of "door" in that context would be obvious. Although metaphorical, this obvious meaning is included in the literal meaning....

By literal meaning the writer refers to the usual or customary sense conveyed by words or expressions'. (Mickelsen 1963:33, 179).

I'm raising these matters because the authors in the article to which you provided a link used pejorative, put-down language for 'biblical literalists' and that needed to be corrected.

A literalist is one who accepts the customary or common meaning of the words, sentences and paragraphs (semantics) in reading any document. If poetry is used, it is read as poetry with its metaphorical imagery. If parable is included, it is accepted as parable - all in the name of a literal interpretation of a document.

However, too much biblical interpretation now involves inserting foreign meaning (often postmodern reader-response) into a document. Hence my call for all reading to be done literally - as long as one understands that this includes the use of metaphor, types, parables, etc when it is clearly stated in common language that this is what is happening in the text. When Jesus said, 'You are the light of the world', to understand this in a plain reading of the text - literally - is to understand that 'light' is being used metaphorically (and all of this is in the name of a literal interpretation of the text).

Oz

 

[UppsalaDragby]

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.

Well, I am sure you have convinced yourself that what YOU have read is "convincing". But you are all over the place - trying on the one hand to claim that it takes years of study to understand, while on the other claiming that all it requires is a number of "simple steps".

I guess it depends on how eager you are to "taint" the opinions of those who disagree with you.

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!

Whoa.. what on earth are you talking about??? All you have done is imply that the article you provided proves your point. And all I have done is question whether or not you can show us how it does do that.

Notice that the comment you quoted consists of questions! And yet you use this as though it was "Exhibit A" in an attempt to prove that I had "made up my mind" to reject the claims you were making.

To me it seems that YOU are the on that has already "made up your mind", 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.

You are the one implying that the claims made by the article are trustworthy, so who on earth am I supposed to address in order to test those claims? And notice that there is nothing in my comments that makes the claim that "the data or the analysis does not exists", so why are you trying to bait me with a fictitional argument that I was "supposed" to be making? So much for "Exhibit B"!!!

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."

Sure, that proves you wrong, not the paper you provided!!! If you have statistics that prove that cats were not cats, and that dogs were not dogs, and that cats did not produce cats, and that dogs did not produce dogs, then show me such statistics, rather than simply implying that a link to a paper that costs money to download is an example of "methodological naturalism" that does the trick. If you understand the paper involved then why aren't you providing the statistics you are talking about, rather than caiming that anyone who does not download the paper has made his mind up to reject 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.

Well, "Exhibit C" actually bounces back on you. I asked you a number of questions. YOUR response is that I don't have "genuine curiosity". Now why don't you explain how ME asking questions, and YOU brushing them off in your usual manner is me "trying to win points in a debate", and not YOU? Don't be a hypocrite River! You just want to come here, throw mud at creationists, and pretend that anyone who does not simply swallow your claims is not genuinely interested.

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

Sure, who doesn't?????

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.

And, exhibit D, so have 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?

That is no more my "standard for truth" than yours is that whatever the majority of scientists believes establishes what truth is. So don't distort what I believe and I will try not to distort what you believe. OK?

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!

As far as I can see, no one has proven either one or the other. But what is you point exactly? That there are scientists who in the minority that are wrong? We all know that the opposite has also been shown to be true.

 

[River Jordan]

It most definitely would change a great deal because 'biblical literalists' has become pejorative language to put down people who accept a plain reading of ANY text...It would involve a radical change in mind-set by the thinkers and writers.

Help me understand. Let's say the authors, instead of using the label "biblical literalists" used something like "plain readers", "plain-reading interpreters", or even "true Christians". Keeping in mind that the reason for citing this paper in the first place was to answer the question "Are most 'evolutionists' atheists or theists", explain exactly how those new labels (or any other you want) would affect the answer to that question.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

UD,

It's quite simple. Regarding the data you requested, all I asked from the very beginning was that you "at least have the courtesy to look at it, make an effort to understand it, and come back with informed comments and questions." You've not done anything of the sort. When you're ready to do that, let me know.

 

[OzSpen]

Help me understand. Let's say the authors, instead of using the label "biblical literalists" used something like "plain readers", "plain-reading interpreters", or even "true Christians". Keeping in mind that the reason for citing this paper in the first place was to answer the question "Are most 'evolutionists' atheists or theists", explain exactly how those new labels (or any other you want) would affect the answer to that question.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

UD,

It's quite simple. Regarding the data you requested, all I asked from the very beginning was that you "at least have the courtesy to look at it, make an effort to understand it, and come back with informed comments and questions." You've not done anything of the sort. When you're ready to do that, let me know.

I'm wasting my time trying to explain an issue that came out of the article for which you provided a link. I read the entire article and addressed the approach used by the researchers.

Bye h34r:

 

[River Jordan]

Oz,

I think you misunderstood. The comments below the line and "UD" are to Uppsaladragby, not you. The only thing that's to you is:

Help me understand. Let's say the authors, instead of using the label "biblical literalists" used something like "plain readers", "plain-reading interpreters", or even "true Christians". Keeping in mind that the reason for citing this paper in the first place was to answer the question "Are most 'evolutionists' atheists or theists", explain exactly how those new labels (or any other you want) would affect the answer to that question.

 

[marksman]

Evolution gives them a leg to stand on / distract them from reality as it mocks scripture from a dizzy height.

What else are they supposed to believe? R Dawkins and friends are pushing atheistic /dysteleological evolution.


I would go as far as to question the Christaintiy of all who disregard even a single verse from scripture. TE's are at the top of my list in how they write off Genesis and every chapter thereafter mentioning Adam, Eve and Creationism.

The argument that scripture is either inspired (all true) or not (all false) flies completely over their head. It is just a matter of time before the bible gets a place next to noddy and big ears...by '''Christians'' .

Christianity 101 = John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

An excellent and perceptive comment KingJ.

I see. You are infallible and it is impossible for you to be wrong. Good to know.

Yes it is isn't it. To help you understand, if I quote the scripture "Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me" what I am saying is infallible as I am only repeating what Jesus said as what Jesus said is infallible. Now, I am not saying this to convince you of the infallibility of my words. I am saying this because it is a fact, whether you believe it is or not.

What you believe is totally irrelevant to me for the one simple reason that Darwin's anti-God philosophy, and that is what it is, it is not science, which offers no hope, no comfort, no happiness, no ultimate meaning. All it offers is a cold, mechanistic existence in which man's only purpose is to live as long as he can before he vanishes into everlasting oblivion. That is why atheist evolutionists are not bothers about millions of babies being murdered in the womb each year. Their attitude is "So what?"

Now balance that with a life which has meaning here and beyond the grave; a life that is abundant; a life that is provided for by the God of the universe; a life that enjoys the beauty of God's creation; a life that is not dependant on what I do; a life where God meets all my need according to his riches in glory; a life that will reap a reward of eternity in the New Jerusalem where God will provide for all our needs (won't even need a BBQ); a life where the lion will lay down with the lamb (not eat it); a life where the only climate change is where God's abundance overflows continuously; a life where there will be no killing; a life where babies will not be murdered in the womb and so on and so on so I ask you in all reality "what's not to like?"

If you believe that no hope, no comfort, no happiness, no ultimate meaning is better than ALL that, be my guest. But please, don't expect me to get on your bandwagon of nothingness because I am not that stupid. I mean, who would exchange a Ferrari for a Ford pickup?

And people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller advocate evolution as part of God's creation.

​Very few people who know what they are talking about deny evolution is part of God's creation but the evolution you are talking about is foreign to God. God's creation is an act of love by him to his creation, not an act of damnation. Let me explain.

According to a non evolutionary scientist (your type of evolution) a particular dog breed lives in a hot climate. As a result he has a short coat of hair because he doesn't need it to keep warm.

This same breed of dog ended up in a cold climate and as a result developed a coat of long hair to shield him from the cold. Still the same dog breed but one had short hair and one had long. That dear boy, is known as evolutionary adaptation created by God.

No change in species as atheistic evolutionaries insist, just a change in length of hair as a result of God's love for that animal. Without the long haIr the dog would perish.

So when you talk about evolution, you need to identify which type. God's our yours.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

I think you interpreted the "gist" of the study wrong.

Allow me to clarify for the "umpteenth" time.

The study found that if you disagree with the paradigm of its authors you must an uneducated fundamentalist unable to discern reality, you are also no doubt a child abuser, and an individual prone to violence. Only through acceptance that humans are infallible and God is a moron will you become enlightened. That is all. Resistance is futile.

 

[StanJ]

I think you interpreted the "gist" of the study wrong.

Allow me to clarify for the "umpteenth" time.

The study found that if you disagree with the paradigm of its authors you must an uneducated fundamentalist unable to discern reality, you are also no doubt a child abuser, and an individual prone to violence. Only through acceptance that humans are infallible and God is a moron will you become enlightened. That is all. Resistance is futile.

THAT sounds exactly like Richard Dawkins.

 

[JimParker]

um... yes :wacko:

Unless of course you can 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. Care to do that for us RJ?

Oh, and by the way, how many times am I allowed to post before you accuse me of being overly argumentative (something that obviously doe'snt apply to you :lol: ) ???

um....no. :mellow:

"Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes,"

God is not subject to "scientific research" nor is any other "supernatural" cause. (The word "supernatural" receives its meaning from: "super" = above, outside of; and "natural" = nature, creation)

Methodological naturalists apply the scientific method of forming and testing hypotheses. They work with what is available for testing (creation); God is not thusly available. (the Creator)

It has nothing to do with a dedication to or even an acceptance of atheism. It has to do with the proper application of good scientific methods in order to better under the CREATION, not the CREATOR.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

UD,

It's quite simple. Regarding the data you requested, all I asked from the very beginning was that you "at least have the courtesy to look at it, make an effort to understand it, and come back with informed comments and questions." You've not done anything of the sort. When you're ready to do that, let me know.

When you address the points I made concerning this then let me know.

 

[marksman]

From my experience over the years, all we can ascertain from evolutionary apologists is their ability to obfuscate and leave out relevant information that does not back up their claims.

​An example is the peppered moth so beloved of evolutionism. They claim that these moths are found on tree trunks whereas the truth is quite different. Their natural habitat is tree BRANCHES. In "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells, he says on page 149 that "Since 1980, however, evidence has accumulated showing that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks."

Apparently in an experiment conducted by Kauri Mikkola in 1984, he observed that the normal resting place for peppered moths is "beneath small, more or less horizontal branches,... and the species only exceptional rests on tree trunks."

​Although Mikola used caged moths, data on wild moths supported his conclusion as in Cyril Clark and his colleges found only ONE peppered moth naturally perched on a tree trunk.

​There is much more that could be said to back up this fact, but this shows that that evolutionists are apt to pick and choose what they want to believe as they do not have evidence for their fanciful ideas so they have to invent it.

 

[River Jordan]

Wow....just wow.

I showed you the field data from Majerus' 1988 study of peppered moths, showing that they do indeed rest on tree trunks. You completely ignored the data and now here you are repeating Wells' lie (and you know he's a "Moonie", right?). Unbelievable.

It's this sort of blatant dishonesty from creationism that gives Christianity a black eye, and is a factor in why our faith is in a free fall in the west. Absolutely unbelievable.... :blink: