Institute for Creation Research - No really, it's a thing.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

You know what is the worst of all this fundamentalist groups in America, yes including the Christian ones, they are all appealing to people specially those that follows fundamentalist views in their believes.

But interestingly this new age of new earth believers has been in the making for about two decades, now they have enough money and influences to push their derailed and false history as facts.

Let them run rampant and the bible will become the only book of history to be read in public schools, that is if the fundamentalism Islamic doesn't blow them to pieces first in a religious war in the US for a theocratic control of the nation..

a reply to: Lgbtlivesmatter

It is funny that you think I am ignorant yet you are the one making statements that are not even remotely intelligent.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

You seem to be confused while trying to explain what science is.

In science there are facts, hypothesis, and theories. The way those things are established is through the scientific method.There is more, but I do not want to overwhelm you.

Please see my signature on the meaning of theory because in science it has its own definition.

Lo and behold the more I read in the thread I see how the fundamentalist ideology of bashing science is in full gear.

As with everything when money talks bs walk, who knows they will get enough money to make the "new earth theory" to stick like chewing gum in the ceiling.

a reply to: Grimpachi


And still mostly based on theory. ... Try and slatntit however u like, it's still mostly based on theory with the goal of proving those theories correct

In fact ALL of science started as theory, against the common norm

Much like religion is a theory, condemning as such then is hypocritical .

so who are you to point fingers?

Curiously you defend it despite facts, like a religion

The parallels are striking

a reply to: Lgbtlivesmatter

You are not even close.

If it was mostly theory you wouldn't be reading this.


Try to think about it.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Lgbtlivesmatter

You are not even close.

If it was mostly theory you wouldn't be reading this.


Try to think about it.

And yet history says I'm not

a reply to: Lgbtlivesmatter

Religion is not a "Theory" is a mixture of myth, fantasy, intertwine with historical facts, created by men to control the masses with fear, when men were trying to find the reason for their existence and questioning those with power over them.

originally posted by: Lgbtlivesmatter

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Lgbtlivesmatter

You are not even close.

If it was mostly theory you wouldn't be reading this.


Try to think about it.

And yet history says I'm not

lol...I have seen people say scientific theories are just theories maybe a thousand times and that just means they don't know what those words mean, but you have taken it to the absurd by calling"science" a theory.

originally posted by: Lgbtlivesmatter
a reply to: Grimpachi

What you " consider" is inconsequential

And yet most of science is theory. Even scientist admit that


If you're ignorant of that then perhaps you should re evaluate your understanding

Could you please provide some examples of how science is only "theory" (I doubt you know the difference between fact, theory and hypothesis for scientists).

And which scientists "admit that"? I've been a scientist for over 30 years and have yet to hear that. So please enlighten us.

Thanks.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
So are there "illegitimate" questions about science? Is it OK to attack science or not? Do people have the right to do that or not?

Of course they do. But in the same light, people who understand the science have every right to call them out on the false poorly researched claims. Most of the time, the "questions" are attacks. So when folks take their time to explain the answers or the person's misunderstandings, it is often met with flat out denial, subject changes, quote mines, strawman definitions of evolution or scientific theory, red herrings, basically anything to avoid the main points.

There is a big difference between having a genuine question, and looking to blindly attack a scientific theory. The 1st is somebody who is seeking knowledge and information and willing to upgrade their understanding of the subject. The 2nd is somebody who is not rational and does not even research the side they are attacking. Their primary argument is denial.

As for persecution: meh. The "religious"/"scientific" people on ATS whine about being persecuted by the "scientific"/"religious" people.

Science savy folks aren't claiming persecution. They are defending evolution as a scientific theory, because there is sufficient evidence. In this case, they are demonstrating how certain folks (Ken Ham) bastardize science and rely on general ignorance and misunderstandings of science to sell a personal worldview as literal truth. This type of thinking is dangerous, IMO.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: bobbypurify

Im a christian and even I know youngearth creationism is a load of bollocks

Most Christians are rational like this guy. Virtually all of the ones I know are very nice people, and are not science denying literalists that home school their children to avoid it. It's just the YECers complain the most.

See this is where, once again, you presume to know more than you do. I completely understand the "basics". I also understand that basically it is based on assumption, speculation and faith. No hard evidence but lots of wishful thinking. Evolution has become nothing more than a tool for atheist to deny a creator.

Thanks Quad. You have just made my point for me, by posting unsubstantiated lies and rhetoric almost on cue when I needed an example. You have no evidence to support your view, and no evidence for an alternative theory. You do not even address the evidence for evolution, you just deny it. That is precisely what I was talking about above and you've done this numerous times in our encounters.

This whole thing is a comical parody where those pointing a finger at religion for being based on nothing but a theory .
fail to realise that science , which has become a religion is also based on nothing but ever changing theory.

Another example. Nothing tangible, nothing logical, just blind bashing from somebody that doesn't even understand what a scientific theory is.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Yes, scientific knowledge is based on theories.

Scientific Method

originally posted by: Barcs

Of course they do. But in the same light, people who understand the science have every right to call them out on the false poorly researched claims. Most of the time, the "questions" are attacks. So when folks take their time to explain the answers or the person's misunderstandings, it is often met with flat out denial, subject changes, quote mines, strawman definitions of evolution or scientific theory, red herrings, basically anything to avoid the main points.

This is entirely off-topic, but welcome to the life of a religious person ;-)

There is a big difference between having a genuine question, and looking to blindly attack a scientific theory.

Meh. Just because someone is attacking a scientific theory doesn't mean that their questions are genuine. Frankly, science, like religion, *needs* the attacks to separate the wheat from the chaff. In science, like other disciplines, groupthink can quickly take over and sometimes it is good to have people throw rocks at glass houses. Science is, or should be, big enough to deal with it. If evolutionary theory is *really* threatened by ICR, then it deserves what it has coming.

Science savy folks aren't claiming persecution. They are defending evolution as a scientific theory, because there is sufficient evidence. In this case, they are demonstrating how certain folks (Ken Ham) bastardize science and rely on general ignorance and misunderstandings of science to sell a personal worldview as literal truth. This type of thinking is dangerous, IMO.

Religious-savvy people aren't claiming persecution either. They are defending religion as a rational belief, because there is sufficient evidence. In this case, they are demonstrating how certain folks (like Richard Dawkins) bastardize science and rely on general ignorance and misunderstandings of science to sell a personal worldview as literal truth. This type of thinking is dangerous, IMO

That's why there's "attacks" on evolutionary theory, because it is (mis)used as a bludgeon to attack religious beliefs (and I agree with you, there are unfounded attacks on evolution, but there are also legitimate questions that are being asked.) If you really want to undermine places like ICR, get rid of those people who use their biology degrees to push materialism and attack religion. People react irrationally and defensively when something they value is under attack, and I've seen it from all sides. If instead scientists presented an attitude of humility, didn't belittle religious belief, and were big enough to treat their heretical creationist brethren with bemusement and attempt to find common ground instead of treating them like, well, heretics, places like ICR wouldn't be around. Honestly, I think most scientists don't have any reason to attack religion, but a few of them shoot their mouths off and give the rest of "science" a bad name.

What science needs now is enough humility to acknowledge that there are limits to their knowledge and that it's not crazy to hold sincere religious belief, even if you're a YECer. If scientists would make a concerted PR effort to do that, places like ICR might stop attacking science and start doing science.

But "oh no! We might lend credence to the crazies!" If the evidence of evolution is so overwhelmingly strong, then evolutionary theory has nothing to fear from the crazies. The best thing to do is not to quote science at them, but to educate them scientifically, to give them the tools they need to make educated decisions on their own. Sadly, even highly educated YECers and IDers are attacked and marginalized, MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE. It discourages devout religious people from entering important fields and makes the gap between the "fundies" and "science" even bigger.

I hope at least we can agree on that.

9a reply to: Barcs

You do not even address the evidence for evolution, you just deny it. That is precisely what I was talking about above and you've done this numerous times in our encounters. 

Now that is funny. When you give the same worn out assumptions and I show that they are not really evidence, that's not me "denying" that's you being delusional.
The fossil record is a prime example. I have showed countless times that it is assumed there are transitional fossils or LCA's. Everyone thinks it's been proven but no one can come up with the actual evidence. When I say "evidence" I don't mean assumptions or speculation.

a reply to: StalkerSolent
Very well stated stalker!!

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: StalkerSolent
Very well stated stalker!!

Thanks, Quadrivium!
I'd like to be able to find some common ground between creationists and evolutionists, but that's not going to start until people get off their high horses.

Maybe in the next few years, we'll find something...something so out-of-place and mysterious that it will fit nobody's narrative and promote out-of-the-box thinking.

Wouldn't that be nice...

a reply to: StalkerSolent

So true my friend! I find it remarkable that those that believe in a Creator are usually more open minded.
"All the knowledge we have is but a drop in the ocean of knowledge yet to learn".
You have to laugh at the "stark evolutionists" who say they are open minded. Their minds could not be more firmly closed. Their way or no way.

it is often met with flat out denial, subject changes, quote mines, strawman definitions of evolution or scientific theory, red herrings, basically anything to avoid the main points.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
This is entirely off-topic, but welcome to the life of a religious person ;-)

So you embrace that type of illogicality, just because you are religious? That doesn't sound fair as I know plenty of rational religious folks.

If evolutionary theory is *really* threatened by ICR, then it deserves what it has coming.

They are not even remotely close to being threatened by ICR. That was the point of this thread. These people need to be exposed for the joke they are. Yes, of course people should always be questioning all science, but the people that DO, should research the other side first.

Religious-savvy people aren't claiming persecution either. They are defending religion as a rational belief, because there is sufficient evidence. In this case, they are demonstrating how certain folks (like Richard Dawkins) bastardize science and rely on general ignorance and misunderstandings of science to sell a personal worldview as literal truth. This type of thinking is dangerous, IMO

LMAO. This is why our conversations go nowhere. You choose to create an irrelevant off topic parody and ignore all points made and steer the conversation far away from what we were talking about. Thanks for being THAT guy. I'm not going to bother reading the rest. Good luck in your mission to paint science as a religious belief, just know that most folks aren't buying it.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
9a reply to: Barcs

You do not even address the evidence for evolution, you just deny it. That is precisely what I was talking about above and you've done this numerous times in our encounters. 

Now that is funny. When you give the same worn out assumptions and I show that they are not really evidence, that's not me "denying" that's you being delusional.
The fossil record is a prime example. I have showed countless times that it is assumed there are transitional fossils or LCA's. Everyone thinks it's been proven but no one can come up with the actual evidence. When I say "evidence" I don't mean assumptions or speculation.

In our last conversation you said you believed micro evolution but not macro. I asked you numerous times to explain why micro evolutionary changes cannot accumulate over time to show larger change, and each time you deflected the question, and refused to even explain your point. You just dismissed it as faith, but you didn't explain why. We've run this rodeo to death. Just because you say something is assumed does not mean it actually is. You say this for any / all evidence that is presented. This is simple fact and anybody that searches for your recent post history in the last few months should see it. If you could present an answer to my question with some valid logic and reasoning then perhaps we can at least agree to disagree, but at this point it's not just a matter of personal opinion.

originally posted by: Barcs

So you embrace that type of illogicality, just because you are religious? That doesn't sound fair as I know plenty of rational religious folks.

Nope, missed my point entirely. My point was that religious people have to deal with these sorts of attacks all the time. If you look at some of my posts on threads that are about religion you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not a minister or anything, but I have to do double duty to get people not to misinterpret the Bible.

They are not even remotely close to being threatened by ICR. That was the point of this thread. These people need to be exposed for the joke they are. Yes, of course people should always be questioning all science, but the people that DO, should research the other side first.

I certainly hope that wasn't the point of this thread. If it was, I am greatly disappointed in the OP.

LMAO. This is why our conversations go nowhere. You choose to create an irrelevant off topic parody and ignore all points made and steer the conversation far away from what we were talking about. Thanks for being THAT guy. I'm not going to bother reading the rest. Good luck in your mission to paint science as a religious belief, just know that most folks aren't buying it.

Heh. The rest was on-topic. But now who's avoiding the main points?

ETA: seriously, you're complaining about how people refuse to engage and deflect points and then doing it yourself. And, furthermore, I don't have a mission to paint science as a religious belief, nor do I have any desire to equate the two. Don't twist my words. I apologize if I am unclear sometimes; I have nuanced positions that may be difficult to understand. But they should be more than intelligible if you're genuinely interested in understanding them.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Quadrivium
9a reply to: Barcs

You do not even address the evidence for evolution, you just deny it. That is precisely what I was talking about above and you've done this numerous times in our encounters. 

Now that is funny. When you give the same worn out assumptions and I show that they are not really evidence, that's not me "denying" that's you being delusional.
The fossil record is a prime example. I have showed countless times that it is assumed there are transitional fossils or LCA's. Everyone thinks it's been proven but no one can come up with the actual evidence. When I say "evidence" I don't mean assumptions or speculation.

In our last conversation you said you believed micro evolution but not macro. I asked you numerous times to explain why micro evolutionary changes cannot accumulate over time to show larger change, and each time you deflected the question, and refused to even explain your point. You just dismissed it as faith, but you didn't explain why. We've run this rodeo to death. Just because you say something is assumed does not mean it actually is. You say this for any / all evidence that is presented. This is simple fact and anybody that searches for your recent post history in the last few months should see it. If you could present an answer to my question with some valid logic and reasoning then perhaps we can at least agree to disagree, but at this point it's not just a matter of personal opinion.

My answer is still the same barcs. Macro evolution "could" have happened. I have said so many times before.
However, "could" does not mean it "did" happen. For a person with a Naturalistic mind it explains things very well.
Still, that does not mean it happened. There is no ACTUAL proof. Only lots people saying there is proof.
ETA: And no they are not the same. Micro evolution would be when the bill of the finches adapt to better catch food.
Macro evolution would be the finches eventually becoming lizards (just an example).

originally posted by: Quadrivium
originally posted by: Barcs

My answer is still the same barcs. Macro evolution "could" have happened. I have said so many times before.
However, "could" does not mean it "did" happen. For a person with a Naturalistic mind it explains things very well.
Still, that does not mean it happened. There is no ACTUAL proof. Only lots people saying there is proof.
ETA: And no they are not the same. Micro evolution would be when the bill of the finches adapt to better catch food.
Macro evolution would be the finches eventually becoming lizards (just an example).

Here's a fun exercise for Barcs (and everyone else.)
1. Calculate the time between now and when the first life is supposed to have evolved (3.6 billion years.)
2. Calculate the total number of species supposed to have lived (around 1 billion.) (Link)
3. Calculate the needed rate of speciation per year to get from where we started to where we are now. Average rate: around 1 per every 3 years, if my math is OK...and it may not be.
4. Wonder how this meshes with the evolutionary doctrine that evolution is a slow process that takes place over time (as we've observed in species like the Hawthorne fly

This by no means is an ironclad takedown of evolution, largely because we are ignorant of a great many (even current) species (remember, the majority of species are small, insect-like things) and thus would have no way to measure their change. But if evolution on a larger scale (i.e. macro evolution) is not measured in the next few hundred years, the case against evolution begins to look worse and worse. I don't even know when the most recent major evolutionary shift is supposed to have taken place (i.e. ape-like ancestor -> men, or something similar) but to the best of my knowledge, it's not recent, making the case even worse.

But, you may object, evolution is triggered by certain events and takes place rapidly! Does it, now? Then you have the junkyard tornado problem, which is dismissed because evolution happens slowly. If the evidence indicates that evolution is happening too slowly to explain the species we see today, then the theory has some problems.

Now, if I was really smart, I'd have calculated all the macroevolutionary events needed and figured out their rate of evolution. I'm not. But this is something to chew on. I'm guessing that within 400 years we'll be changing our perceptions of evolution one way or another because of this.