Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edgar said:
It would be nigh on impossible for those who have a deep-seated, psychological, quasi-religious need to believe that life is billions of years old to “rethink” their position. The consensus of scientific community seems to reflect that need (addiction).
Click to expand...
Edgar said:
I suspect geology and paleontology are so skewed to conform to evolutionary theory (ie, very long ages) it’s hard to separate fact from potential fantasy.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Konspiracy Korner. Your guest speaker today will be Edgar who believes that so many branches of science do not individually confirm the age of the planet but actually adjust their figures to conform to evolutionary theory. Please, no laughing at the back thank you! This is meant to be taken seriously.

He will explain the difference between what he terms as quasi religious beliefs that it is billions of years old and actual religious beliefs that it is a few thousand.

Please set your phones to silent and your intellect to gullible.

Over to you, Eddy.
 
Last edited:
FredBloggs said:
Seems to me like you’ve chosen to simply reject the evidence and accuse the scientific community of a conspiracy theory instead. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Experience has taught me that Darwinism seems to cast a strange spell over the minds of many, the result being that intellectual integrity can suffer - badly. Therefore, I don’t trust the scientific community when it comes to anything to do with evolutionary science, because the scientists involved are not always objective, dispassionate or even rational.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
Welcome to Konspiracy Korner. Your guest speaker today will be Edgar who believes that so many branches of science do not individually confirm the age of the planet but actually adjust their figures to conform to evolutionary theory. Please, no laughing at the back thank you! This is meant to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
This smells suspiciously like a straw man. Anyhow, please be advised that I am an Old-Earther - I have no scientific or theologican objection the radiometric estimates of the earth being billions of years old. But there may be cases - due to the ubiquitity of the evolutionary paradigm within the scientific community - where old ages are attributed to phenomena that actually don’t require deep time. If the wood in said hammer had begun to turn into coal, then this suggests the formation of coal may not require millions of years. Or do you think said hammer is millions of years old?
He will explain the difference between what he terms as quasi religious beliefs that it is billions of years old and actual religious beliefs that it is a few thousand
Click to expand...
For this task you need to find someone else - as I mentioned above, I don’t believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. Even before Darwin, many geologists believed the evidence suggested that the earth could be millions of years old.
 
Last edited:
FredBloggs said:
The video suggests to me that there’s a Youtube channel dedicated to conspiracy theories and misinterpreting science.
Click to expand...
Possibly - YECs are notorious for their denial of any science that doesn’t conform to their theology.
 
Edgar said:
YECs are notorious for their denial of any science that doesn’t conform to their theology.
Click to expand...
I really have difficulty in believing that the person who wrote the above also wrote this:

“I don’t expect this particular belief system will disappear anytime soon - it will masquerade as science for as long as there are atheists to promote it.”

By the way, you are confusing the ‘straw man’ fallacy with an ad hominem.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
I really have difficulty in believing that the person who wrote the above also wrote
Click to expand...
Let me translate: People see things the way they believe them to be. We will twist and turn the data to fit the model we feel best describes the world. Sometimes this is a good thing because it is valid, but too much information is lacking, and therefore the simplest explanation will not be the best. The least skeptical are those who call themselves skeptics because they never question themselves.

I think the straw man label applies. I am under the impression he was referring to this comment:
Edgar who believes that so many branches of science do not individually confirm the age of the planet but actually adjust their figures to conform to evolutionary theory
Click to expand...
A couple points come to mind:
Evolutionary theory is just a story. A creationist understanding is not by necessity, although some are, at odds with the modern understanding of geological time.
Evolution is considered to be the fact to which any new scientific findings must comply. That’s why it’s so often, quite unnecessarily mentioned in scientific papers.

From my perspective there are no two sides of this debate; there is one’s personal understanding of what this existence is all about, that we can share.
I like John Archibald Wheeler’s take on learning - We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
The mystery ever deepens, ultimately to be revealed in one simple blinding moment, when we will know the Truth face to face, interestingly there from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Aloysium:
People see things the way they believe them to be. We will twist and turn the data to fit the model we feel best describes the world.
Click to expand...
There is a temptation to do that, but professional scientists strive to fight that temptation. They know it exists.
Click to expand...
There’s no temptation; that’s how the brain works. A theory is an attempt to bring some sort of coherence to observations and measurements. When a better theory comes along, that provides a more coherent and comprehensive explanation the old and new data, it will be favoured. Science is a continual work in progress and skepticism would be a must for every scientists; but academic and economic politics make this more uncommon that we would wish. Add ego to the mix, and some areas of science become stagnant, entrenched in old ideas that impede the growth of knowledge. This has always been and will be an unfortunate aspect of science, as it is a human social activity.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There is a temptation to do that, but professional scientists strive to fight that temptation
Click to expand...
Some of David’s Koresh’s followers were so convinced that he was the Messiah, they died for him. Their whole lives were based on a false belief. Many scientists are so utterly convinced that biological evolution is true, it shapes their approach to not only science, but their approach to life as well. They accept evolution as an indisputable and established fact and don’t even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. Accordingly, some of what they consider to be facts may be nothing more than assumptions.
 
Edgar said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
There is a temptation to do that, but professional scientists strive to fight that temptation
Click to expand...
Some of David’s Koresh’s followers were so convinced that he was the Messiah, they died for him. Their whole lives were based on a false belief. Many scientists are so utterly convinced that biological evolution is true, it shapes their approach to not only science, but their approach to life as well. They accept evolution as an indisputable and established fact and don’t even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. Accordingly, some of what they consider to be facts may be nothing more than assumptions.
Click to expand...
Your belief that scientists are so easily led to hold unwarranted assumptions as fact is itself an example of very type of illogical thinking that you are criticizing.
 
Every science-orientated online forum site I’ve participated in seems to be saturated with atheists. Science is their measure of truth - their god, in other words. Expressing doubts about “the truth” of evolution will quickly attract stern warnings from moderators. Dissenters are not tolerated.
 
Edgar said:
Every science-orientated online forum site I’ve participated in seems to be saturated with atheists. Science is their measure of truth - their god, in other words. Expressing doubts about “the truth” of evolution will quickly attract stern warnings from moderators. Dissenters are not tolerated.
Click to expand...
None of which is relevant to the title question of the thread.
 
Its relevance is that evolution is a new religion and religious intolerance is part of the human condition. A reason to think that the natural-evolution of the species is true is because that is what we are taught to believe, and pretty much must believe if one has an interest in pursuing a career in the biological sciences. Think that it is true or face ridicule and rejection.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Its relevance is that evolution is a new religion and religious intolerance is part of the human condition. A reason to think that the natural-evolution of the species is true is because that is what we are taught to believe, and pretty much must believe if one has an interest in pursuing a career in the biological sciences. Think that it is true or face ridicule and rejection.
Click to expand...
Yep…Creationist = flat earther
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Its relevance is that evolution is a new religion and…
Click to expand...
Any conclusion based on this unproven premise is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
We all have some connection to reality. Religion in the broadest sense involves a relationship with that which is of supreme importance. Empirical science is held by some as the means by which we have revealed to us the basic structure of the universe. That’s why you are speaking about a proof rather than talking about definitions or interpretations.

The picture that unfolds for me when I contemplate any scientific finding, is creation, what God has brought about through an act of divine will, with all its beauty, the grandeur, the truth and glory, reflecting who He is. Evolution is a simplistic, shortsighted attempt to speak to the existence of life, each expression having individual being and participating in, unified within something far greater. The concept reduces life to its bare bones, the constituent material parts, treating them as if their inherent properties were sufficient in providing a cause for the organization that is an organism. The superhuman controlling powers would be those not of God but of the fundamental forces of nature. While working in a lab does something to your soul, how one feels about living things, I would say that most biologists working in the field have a profound respect for nature and marvel at its wonders. Evolution as the means by which nature manifests itself in all its diversity is a dogma, unnecessary and actually deflecting us from a true understanding of life.
 
Last edited:
As long as you are expressing your personal view, there is no problem referring to how things “appear” to you. But if you want to convince anyone else of your view, you will need to reference a common starting point. When discussing a scientific theory, most people today make that common starting point the scientific method of observation, testing, and verification. If you expect to reach any of those people, you will have to reference the scientific method. But if you want only to preach to the choir of those who have rejected the scientific method or have redefined science in some other way, then just continue on as you have been doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top