Why do evolutionists have to lie to support evolution?

[Ktoyou]

Not to get off topic but is Paine banned again?

 

[noguru]

Actually not true. If you have a good case I will say so.

In this case I admitted to Johnny that he was correct that the title was flawed.

The reason I used the word "lie" was to emphasize that many of the arguments used by evolutionists are lies. The fact that those who repeat the lies may not realize that they are lies means only that they are not themselves liars, but merely dupes.

But a lie is still a lie, and many of the arguments are lies.

The real question is: who or what was the original source of the lie of evolution?

And why do so many otherwise intelligent people repeat the lie?

------

If I had thought about the title a bit longer I would probably have said: "Why do evolutionists have to use lies to support evolution?

Ans. Because the hard evidence to support their case is insufficient, so they repeat things that they learned by rote that frequently make little sense.

In the case at hand it really is not a scientific argument to imply that evolution must be true because some in the Church once taught that God created all lifeforms in a perfect state and they have never changed since then. All that proves is that humans are fallible, which is obvious.

I stand by my original statement. "You are impervious to logic and peer review."

 

[bob b]

I stand by my original statement. "You are impervious to logic and peer review."

If by that you mean I avoid jumping on a "bandwagon" when I think I have run across a much better idea then I plead quilty.

Actually I got off the evolution bandwagon 23 years ago and since then much evidence has surfaced to reinforce the wisdom of my earlier choice.

BTW, evolution is one of the most illogical ideas I have ever had the misfortune of bumping into.

Now if you actually have some hard scientific evidence to support evolution don't be shy. Let's hear it.

 

[noguru]

If by that you mean I avoid jumping on a "bandwagon" when I think I have run across a much better idea then I plead quilty.

Actually I got off the evolution bandwagon 23 years ago and since then much evidence has surfaced to reinforce the wisdom of my earlier choice.

BTW, evolution is one of the most illogical ideas I have ever had the misfortune of bumping into.

Now if you actually have some hard scientific evidence to support evolution don't be shy. Let's hear it.

No not at all what I meant. You are on a bandwagon. That bandwagon is the theological stance that any portion of Genesis should default to a literal interpretation until one is absolutely certain that it is not. This group then uses mysteries in natural philosophy to undermine our confidence in this discipline. This then allows the individual to not consider any evidence from natural philosophy that contradicts their literalist default position on Genesis.

You got off the evolutionist bandwagon and joined the one that vehemently opposes it when it contradicts a predetermined theological perspective. The evolutionist perspective, that we should consider the implications of evidence without using a specific interpretation of Genesis as scientific model for inquiry, is really what you reject.

You keep saying that evolution is illogical but that is because your logic meter is strongly effected by your theological stance.

I don't need to remind you of the evidence that supports evolution. You are quite aware of the evidence, but you reject it because of your committment to your specific predetermned theological perspective.

I know you are going to claim that your rejection of evolution was first and therefore not dependant on your current theological perspective. But I think your memory of the exact events and where this rejection of evolution started is hazy.

 

[Skeptic]

The reason I used the word "lie" was to emphasize that many of the arguments used by evolutionists are lies. The fact that those who repeat the lies may not realize that they are lies means only that they are not themselves liars, but merely dupes.

But a lie is still a lie, and many of the arguments are lies.

The real question is: who or what was the original source of the lie of evolution?

And why do so many otherwise intelligent people repeat the lie?

------

If I had thought about the title a bit longer I would probably have said: "Why do evolutionists have to use lies to support evolution?

Bob, why do you persist in using the word "lie" when you know very well that the word is overwhelmingly most often used to refer to a false statement made with the deliberate intent to deceive?

To use the word to mean merely a false statement is intentionally misleading on your part. While the word can technically be used to refer to a false statement, you know very well that the vast majority of readers will not interpret the word "lie" in that manner.

=====

Main Entry: lie
Function: noun
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying
source

lie
• noun 1 an intentionally false statement. 2 a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.
source

lie
noun
something that you say which you know is not true:
I told a lie when I said I liked her haircut.
source

lie
NOUN: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
source

Lie , n.
1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive.
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth.
3. Anything which misleads or disappoints
source

 

[noguru]

Bob, why do you persist in using the word "lie" when you know very well that the word is overwhelmingly most often used to refer to a false statement made with the deliberate intent to deceive?

To use the word to mean merely a false statement is intentionally misleading on your part. While the word can technically be used to refer to a false statement, you know very well that the vast majority of readers will not interpret the word "lie" in that manner.

=====

Main Entry: lie
Function: noun
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying
source

lie
• noun 1 an intentionally false statement. 2 a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.
source

lie
noun
something that you say which you know is not true:
I told a lie when I said I liked her haircut.
source

lie
NOUN: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
source

Lie , n.
1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive.
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth.
3. Anything which misleads or disappoints
source

I think Bob could replace "lie" or "intenionally mislead" with "unwittingly repeat lies" or "unintenionally mislead". However if his criticism was that many evoluionists unintentionally attemp to mislead others, the same can be said of many YEC's. So his criticism is a really just a wash and not a point that makes YECism a superior perspective.

 

[bob b]

I don't need to remind you of the evidence that supports evolution. You are quite aware of the evidence, but you reject it because of your committment to your specific predetermned theological perspective.

The evidence falsifies descent from a single primitive ancestor.

I know you are going to claim that your rejection of evolution was first and therefore not dependant on your current theological perspective. But I think your memory of the exact events and where this rejection of evolution started is hazy.

I posted on this forum what I wrote 24 years when I first realized that evolution from a single primitive ancestor was not possible. This article was written within hours of my "revelation".

You apparently feel that I must have been influenced by theological considerations, because you simply cannot believe that scientists can be wrong about something.

But I can only state that I also had been under the impression that so many scientists could not possibly have been so mistaken about this topic, and therefore I agonized greatly over my discovery. But my modus operandi all during my career was to go with the evidence, so I had no choice but to reject the concept, regards of the odds against me.

Thus, began an investigation that continues to this day. And all my subsequent investigations into the various topics like geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, etc. have only strengthened my belief that scientists were the ones that screwed up royally due to theological beliefs: i.e. they wanted to believe that creation was naturalistic, because only then would they be able to investigate creation of the universe and first life on Earth.

And many Christians have gotten sucked into the lie.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The evidence falsifies descent from a single primitive ancestor.

You wish. :rotfl:

I posted on this forum what I wrote 24 years when I first realized that evolution from a single primitive ancestor was not possible. This article was written within hours of my "revelation".

And we all know how useful revelation is in science.

You apparently feel that I must have been influenced by theological considerations, because you simply cannot believe that scientists can be wrong about something.

Scientists are frequently wrong. That's how we learn. You simply cannot believe that the bible is wrong.

But I can only state that I also had been under the impression that so many scientists could not possibly have been so mistaken about this topic, and therefore I agonized greatly over my discovery. But my modus operandi all during my career was to go with the evidence, so I had no choice but to reject the concept, regards of the odds against me.

When did you abandon reason for faith?

Thus, began an investigation that continues to this day. And all my subsequent investigations into the various topics like geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, etc. have only strengthened my belief that scientists were the ones that screwed up royally due to theological beliefs: i.e. they wanted to believe that creation was naturalistic, because only then would they be able to investigate creation of the universe and first life on Earth.

And many Christians have gotten sucked into the lie.

Please- explain how geology and astronomy have shown any such things. These sciences are married so neatly to the idea of an old universe that I would really love to see what you're talking about. Explain the conspiracy and who's really behind it.

 

[bob b]

And we all know how useful revelation is in science.

If you would read any serious history of science you would recognize how wrong you are.

Scientists are frequently wrong. That's how we learn. You simply cannot believe that the bible is wrong.

Yes, it has taken me some 20 years to gradually come to the conclusion (because of the evidence that has come to light) that the Bible was right and the critics that thought they had found errors were wrong.

When did you abandon reason for faith?

The two are quite compatible. With regard to evolution, it is the faith in its power to create that blinds men to the truth.

Please- explain how geology and astronomy have shown any such things.

Start your own thread if you wish.

These sciences are married so neatly to the idea of an old universe that I would really love to see what you're talking about.

If the universe was rapidly expanded then it is not old. The "old" universe inference is based on a false assumption. This should be obvious now that telescopes have discovered mature galaxies so close to the beginning of the expansion. That blows current theories "out of the water."

Explain the conspiracy and who's really behind it.

The conspiracy is obviously not of this world. It is explained in scripture in many books, with some of the explanation by Jesus Christ. Of course atheists do not believe in Jesus Christ.

The ideas of evolution are really quite ancient.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

If you would read any serious history of science you would recognize how wrong you are.

You are confusing inspiration with revelation.

Yes, it has taken me some 20 years to gradually come to the conclusion (because of the evidence that has come to light) that the Bible was right and the critics that thought they had found errors were wrong.

Really- it was a gradual process? You just claimed it was a revelation.

The two are quite compatible. With regard to evolution, it is the faith in its power to create that blinds men to the truth.

They can be compatible- and in many of the believers here they are. You just have to know where each experience fits- God, faith. Science, reason.

Start your own thread if you wish.



If the universe was rapidly expanded then it is not old. The "old" universe inference is based on a false assumption. This should be obvious now that telescopes have discovered mature galaxies so close to the beginning of the expansion. That blows current theories "out of the water."

You love to magnify molehills into mountains, don't you? It shows that galactic formation occurred earlier than predicted- all of the evidence still points to a billions of years old universe. Nice try, but no cigar.

The conspiracy is obviously not of this world. It is explained in scripture in many books, with some of the explanation by Jesus Christ. Of course atheists do not believe in Jesus Christ.

How very scientific of you, science lover. :chuckle: At least you are being up front about where your real alleigence lays. Really? Atheists don't believe in Jesus? Any brilliant follow-ups there, Cpt. Obvious? Is fire hot? Do bears poop in the woods?

The ideas of evolution are really quite ancient.

Some are. The idea that it has occurred has been kicked around since ancient times- the mechanisms by which it takes place are more recent. Bluntly, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[bob b]

Really- it was a gradual process? You just claimed it was a revelation.

I called my discovery that evolution was false a "revelation" (i.e. it came to me in a flash out of the blue). This started me on a long and gradual process of realizing (due to findings since) that the Bible was accurate and critics were wrong.

You love to magnify molehills into mountains, don't you? It shows that galactic formation occurred earlier than predicted- all of the evidence still points to a billions of years old universe. Nice try, but no cigar.

No molehill according to Science Daily and EurekAlert.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I called my discovery that evolution was false a "revelation" (i.e. it came to me in a flash out of the blue). This started me on a long and gradual process of realizing (due to findings since) that the Bible was accurate and critics were wrong.

1. That's not revelation. Revelation is just that- revealed.
2. What evidence do you have that the bible accurately describes the physical formation of the universe and all life within it? Not evidence against evolution or evidence against modern cosmology, but evidence for a biblical creation? All I've seen from you are attempts to poke holes in current theories not to create new ones.

No molehill according to Science Daily and EurekAlert.

I've read on the topic and I haven't seen anything suggesting a young universe- only that our understanding of galaxy formation and galaxy collisions is incomplete.

 

[bob b]

1. That's not revelation. Revelation is just that- revealed.

Maybe it was revelation. It certainly got me back on th right track.

2. What evidence do you have that the bible accurately describes the physical formation of the universe and all life within it? Not evidence against evolution or evidence against modern cosmology, but evidence for a biblical creation? All I've seen from you are attempts to poke holes in current theories not to create new ones.

My attempts are to help wavering Christians avoid hitching their wagon to the wrong star (evolution).

No need to do that. Creation of multiple types at the beginning is far more logical.

The idea that an interrelated control system like DNA/RNA/proteins could arise "naturally" is getting dumber and dumber with each new research finding. The atheists can't prop up their failing theory many more years at this rate.

BTW, that was what won me over 24 years ago. But then I hadn't been brainwashed as thoroughly as people generally are today. And I had learned to think about and evaluate things analytically as well.

You should try it sometime if you dare. But be warned. It will change your life (and afterlife) for the better to boot.

I've read on the topic and I haven't seen anything suggesting a young universe- only that our understanding of galaxy formation and galaxy collisions is incomplete.

You have got to be kidding. Any astrophysicist who suggested that a young universe might be true would be run out of town on a rail. You seem to be laboring under the silly idea that faculties at universities are not "politically correct". I have friends who are professors and even department heads and they tell a different story in private. And even laugh about it. Why not? It's better than crying!!

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Any astrophysicist who suggested that a young universe might be true would be run out of town on a rail.

Yes, and that is because of the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of a very old universe.

And Bob, it takes more than just talking about your miraculous equations that disprove an old universe to change any minds. Let's see them.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Maybe it was revelation. It certainly got me back on th right track.



My attempts are to help wavering Christians avoid hitching their wagon to the wrong star (evolution).

No need to do that. Creation of multiple types at the beginning is far more logical.

:lol: Only to those who believe inb a creator, and even then only to those who believe in your literal bible interpretation.

The idea that an interrelated control system like DNA/RNA/proteins could arise "naturally" is getting dumber and dumber with each new research finding. The atheists can't prop up their failing theory many more years at this rate.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the only ones who think that are the ones who believe otherwise to begin with- typically for religious reasons. You deny that this has anything to do with your stance, but it is certainly the case for most of these folks. Of course, since studies continue to shed light on the possible origins of life, I think your announcement of evo's obituary is as wishful as ever.

BTW, that was what won me over 24 years ago. But then I hadn't been brainwashed as thoroughly as people generally are today. And I had learned to think about and evaluate things analytically as well.

You should try it sometime if you dare. But be warned. It will change your life (and afterlife) for the better to boot.

You assume again and again that those of us who accept evolution do so because of brain washing and a lack of original thought. I am always thinking critically. If you have realistic evidence produce it.

You have got to be kidding. Any astrophysicist who suggested that a young universe might be true would be run out of town on a rail. You seem to be laboring under the silly idea that faculties at universities are not "politically correct". I have friends who are professors and even department heads and they tell a different story in private. And even laugh about it. Why not? It's better than crying!!

And you seem to be harboring the notion that science is more about politics than about truth. Of course, since that is the only way to justify your beliefs I don't hold it against you- but you should give some more credit to others for being thinking, rational beings just as you claim to be.

 

[noguru]

The evidence falsifies descent from a single primitive ancestor.

Which evidence(s) does that?

I posted on this forum what I wrote 24 years when I first realized that evolution from a single primitive ancestor was not possible. This article was written within hours of my "revelation".

I have heard your explanation for abandoning reason for your quest fr eternal bliss. I think your stories are distorted. Either because you are tying to overstate the case for your theological stance or because the accuracy of your memories has faded over time.

You apparently feel that I must have been influenced by theological considerations, because you simply cannot believe that scientists can be wrong about something.

I feel that you are influenced by theological considerations because that is what your comments lead me to believe. I am certain that scientists can be wrong. That is how science works. It is inaccurate much of the time. You are the one who is convinced that YEC's cannot possibly be wrong.

But I can only state that I also had been under the impression that so many scientists could not possibly have been so mistaken about this topic, and therefore I agonized greatly over my discovery. But my modus operandi all during my career was to go with the evidence, so I had no choice but to reject the concept, regards of the odds against me.

Your view of science then was distorted and your view of science now remains distorted. You are seeking absolute certainty regarding eternal bliss. So evolution makes an easy scapegoat for your wrath.

Thus, began an investigation that continues to this day. And all my subsequent investigations into the various topics like geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, etc. have only strengthened my belief that scientists were the ones that screwed up royally due to theological beliefs: i.e. they wanted to believe that creation was naturalistic, because only then would they be able to investigate creation of the universe and first life on Earth.

Your investigations are not thorough nor are they done in the true inerest of seeking truth. You have already discovered the "truth" that you prefer. That "truth" is attached to a literalist interpretaion of Genesis. Your efforts to blame naturalism for your own distorted view of natural philosophy is quite transparent.

And many Christians have gotten sucked into the lie.

Yes, you are quite adept at being sucked in by lies.

 

[bob b]

Which evidence(s) does that?

The evidence against neoDarwinism has accumulated via laboratory research to the point where even biologists are beginning to ask themselves questions.

The key for me was the nature of the DNA/RNA/protein system. I recognized immediately when I first saw the rough outlines of this system 24 years ago that this system could not have arisen gradually. Recently, an article in Nature chided colleagues for not recognizing that this was a critical problem. It is not enough to wave one's hand and declare that "abiogenesis is not a part of evolution".

It is also not enough to dismiss God's role in creating life by inplying that because some Christians mistakenly believe that "all species were created as they appear today and have never changed" that there is anywhere in the Bible where such a doctrine can be found.

Once one fully accepts that God created life, then the logic of multiple forms at the beginning is obvious, because life was designed by an intelligence far greater than we can imagine.

Life was designed to adapt, which is something that human designers have dreamed of doing and never really have fully achieved, at least when compared with biological life.

Give God the glory which He so richly deserves.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The evidence against neoDarwinism has accumulated via laboratory research to the point where even biologists are beginning to ask themselves questions.

The key for me was the nature of the DNA/RNA/protein system. I recognized immediately when I first saw the rough outlines of this system 24 years ago that this system could not have arisen gradually. Recently, an article in Nature chided colleagues for not recognizing that this was a critical problem. It is not enough to wave one's hand and declare that "abiogenesis is not a part of evolution".

It is also not enough to dismiss God's role in creating life by inplying that because some Christians mistakenly believe that "all species were created as they appear today and have never changed" that there is anywhere in the Bible where such a doctrine can be found.

Once one fully accepts that God created life, then the logic of multiple forms at the beginning is obvious, because life was designed by an intelligence far greater than we can imagine.

Life was designed to adapt, which is something that human designers have dreamed of doing and never really have fully achieved, at least when compared with biological life.

Give God the glory which He so richly deserves.

You do realize that acknowleding evolution doesn't preclude honoring God? I've seen some really great speeches on the topic by believers here, and they certainly don't sound like God doesn't deserve the glory of His achievement. In fact, all you have to do is acknowledge that the adaptation "program" has been present ever since that proteing folding hypothetical protocell. You keep equating evolution with atheism in a way that does a disservice to some really intelligent people.

 

[bob b]

You do realize that acknowleding evolution doesn't preclude honoring God? I've seen some really great speeches on the topic by believers here, and they certainly don't sound like God doesn't deserve the glory of His achievement. In fact, all you have to do is acknowledge that the adaptation "program" has been present ever since that proteing folding hypothetical protocell. You keep equating evolution with atheism in a way that does a disservice to some really intelligent people.

The vast majority of leading biologists are atheists.

Nuff said.

 

[noguru]

The vast majority of leading biologists are atheists.

Nuff said.

"Nuff said"? That is really good evidence Bob. It is a wonder your views have not taken hold. :chuckle:

Are we Chistians who accept evolution supposed to be ashamed of this?