Mange, frankly, I don’t get that.
How can you just pick the bits you like and make it all up as you go along?
On what do you base your picking and choosing?
How far can you go, in making things up, and still be an adherant of the Christian religion?
Latro, I don’t know if you’ve read this thread on Biblical Inerrancy or not, but I think you’ll find that many of the posts within it address your question directly.
Mars: it’s Mange Tout (‘eat everything’ in French).
Latro: for me, at least, it’s a case of having had (what I subjectively believe to be) encounters with God - I believe that the writers of the Bible had similar encounters, but, like me, they were human and prone to error through over-excitement, limited perspective and whatnot.
I don’t so much ‘pick and choose’, utterly discarding bits - even myth can have value and even in cases where (arguably) the Bible gets it entirely backward (like bits that maybe say it’s OK to slaughter innocent babies), there are still important lessons to learn.
I try to avoid ‘making things up’ as much as possible and I’ll be an adherent of the Christian religion as long as it will let me stay.
Yes there is a lot of picking and choosing in that thread.
It’s just that it popped up here…
- The overall skull size has not changed that much.
- This is a fairly minor change (just changing the size) of an existing structure, not development of a totally new feature.
- Far more drastic changes to domestic breeds have happened in the space of 100’s of years have happed though selective breeding (of dogs for instance) by man.
- There is nothing unreasonable at all about nature taking 2 million years to make the types of changes that we could render to an organism in a couple hundred.
Contrary to your opinion, I have read, been exposed to, and actually weighed the evidence from both sides of the arguement for myself. I am intelligent enough to make the same deductions as the people who wrote these book myself. I also have personal, direct experience with the (there is no way to say this politely) willful liars that make up a large part of the creationist “leadership”. I will relate one true story for you that happened quite recently.
If you refer to this page within answers in genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1294.asp
You will find a pretty convincing sounding account of why the moon cannot possibly be older than 1.4 billion years. It is shown “conclusively” by calculation. The great part (for most creationists reading it) is that most if not all them do not have the math skills or the physics to evaluate the claim for themselves. Also, it was done by a guy with a PhD in physics. Everything looks great on the surface.
Here’s the problem. I have the smarts, and the background to evaluate that piece of work, and it is wrong. period. The formulas that were used are completely MISSING a term required to get the right answer. (This term would account for the different orbital periods of the moon as its orbit changes, and specifically the changing ratio of moon orbital period to the earth’s rotational period). I notified the site of the error. First they asked if I had a PhD in physics. No, but immaterial. After going round and round via email with several of their people it was resolved that really they couldn’t understand my point, and certainly didn’t understand how their Dr DeYoung got his figure. They weren’t budging on my word. So, I contacted Dr DeYoung directly. After a couple exchanges, he quickly concluded that I was right, and that the missing term would have an impact on the numbers. He declined to rework the problem correctly, but did say quite directly that the information as published was meaningless. So, I forward all this stuff to answersingenesis.com. You would think that if the person they were publishing said that it was wrong, they would take it down. I mean, if you know that evidence that you are using to support your possition has been discredited, you would be “LYING” if you continued to use it. Six months later, the info is still there, just like I never existed.
Now, you might think this is just one little story and just one little piece of evidence right? Well, this is one that I (me, myself) have experience with personally.
Now, listen up. MOST of the FACTS that little creationists are handed by big creationists to make the little creationsists think that creation is on solid scientific ground are FALSE. Not only are they false, they have been many time publicly demonstrated as false during debates. And during those debates, the creationist admits that this piece of evidence is wrong and should not be used any more. Guess what, you will find (if you follow these debates) that very same creationist spokesperson/debater using the exact same piece of evidence that he has admitted just a week or two before (publicly) is not true. You will find the same egregious errors in edition after edition of creationist books that have been pointed out by many people, if the error supports their position and correcting it would weaken that position.
hmmmmmmm… Do you know why they do this? Well, there is the obvious, that they are quite willing to lie to support their misguided cause… but much more importantly, if they quit using evidence every time that it was proven (even in their eyes) to be wrong, they wouldn’t have much left to talk about. And that just wouldn’t do.
That is also why, when you bring all the swell sounding evidence to a debate with people who have ACTUALLY studied the stuff, not just been parroting the “playbook” their side has handed them, it gets shot down in about 2 seconds. We have seen the stuff before. It takes no work to disprove because it has already been done… The creationist have already admitted that it isn’t good evidence and yet they still keep in the playbook and feed it to the people who want to believe so bad they are unwilling to really look at the evidence for themselves or just aren’t smart enough to follow it.
This makes the big creationist blatent liars in my eyes. However, if it made you feel better. I could get one of those book you mentioned specifically, and right here in this forum tear the evidence and/or logic apart.
GET THIS… there is no meaningful debate left over the evidence. Genesis did not literally happen.
That’s pretty impressive Scott.
You’re quite right of course; there are numerous examples of diehard creationists clinging to positions that have been thoroughly debunked - good examples might be “the complete geological column does not exist anywhere on Earth”(wrong), “the moon should be covered with a thick layer of dust”(wrong) and “speciation has never been observed”(wrong).
There are still places where you can find the Paluxy river tracks being cited and stuff about polystrate trees being proof that all sedimentary rocks were formed much more quickly than otherwise thought.
I have always been under the impression that Creationists were just blinded by their faith. Selective sight. Unable to see the evidence before them. I have attributed it to being ignorant or stubborn, rather than acting with malice.
I now see that I have been too easy on them.
They are deliberately lying to mislead the less informed.
Thank you scotth for your excellent post.
But most (if not all) of the creationists we encounter here on the board are the ‘less informed’ variety (although they feel themselves to be very well informed - that’s what the creationist sources try to do).
Latro: There are two laws in Christianity. “Love God with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your mind” and “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
All the rest is commentary.
What baffles me about many Christians is not the plethora of divisions and arguments about what the commentary means, its truth or falsity in general or in particular, the myth-making and myth-destroying and the politics and the minutiae of additional belief and additional conformity that a variety of sects pursue because they take one section of the commentary to be more meaningful than the other, or to carry additional suggestions about virtue. That just strikes me as being human.
What baffles me is that in doing all this, so many can completely misplace the laws that their prophet told them were the central ones upon which everything else hangs and from which everything else derives.
Thanks, Mangetout and Algernon.
Hebzabeb, I should also mention that it would appear (even by the very limited amount posted so far) that you have a completely lack of understanding of how science works.
Do you know how scientist verify theories?
Surprise, they DON’T. They spend all their time trying to disprove them after they have been forwarded by someone. Theories that survive 100 plus years of the most exhaustive comparision to measurable reality tend to be pretty well established at the end of everything.
You obviously have the completely misguided notion that scientist have a “vested interest” in preserving evolution or ANY OTHER THEORY for that matter. That could not be further from the truth. The best test of any theory is taking it to its most extreme points and comparing it to what is observed. Scientists, not creationists, have been working most effectively to find problems with Evolution. Scientist don’t really care if evolution is true, they just want to know what is true. If evolution is it, well, so be it. Right now, evolution stands after a century of full frontal assault on every one of its tenents by people who have made their life work the study of biological systems. If evolution is going to be found wrong, it will be due to new discoveries made at the cutting edge of biological science that contradict some aspect of it. The evidence as it exists today is completely consistent with the idea.
Totally unrelated field, but the history of quantum mechanics is a great example of this. Scientists were (and many still are) quite appalled to find how nature works on the scale of the very tiny. Many found the notions quite contrary to common sense. But, the true test of any theory is how it stacks up to reality. Quantum mechanics agrees with measured reality superbly. So, regardless of the fact that it is contrary, confusing, and downright disturbing to many that study it, it is held (rightly) as the crown jewel of physics because of its stunning accuracy when compared to nature.
Furthermore, what does it matter that Evolution specifically is contrary to Genesis. Even if Evolution (as the theory that describes the mechanics of change over time) is proven completely wrong. It would not even begin to put Genesis on solid footing. You seem to be under the impression that there are two theories in competition. That is wrong. Theories do not compete with each other. Theories only compete with the evidence (nature). If some stunning revelation appears that rules out the current mechanism of evolution, literal creation is not helped one little tiny bit. It would only prove evolution wrong, it would not prove any other alternative, including creationism, right. It does not have to be A or B, it could be a C we haven’t even thought of yet.
The “evidence” you threw up all by yourself as contradictory to evolution (though it wasn’t), certainly isn’t compatible with the idea of creation in genesis. That one little piece, humanoid fossils that exist that are 2 million years old are completely incompatible with and destory the arguement of a literal genesis.
Well, if genesis is ruled out as a literal story… what is the problem with picking evolution as the best support theory? You can still claim God did if you want…
How do you know that what evolution scientists aren’t really doing is revealing for all the world how He (God) wrought his creation? I don’t believe that personally, but it is consistent with the known facts.
The universe is what it is. No amount of wishing, hoping, or simply disliking it is going to change that. The universe does not care what you or I or anyone else “thinks”. If you want to understand what is really going on, you better look straight at nature and pay attention. Trying to bend nature to a preconcieved notion of how it should be will not alter reality one bit. It will just leave you deluded.
Thank you Mangetout for your gentle chastisement of my post (which, to my regret, was written with just a little too much emotion).
I did not intend to paint all creationists with the malice brush, especially those posting here at the SDMB.
Ouch. Careful Scott, you’re scaring away all the fish. 
**
This is just a strawman. Are processes “random” if selection is involved? Or if the laws of physics are involved? The fact is that the evidence points to the origin of life being a natural process, unguided by any intelligence. See my FAQ, which can be found in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=128779
As for Behe’s lies, try this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/textbooks.html
There are other faqs there on Behe, too. Personally, I tried to read Darwin’s Black Box, but I think you can understand that as a molecular biologist I gave up in disgust. Behe’s arguments are just too dishonest, particularly when he starts making up facts to support his foregone conclusions. Take, for example, his claim that tubulin is covered in little “needles” that fit into “holes” on adjacent tubulin monomers. It’s completely false. The needles and holes simply do not exist. Behe just made them up, because he thought it would make his argument more impressive.
As for Johnson, I haven’t read Defeating Darwinism, but I have read Darwin on Trial. Johnson’s favorite tactic is to decry an evolutionist argument as being “ad hoc.” If you know enough about the relevant science, you see that any time he dismisses an argument as “ad hoc,” it’s because he can’t rebut all the evidence that supports it, so he has to just lie and declare that the evidence doesn’t exist. If you’re interested, I’ll go into some details.
Hepzabeb, what books have you read on evolution that were actually written by evolutionists?
Awesome, I now know how to find a molecular biologist when I need one. (I am not kidding)
I try very hard to be accurate in what I write. I can’t be an expert on everything (or anything really), so, if you see cross the line, feel free to straighten me out… even if we are arguing the same side.
Hepzabeb - Thanks for stepping up to the plate. At least you took strike three swinging. You will find, as myself and many have, that this is not the forum for discussing things unless you have substantiated facts and overwhelming logic to back you up.
Scott, Mangetout, and Cynic are way to sharp on these topics. As they taught me, their logic built on layers of well supported evidence can not be reasonably overturned. I love learning and the reason I joined the SD was for that reason. I also came with something to give too. I think one of my strong points is asking good, logical questions regardless of the subject. These gentlemen were able to answer all questions with absolute resolve. And if they don`t know the answers they tell you.
Enough dick sucking, I hope to see you gentlemen around the SD for some time to come.
**
Actually, edwino and (iirc) DrLao are also molecular biologists of some stripe or another.
I find your attitude to be admirable!
I have read Defeating Darwinism, and about all I can say is that Johnson does a remarkable job of setting up creationists for defeat when arguing against evolution. His presentation as to what evoutionsts are, or are not, allegedly reluctant to discuss is pretty wild. Example:
- Defeating Darwinism, p59
Note the casual introduction of a strawman at the end there (this, mind you, only 18 pages after he defines the concept of a “strawman” argument in order to equip his readers with the neccesary “baloney detectors” to defeat Darwinism!).
He continues (immediately following the above paragraphs):
Creationists who use the above advice is any sort of debate with someone who has actually studied evolution will be in for quite a rude awakening.
Later, Johnson falls back on the old tactic of quote-mining, this time quoting a passage from Niles Eldredge regarding the appearance of the fossil record, and how it appears to conflict with the established “fact” of evolution. Of course, anyone who has studied the topic will recognize Eldredge’s quote as being a set-up for Eldredge’s & Gould’s theory of Punctuated Equilibrium: that is, the fossil record appears static for much of the time because, perhaps, evolution is static for much of the time, with speciation occurring quickly between periods of stasis.
The rest of the book proceeds along remarkably similar lines, and I doubt that anyone who has had any experience with creationist arguments will be surprised at what Johnson says: we’ve heard it all before. Lots of false claims about the nature of evolution and what evolutionsts allegedly really know (and what they allegedly really don’t know), ID, probability arguments, etc. As I said, if creationists use the argument techniques as outlined in the book against anyone versed in evolutionary biology, they are destined to crash and burn.
Perhaps what is most remarkable about the book, however, is the unabashed plea to not accept evolution period. That is, not even “theistic evolution” - creation all the way, baby!
**
There’s no evidence of that, other than the writings of his exceedingly-biased followers. That is not proof of any sort. Unless you also consider Elvis God, because a number of people have seem him after he died.
Kirk
I know you’re being facetious, Kirk, but this is actually a very good analogy. Imagine if we did not have modern technology, newspapers, video, television, etc. Look at how much the Elvis legend has grown in the last quarter century even WITH this stuff, including all the “sightings” and the Elvis is alive theories. In a much more primative culture, with no mass media, only word of mouth for information, and a population which is already very credulous about “magic,” “healings,” miracles," and so on, it is not hard to see how a charismatic and popular personality could be mythologized and even deified over time.
…Elvis is dead?