Well I'm not great on discussion forums having never participated before and not being quite sure how to get around though these things usually become rapidly self-evident. In any case to state my position -I was an evolutionist until around April last year when for the first time I was shown evidence for creation that I had never been aware of. I was shocked to say the least and began to investigate. It took a few months of avid reading before I was prepared to come out and admit that I no longer believed in evolution since it seemed such a ridiculous possibility considering how the whole world appeared to believe it . This stand was met with mostly hostility as if by my stand I had completely destroyed the holy grail. I found the reactions every bit as radical as Muslims, Roman Catholics etc being given evidence against what they believed. Though it was difficult to defend in the beginning -I find it easier and easier in a civilized environment; every conversation I have with evolutionists just adds to my information on the subject as I don't pretend to know everything and enjoy doing the research to inform myself. Anyway I might as well give it a go here and see what everyone has to say.
Oh well give this your best shot - what is it that most convinces you that evolution is true -sorry just have to ask -it always interests me to know this whenever I meet an evolutionist. Most people seem to be just generally impressed by a plausible story and don't know much about what they believe at all - I sense I may get some more enteresting answers on this site.
Well lets just put it this way -I was an evolutionist in the sense that everybody is an evolutionist or so I thought. Learned it at school and beyond -never doubted it, never considered or realized that there was doubt out there -after all scientists are dedicated professionals with no bias at all -so I thought until I realized that everyone has a bias.
'So, let's see. You've made up in your head a lot of stupid bullshit about the content of this site."
No actually I have not made up my mind about anything in this site but you seem to have made your mind up about what I think and I have not drooled anything out as far as I can recall.
I think creationists make more sense of the evidence, yes in that sense I suppose I support creation at this point. Evolutionists tend to push their beliefs very aggressively though I have not found them particularly convincing. When I supported evolution, I did so only as a result of conditioning -never really questioned the paradigm, now I question it continually.
The problem is that you are speaking of genetic variations not macroevolutionary changes which we never see so in fact evolution is not occurring every day before our eyes. Evolutionists extrapolate that variability and adaptation to the assumption that macroevolution has occurred and is still occurring. The whole thing goes back to "we're here, there is no God, so it must be what happened" -it's called a plausible story but requires much faith in something not observable by the scientific method.I suppose I'm off the topic of this section but anyway -there it is.
Which transitional fossils impress you? Which known examples of speciation do you find conclusive? If you start with a different world view, you will come to different conclusions with the same evidence. Whose conclusions does the evidence better support? I've proposed a new topic.
On the side of ID and Creationism are laywers and PR experts and a multi-million dollar budget
Not as far as creationists are concerned. Let's face it creation is not sponsered by tax dollars since it is not the official religion.Creationists are lucky to keep their jobs in an aggressively evolutionary paradigm and even though you've been told all this rubbish about massive funding and PR for creationists, isn't it obvious that that can't be true relative to what evolutionists have at their disposal? I call it evolutionary propoganda.Neither are creationists politicians and lawyers by definition, rather some creationists happen to be involved in politics or the law and the same for evolution except evolution is the official brainwash for all school and university students so there are far more politicians and lawyers out there to support you.
Content is much more difficult to judge on, but with time you can see the lack of content on one side versus the massive content on the other.
There is no lack of content only content you don't really want to hear so you miss everything you don't feel like believing because you assume contradictory evidence is just propoganda when you should actually check it out and make sure of that.
"Teach the Controversy" - it's a genius catchphrase that appeals to the sense of fairness in us all.
Teach the controversy is just your opposition attempting to get the truth heard - not by introducing ID or creationism into the classroom but by allowing the evidence against evolution to be taught alongside its so-called proofs. Why would this be so threatening? If there is no evidence against it, evolutionists should really allow it with a chuckle but they don't. They don't really want children to hear the downside just in case logic and truth takes hold of them and another potential evolutionist is lost.
Thanks again for helpful tips Razd. I am getting the point.
The problem is that what you think, what you personally understand, and who you feel makes more sense, all have absolutely no bearing on what is true.
You're absolutely right. You should join us creationists, that's why we exist. If something's not true, we don't care what the majority believes or was brainwashed into believing, we only care about what is true which is why we stick our necks out against tremendous odds. I hear all the 'evidence' on both sides but the evidence against evolution impresses me as well as the evidence for creation which makes evolution sound like a fairytale of epic proportions.
it is evident that you don't really understand evolution as a starting point, so what you question is very likely a false impression.
That again is what we say about evolutionists. They don't really understand the creation/ID argument but the problem is this, most creationists/ID proponents were evolutionists before. It's the world religion -we were all brought up on it -most evolutionists never hear the dissenting evidence but some, when they eventually do, are persuaded by logic to give it some thought rather than dismiss it summarily. Evolutionists have lots of stories, plausible stories unsupported by the evidence. Just because a story is plausible does notmean it is necessarily true. Check how many of their stories are actually experimentally verifiable and which ones are assumed after the initial assumption that evolution is true, being extrapolated on.
Not any old conclusion can be reconciled with a given body of evidence regardless of world view. It is simply not possible to fit any worldview onto a given set of evidence.
Well said. However the 150 year old theoretical proposal by Darwin has not lived up to its promises and does not fit the evidence. Nevertheless evolutionists keep trying to stuff the evidence into their paradigm they have been led to believe and everyone of the innumerable anomalies that falsify the theory are either stuffed as far out of the way as they can safely go or else a plausible story is invented to explain them away. Evolution -the story the facts have failed. Creation -the story that fits the facts far far better. The reason evolutionists refuse the other option is that brainwashing has done its job and the alternative sounds preposterous to them. But if its the truth.....???
By the time Darwin presented his data and his arguments, it was impossible to reconcile a young earth or static species or special creation of species into the known evidence.
No it wasn't then nor is it now. However, there are always lots of people in the world that are exceptionally eager to accept an alternative option in order to avoid God. The church was made to believe that evolution was proven by science and many clergymen and churches came up with their own 'plausible stories' of how the Bible actually allowed for long ages inbetween various verses. Read Genesis 1-11 and tell me whether on straightforward examination there is any possibility of turning 'days' into millions of years without applying vast imagination to the text?
The Theory of Evolution is accepted by many if not most Christian Clergy.
You're right -they've been as brainwashed as the secular world in school as well as in their seminaries. This is not to say a deceitful bunch are propogating lies just that evolution has become the accepted paradigm no longer questioned and nobody is very forthcoming with the dissenting evidences. Any dissenting evidence is sidelined or else allotted a plausible story to allow its existance. In most cases, they (the clergy) have never heard of any of the dissenting evidence.I know some clergy that are violently anti-creation, without even hearing the opposing evidence.They may just as well be violently anti their own Bible which does not allow for evolution if taken at face value - which it must be or else every cultic interpretation will be allowed -in which case it has no meaning and can be left to every individual's vain imaginings.
I was taught evolution at university by brainwashed profs who I have no doubt were not attempting to deceive me; they also never heard the dissenting evidences and were themselves deceived by the ruling and accepted paradigm.
disproving Evolution does not add any weight to Biblical Creationism.
Absolutely! But if creation is true then there should be loads of supporting evidence which is why I support the cause -I know of loads of facts that defy evolution and confirm creation and they just don't come up in your average bio text.It's a logic and truth matter, not a conspiratorial motion.
there is no conflict between Creation and Evolution
Not true, they not only conflict, in a lot of ways they are polar opposites. If the Genesis account of creation is not true, then exactly when in the Bible does truth kick in? I say if Genesis 1-11 is not true then we can safely say that the Bible is not Gods Word at all (even though He promised to preserve it through His people for all generations to know the truth of what they are doing here).If the Genesis account is not true then we may as well throw the entire Bible out as questionable at best and certainly not to be relied apon. Of course if we do that then man's words will have to do but man was not there when the world began so their words would be historical speculation at best and major invention at worst.
Taking Genesis as myth leaves the entire Bible open to personal interpretation.