A Creationists View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution

[Retro Rob]

I don't think you're supporting your earlier statement "I would even argue that the more I learn about biology, the more I believe we were created."

As I molecular guy, I would agree with Gigantopithecus's opinion that said creator was some mixture of insane or cruel.

No, I don't think I or we know everything.

So that means you could be wrong, which was basically my whole point. It's quite ironic you say you don't know everything, while supporting a factual claim against the apparent design of the human body.

Maybe if you preface your statement with "in my opinion" instead of "as a molecular guy" (which does nothing to quantify your field of expertise) I'd more seriously value your opinion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So that means you could be wrong, which was basically my whole point. It's quite ironic you say you don't know everything, while supporting a factual claim against the apparent design of the human body.

Maybe if you preface your statement with "in my opinion" instead of "as a molecular guy" (which does nothing to quantify your field of expertise) I'd more seriously value your opinion.

A hypothetical question. You have metastatic cancer and you die as a result. Discuss the upside for you as a biological organism.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

This post is sponsored by the Wake and Bakery.

Man, I want to smoke some bud.

 

[Retro Rob]

A hypothetical question. You have metastatic cancer and you die as a result. Discuss the upside for you as a biological organism.

Forgive my ignorance, but I am not sure where you're getting at.

 

[Gibsons]

So that means you could be wrong, which was basically my whole point. It's quite ironic you say you don't know everything, while supporting a factual claim against the apparent design of the human body.

Maybe if you preface your statement with "in my opinion" instead of "as a molecular guy" (which does nothing to quantify your field of expertise) I'd more seriously value your opinion.

You were offering up "the more I study biology" as part of your argument. What then if someone who knows a great deal more biology than you disagrees with your subsequent claim? The more I study biology, the more I think all life on earth is a product of evolution, not a designer.

If we were designed, hoo boy. Look into Huntingtons, and some of the leukemias. There are some easily fixable flaws there, from the perspective of a creator/designer. Yes, again, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident in this case that I'm not.

Since you asked, I have a Ph.D in Molecular Biology. I mostly study immunology and cancer.

 

[Juddog]

The statement was made that there aren't any leaders of atheism with which I disagree. For someone who isn't a leader he get's a fair amount of press and I guarantee that if I post a thread "Dawkins is an abusive dolt- Discuss" thread there will be pages of angst over it.

Truth is that most people who are atheist and those who are not have little time for the crap that others find valuable. They aren't much impressed by anyone.

He's not a leader, but rather an expert in the field. In the same way that there aren't leaders of the anti-Santa Claus movement, there are no leaders of atheism.

 

[bignateyk]

Funny you say this, because quite honestly, the evolutionary theory is why I accepted God exists.

Once I stopped being a rationalist, I became much wiser than previously.

Becoming ignorant isn't the same as becoming wise

 

[IronWing]

He's not a leader, but rather an expert in the field. In the same way that there aren't leaders of the anti-Santa Claus movement, there are no leaders of atheism.

I am a leader in the anti-Santa Claus movement, that fat fuck.

 

[Retro Rob]

You were offering up "the more I study biology" as part of your argument. What then if someone who knows a great deal more biology than you disagrees with your subsequent claim? The more I study biology, the more I think all life on earth is a product of evolution, not a designer.

If we were designed, hoo boy. Look into Huntingtons, and some of the leukemias. There are some easily fixable flaws there, from the perspective of a creator/designer. Yes, again, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident in this case that I'm not.

Fair point, and I am a novice in the field of Biology, but if someone knows more than I do, that doesn't make him right. People are known to interpret evidence differently.

The fact that there are people in the field of biology who see design, attest to that fact.

I would expect a biologist who is a Christian to interpret our biological makeup as evidence of design while non-believers see it as a product of natural selection.

Many times, it's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[alkemyst]

Fair point, and I am a novice in the field of Biology, but if someone knows more than I do, that doesn't make him right. People are known to interpret evidence differently.

The fact that there are people in the field of biology who see design, attest to that fact.

I would expect a biologist who is a Christian to interpret our biological makeup as evidence of design while non-believers see it as a product of natural selection.

Many times, it's in the eye of the beholder.

In reality, many if not most Christian biologists acknowledge natural selection and evolution ideas.

They are comfortable saying "sure evolution exists, but God designed this universe that way".

People think this argument is just black and white much like politics...in both cases that is far from the reality of the situation.

 

[Juddog]

Fair point, and I am a novice in the field of Biology, but if someone knows more than I do, that doesn't make him right. People are known to interpret evidence differently.

The fact that there are people in the field of biology who see design, attest to that fact.

I would expect a biologist who is a Christian to interpret our biological makeup as evidence of design while non-believers see it as a product of natural selection.

Many times, it's in the eye of the beholder.

Did you watch the Neil Degrasse Tyson video I posted earlier? He goes over all the points you are making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

 

[Retro Rob]

Did you watch the Neil Degrasse Tyson video I posted earlier? He goes over all the points you are making.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

No I didn't.

Did you read the Bible.... it goes over the points I am making.

 

[Retro Rob]

In reality, many if not most Christian biologists acknowledge natural selection and evolution ideas.

They are comfortable saying "sure evolution exists, but God designed this universe that way".

People think this argument is just black and white much like politics...in both cases that is far from the reality of the situation.

Couldn't agree more with your last sentence.

Juddog is treating one video by one scientist as the final authority on this issue.

 

[Juddog]

No I didn't.

Did you read the Bible.... it goes over the points I am making.

I have read the Bible, yes. My grandmother would sit with me and make me read parts of it every weekend and go over various prayers and such. The video actually addresses the points you're making though, so it's worth a watch. That being said, if you are purposefully trying to be ignorant, then by all means ignore the video.

 

[WelshBloke]

No I didn't.

Did you read the Bible.... it goes over the points I am making.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0

 

[Juddog]

Couldn't agree more with your last sentence.

Juddog is treating one video by one scientist as the final authority on this issue.

Actually I am not treating the video as the one scientist with final authority on the issue; rather I am saying that this scientist addresses the points you are making in this thread and goes over them one by one. Which is why I posted it.

 

[Juddog]

Here is Dawkins specifically stating there are no authoritative sources in science; skip to around 1:08:00 and listen to his answers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0mljE9K-gY

 

[Gibsons]

Fair point, and I am a novice in the field of Biology, but if someone knows more than I do, that doesn't make him right. People are known to interpret evidence differently.

Agreed, but it casts doubt on your point, rather than supporting it.

The fact that there are people in the field of biology who see design, attest to that fact.

Such people are exceedingly rare, even amongst the professed christians. What few I know of, I've found their arguments to be extremely, deeply flawed. See Behe.

I would expect a biologist who is a Christian to interpret our biological makeup as evidence of design while non-believers see it as a product of natural selection.

Disagree with that. Frances Collins comes to mind.

From what I've seen, all the creationists are religious, but not all the religious are creationists.

 

[SlitheryDee]

In reality, many if not most Christian biologists acknowledge natural selection and evolution ideas.

They are comfortable saying "sure evolution exists, but God designed this universe that way".

People think this argument is just black and white much like politics...in both cases that is far from the reality of the situation.

There's no reason to purposefully obfuscate the issue at hand. Either we were created or we weren't. Either God exists or he doesn't. The answer itself is the very essence of black and white. Regardless of our opinion on the subject the answer will be the same. It really isn't open to interpretation. There aren't multiple right answers. One is definitely right to the exclusion of the other. The main problem is that we don't have enough evidence to know for certain, but we can clearly say something pretty strong about the probabilities.

 

[Retro Rob]

Agreed, but it casts doubt on your point, rather than supporting it.

So what?

Answer this question: How many people who opposed Spontaneous Generation, or the Transmutation of Species were told exactly the same thing?

My point is not that I will be proven correct, but history often repeats as someone thinking they have it right, just to be utterly proven wrong later on...and let's not forget the amounts of times people could have been called "wrongheaded", "unscientific" for opposing those theories.

It's a good thing science does deal with absolutes for this reason.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Fair point, and I am a novice in the field of Biology, but if someone knows more than I do, that doesn't make him right. People are known to interpret evidence differently.

The fact that there are people in the field of biology who see design, attest to that fact.

I would expect a biologist who is a Christian to interpret our biological makeup as evidence of design while non-believers see it as a product of natural selection.

Many times, it's in the eye of the beholder.

You contradict yourself in the bolded sentences, in the first one denying the authority of the vast majority of biologists and in the second appealing to the authority of a small minority.

As I said earlier in this thread, I'm relatively uninterested in name-dropping believers and disbelievers. If you want to make the case of intelligent design as a scientific endeavor, you need to make a scientific argument. It is not hard to make a supernatural model that fits all available data. In fact, it's not hard to make a supernatural model that fits any new data that we hand to you. That's not enough to make it a theory, though. A theory instead requires prediction: what new, undiscovered--yet testable--observation does the intelligent design postulate grant us?

I'll give you one example (of hundreds) for evolution by natural selection: such a process predicts that any two species have some kind of common ancestor, containing genetic and anatomical straits that are common to both species, and that the more distantly related the two species are, the further back in time that ancestor lived. Subsequent findings in the fossil record have overwhelmingly supported this hypothesis.

 

[alkemyst]

There's no reason to purposefully obfuscate the issue at hand. Either we were created or we weren't. Either God exists or he doesn't. The answer itself is the very essence of black and white. Regardless of our opinion on the subject the answer will be the same. It really isn't open to interpretation. There aren't multiple right answers. One is definitely right to the exclusion of the other. The main problem is that we don't have enough evidence to know for certain, but we can clearly say something pretty strong about the probabilities.

No one is trying to obfuscate the issue.

I am speaking as a scientist most of my education was in biological and zoological science.

There are many of us that while we can't prove a God exists believe there should be a creator. Now that creator may or may not be a being in anyway we can understand.

At the same time most scientists will acknowledge the existance of dinosaurs and evolution.

The thing most (perhaps yourself) don't understand is the idea we all came from one being is not the popular belief and even in the bibles it is stated 'God' made many creatures.

There was a belief that still exists that 'Creationists' believe 'Evolutionists' think we all came from some rock 6000+ years ago.

 

[zinfamous]

In reality, many if not most Christian biologists acknowledge natural selection and evolution ideas.

They are comfortable saying "sure evolution exists, but God designed this universe that way".

People think this argument is just black and white much like politics...in both cases that is far from the reality of the situation.

"God designed x to be x" is, in fact, the end of science.

These are pseudoscientists, at best.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with belief, but it is never accurate to label someone as a scientist who believes there is a fundamental point where we can not test, and should not test, and can not attempt to disprove the validity of something.

Evolution has no purpose. It just happens. To believe that God created the Universe and that evolution is merely a process of that universe, and especially to believe that this god loves us especially, is to reject evolution outright.

 

[crashtestdummy]

"God designed x to be x" is, in fact, the end of science.

These are pseudoscientists, at best.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with belief, but it is never accurate to label someone as a scientist who believes there is a fundamental point where we can not test, and should not test, and can not attempt to disprove the validity of something.

You can be a scientist and believe those things, but that belief itself is not scientific. As my HS physics teacher once said, "I know that God spoke to Muhammad. That is an absolute truth. But it was a miracle, and miracles are not science, and don't belong there."

 

[alkemyst]

"God designed x to be x" is, in fact, the end of science.

These are pseudoscientists, at best.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with belief, but it is never accurate to label someone as a scientist who believes there is a fundamental point where we can not test, and should not test, and can not attempt to disprove the validity of something.

Evolution has no purpose. It just happens. To believe that God created the Universe and that evolution is merely a process of that universe, and especially to believe that this god loves us especially, is to reject evolution outright.

Wow, you sure went to lengths in assumptions with that post.

Put it this way, as a scientist most of us have not seen proof there really is no God. Some of it is faith indeed.

I believe if there was a God, he is not active in our lives anymore than giving that groundwork to us.

Who is saying we shouldn't test or continue to research if we can prove there is a God or not? Most scientists are hoping one day that is proven or the true origin of the universe figured out.