Why do atheists assume evolution is fact?

[wheels5894]

Well I looked at Answers and did some quick searches. I think it only fair to quote something about the Creation Science Foundation.

CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.

"(A) PRIORITIES

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

(B) BASICS

3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.

(D) GENERAL

The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

(i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

(ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six

(6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

(iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

(iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."

Now what does this quote amount to? It means in simple terms that whatever research says and what ever facts arise, if the facts differ from the Biblical descriptions, the Bible is always right. How is this science? how can 'research' be done when the answers to it are already there in the Bible and the facts discovered have to match the biblical texts? Calling this scientific research is clearly and oxymoron.

Nonetheless, this is the text to which Andrews A Snelling subscribes and it really means that whatever he discovers will always match the Bible because anything else will be lost. Unless one wants to accept the same beliefs as him, it is hardly possible to take what he does seriously. of course, if he published in the major journals like Nature it would be different, but that is not going to happen.

[artsylady]

one peice of evidence for evolution that follows the scientific method?? uhm...read the origin of species...thats one

Read thread "Evolution is not science" for more detailed information.

as far as AIG's list..LOL...i was impressed until i read what it took to get included on that list..theres no verification that any of these people have degrees in anything

What do you mean, no verification?

What are you looking for?

[artsylady]

I was impressed until I realised that their list of arguments you SHOULD NOT use was longer than their list of arguments that you should use.

You both seem to say you're initially impressed anyway.

Then I became even less impressed when I looked at some of their arguments that you should use and realised that they were all either "ZOMG! What's the use of half an eye?" (Answer - ask anyone with glasses)

What's the use of half of ONE eye? The eye is completely useless. A person wearing glasses has every single component functioning, yet one part is in need of some help.

or "ZOMG! Look! Extinct things!" (Answer - The theory of Evolution predicts this, so big deal)

Exactly what about Extinctions?

Most extinctions were caused by mankind. Is that what evolution predicts?

[artsylady]

One point to start with. If you are arguing the case for Creationism, then you really should stick to doing that. Even if you have the piece of evidence that could destroy Evolution in your hand, that act of destroying the theory would not make creationism the right solution. You would still need to argue for it yourself.

I've been arguing for creation and against evolution the same way I might argue for Christianity and against Islam. I have no problems doing both.

I am not very au fait with creation Theory as I thought it was just based on biblical texts. If there is more to it could you point me to a site or a book where I can read up more please?

Answersingenesis is an excellent start. If you are a scientist, read the technical articles.

Of course, it is easy to try and pick holes in someone else's theory though, remember, we are talking about evidence of 150 years of research.

You really have to remember that the evidence that's in the headlines and in the textbooks one day, is gone the next. This has happened over and over again. If you can find a textbook from the 50's, 60's or 70's you'll not the changes.

Nonetheless maybe you have come across something that argues against evolution. have you, or others, submitted a paper about it to a peer-reviewed journal. Nature has had a few anti-evolution papers published but on a couple of hundred compared with the 13 thousand or more for evolution. Perhaps you could point me to any articles like that to read.

The technical articles on the AIG site are definitely peer reviewed. They are reviewed by other scientist. It's impossible to get an article on creation published because of the extreme prejudice. There's a film coming out very soon called Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed, with quotes from Dawkins and others. This documentary is going to show some of the many examples of those who do not accept evolution and promote another origins theory are ostracised and their careers seriously hindered. Our 'higher education' doesn't allow for free thought about such things.

Now, to turn to the originator of the idea of evolution - Hi Mr Darwin.

That was a very interesting video and ought to give everyone cause to think. The real problem here is that in the USA about half the population belief in the Bible and Creationism or the New Creationsim, ID. many have not learned much science and so stick to their views.

Amoebas turning to princes and such are just too far fetched for many to believe in evolution.

Besides, I think America is wisening up to the fact that evolution is not some ultimate truth with watertight evidence behind it. There are more missing links than there are actual peices of evidence and the leaps in faith are huge - even on the part of evolutionists. There isn't even a single evolutionary theory - like dinos to birds or cows to whales, that even all evolutionists agree upon. Therefore it's obvious that the evidence is subject to interpretation.

The other problem is that there are various ways of accepting the Bible. Many, perhaps more liberal, accept the Bible as written by men who were inspired by God but the text is still from those men. On the other side, there are those who claim that every word of the text is waht God 'dictated' to the writers and they believe in is infallible - but only in the original version which of course we don't have. The degree that a person beleives in Creationism will depend on their view of the Bible.

I agree. There is disagreement here too. Again, meaning the 'evidence' or the words seem to be subject to interpretation.

The worst anomaly I see, though, is that while those who believe the Bible as the literal Word of God don't really quite believe it when they act. For example, why would a person which such beliefs need health insurance? God has promised to heal them is they pray and ask.

I would disagree. The Bible teaches that sometimes God chooses to heal and sometimes He does not. Paul asked three times for healing of his eye and he was never healed.

Then again, they are happy with all sort of scientific and medical breakthroughs abd take advantage of them even when the Bible has a different idea. Even weather forecasting ignores the doors in the heavens which are opened to ler the rain out!

Well, I've never heard it put that the doors of heaven opening cause the rain. That's a bit much and whomever said that has no knowledge of science.

I think this might be a hard job to argue away Creationism.

Impossible amigo.

[artsylady]

blatantly false..of course we can measure the earth magnatism over time..thats how we know that the earth's magnetic poles have shifted many times

If that were true, we would know then, that this would affect dating methods, yet this factor is ignored and not considered, correct?

What about other factors that would affect the dating methods we use today? How about a lot of flooding? Would that affect them?

[wheels5894]

Hi again, Artslady

QUOTE

The worst anomaly I see, though, is that while those who believe the Bible as the literal Word of God don't really quite believe it when they act. For example, why would a person which such beliefs need health insurance? God has promised to heal them is they pray and ask.

I would disagree. The Bible teaches that sometimes God chooses to heal and sometimes He does not. Paul asked three times for healing of his eye and he was never healed.

I see. You contend that if God does not chooser to heal you you need health insurance. Yet is you read mark's Gospel wee find,

Mark 11:24:

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Why would God not heal you if this text is true? I don't get it! Of course, if God didn't want you to be healed I suppose you ought not to do anything as He is calling you home.

QUOTE

One point to start with. If you are arguing the case for Creationism, then you really should stick to doing that. Even if you have the piece of evidence that could destroy Evolution in your hand, that act of destroying the theory would not make creationism the right solution. You would still need to argue for it yourself.

I've been arguing for creation and against evolution the same way I might argue for Christianity and against Islam. I have no problems doing both.

Well, what s your argument in favour of young Earth Creationism? You are going to show that the Bible is something that is true to demonstrate the answer here.

[artsylady]

I see. You contend that if God does not chooser to heal you you need health insurance. Yet is you read mark's Gospel wee find,

QUOTE

Mark 11:24:

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Why would God not heal you if this text is true? I don't get it! Of course, if God didn't want you to be healed I suppose you ought not to do anything as He is calling you home.

I see the discussion has turned from evolution and creation to an examination of the scriptures. Okay then.

There are many possible answers for this. One may be that Paul simply didn't have enough faith. Another is that this verse is not about healing. Another is that Paul may not have forgiven others (as you'll see from the rest of the context.)

I hesitate to debate the scriptures with nonbelievers, because the scriptures were meant for beleivers. Verses may look like contradictions to nonbelievers, but believers, led by the Holy Spirit may find truth concerning their own personal situations. And since we are individuals going through different trials, the Holy Spirit will speak to us in different ways.

Well, what s your argument in favour of young Earth Creationism? You are going to show that the Bible is something that is true to demonstrate the answer here.

You act like there is only one argument in favour of creationism. There are many.

One we can start with are the grandsons of Noah as named in the Bible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/noah.asp

[Rick-Parker]

wheels5894, you quoted

Mark 11:24: Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

This is off topic, but are espousing name it and claim it. Please clarify for me.

Rick

[wheels5894]

Sorry, Brandon's pop but am not quite sure what you are asking me to do. Could you explain please?

[Rick-Parker]

Sorry, Brandon's pop but am not quite sure what you are asking me to do. Could you explain please?

You know, prosperity teaching. The Gospel of health and wealth.

The Gospel of Health: Isaiah 53 is used to justify blanket coverage for the physical healing of every Christian who has enough faith. It is the plan of our Father God in His great love and His great mercy that no believer should ever be sick, that every believer should live his life full span down here on earth and that every believer should finally just fall asleep in Jesus.

The Gospel of Wealth: A central tenet of the prosperity gospel is that God wills the financial prosperity of every Christian. If a believer lives in poverty, he/she is living outside God's intended will.

Prosperity Teaching

It that what you are supporting when you quote Mark 11:24?

Rick