Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Satanus

  "This 'chicken and egg' applies to what came before the universe also. Nothing, nothing, nothing... then something. How?"

  Tec

  No, not nothing. Before what we call something, there was 'potential'. Potential at rest. The potential is a bit like an egg, except it's potential and possibilities may be infinite.

  "How?"

  Potential simply allows, therefore, the universe burst forth from a simple vibration, a disturbance in the potential. Membrane theory goes along similar ideas, only different terms.

  During the first few minutes, scientists say, most of what became the universe was matter and antimatter. They annihilated each other. The only reason that we or the universe exist, is because there was a very slight imbalance toward matter, ie, very slightly more matter than antimatter.

  Hope this helps.

  S
• 

  eric356

  "One thing that I have found interesting is the facts that evolutionists always, always engage in source attacks whenever any non-evolutionist resource is recommended (or even referenced) be it website or book. "

  One thing I find interesting is that creationists always complain when actual scientists point out that their sources are not-qualified / uninformed / fringe. Pointing out that someone doesn't know what their talking about is not an ad hominem.

  I don't understand how creationists can possibly dismiss the current state of science in so many fields. Evolution is supported by evidence from a huge variety of research fields, including (obviously) biology, but also geology, chemistry, and physics. How does a creationist grapple with the fact that virtually all biologists, from every country, political affiliation, and religious or non-religious philosophical position all agree that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, while the creationist "side" is represented only by a meager smattering of scientists (often speaking about things that are not qualified to speak about) and laymen that are always conservative religious believers? Where is the "skepticism" of this state of affairs?

  If "creation science" was actually true, and therefore offered any scientific insight or chance for commercial application, why is there so little investment in this research area? Why is it that biology departments in universities all over the world devote huge amounts of time and money advancing the state of knowledge about how biological systems develop and work, whereas all creationists have is tiny apologetic "research" efforts and shiny-suited preachers on Sunday morning TV? If one thinks this is caused by some giant conspiracy, why is that no rogue country, university, or company has broken away from the pack to revolutionize the field of biology? Why, even in Middle Eastern countries with conservative religious governments and a conservative, creationist Islamic population, the public universities *still* teach and research biological evolution, not creationism?

  Where are the creationist breakthroughs? Why do they spend all of their time writing popular-level books, talking in churches, and indoctrinating children instead of getting the lab coat or rock hammer out and doing real science? Why are no creationists incredulous of this situation?
• 

  tec

  Satanus - I understand (and appreciate the simple explanation). I think this is my point though : something did not come from nothing. There was always something there. This 'matter' (I'll leave anti-matter alone, for now, because I don't understand that), was always present as 'potential' as you say. So something always was.

  Tammy
• 

  hooberus

  One thing I find interesting is that creationists always complain when actual scientists point out that their sources are not-qualified / uninformed / fringe. Pointing out that someone doesn't know what their talking about is not an ad hominem.

  . . .the creationist "side" is represented only by a meager smattering of scientists (often speaking about things that are not qualified to speak about) and laymen that are always conservative religious believers? Where is the "skepticism" of this state of affairs?

  The previous referenced publication "In six days" gives the specific qualigfications of its authors.

  http://creation.com/in-six-days/

  Many hold Ph.d 's in the specific revelant field that they discuss. such as doctorates in biology, geology, and genetics. Furthermore many of scientists employed at the major creationists organizations have formal qualifications in these areas.

  Evolutionists don't seem to have a problem though when their own speak on areas not directly related to their specific fields though.
• 

  Satanus

  The preexisting potential is not matter, in any sense of the word. It was the source of matter and everything.

  Antimatter is simply matter that is oppositely charged from the normal matter. When they meet, they both cease to exist. All they leave behind is pure energy. Scientists have been able to make some antimatter. Hard to keep it, though, as you can imagine.

  S
• 

  peacefulpete

  Well a problem of conceptualising what events precipitated our universe is the impossibilty of recreating the conditions that are theorized to have existed. Do a read of "Universe in a Nutshell" and you may come to accept that simple cause and effect do not adaquately describe our universe at it's deepest levels. But, as I recall this thread was about how the entire science of biological evolution is the result of liberal morals and sheepish minds. lol
• 

  hooberus

  But, as I recall this thread was about how the entire science of biological evolution is the result of liberal morals and sheepish minds. lol

  No, its about non-evidence reasons why people embrace evolution, and reject biblical creation.
• 

  jaguarbass

  Richard Dawkins when he was in his mid teens decided that evolution was a better explanation to him

  than creation and he stopped beliving in God at that time and he has been putting forth his atheistic

  arguments ever since, which is fine.

  But thats his agenda.

  Everyone has the same facts and since he was a teenager he has been twisting and spining the facts

  to make his point.

  Scientifically, however the earth and universe came into existence, I take into consideration that God is a spirit

  and he is/ was outside of the universe when he made the universe.

  Man doesnt know enough to prove there is no God.

  We dont know enough about quantum physics, parallel universes and other dimensions to rule out the posibility

  of God.

  Man just recently became aware of the invisible dimension of radio waves in 1865.

  To dismiss God living in another dimension as the bible says he is a spirit, seems to be putting on blinders to

  a very posible reality.

  I like Richard Dawkins I've read all his popular books, but he's a phd, a zooologist.

  When he writes about there being no God and the big bang, do atheist hold his being a phd

  zoologist who studied animal behavior against him? What does zooology have to do with the big bang?

  He writes about it. I dont hear the atheist chiding him for his lack of credentials in the field.

  Then why do atheist say disparaging things about a person who has a phd in hydrology which seems just as relevant regarding

  creation and a global flood when he writes books about God, the bible and creation.

  And if a phd in Hydrology writing books about God and creation is considered an apologist.

  Why isnt a phd in zooology writing books about no God an apologist?

  When did whats being good for the goose stop being good for the gander?
• 

  peacefulpete

  "THe Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris."

  I had to read that twice! That book was in the 124 Library when I was at Bethel. It was filled with underlines and margin notes by the person who wrote the old Evolution book! It was written in 1960 and it is filled with hilarious theories about continents floating about and an incredible water canopy (where the WT got the idea) that explained everything. Unfortunately none of it was science and even then I found the book ridiculous and was embarassed the WT had cherry picked ideas they found useful.
• 

  hooberus

  It was written in 1960 and it is filled with hilarious theories about continents floating about and an incredible water canopy (where the WT got the idea) that explained everything. Unfortunately none of it was science and even then I found the book ridiculous and was embarassed the WT had cherry picked ideas they found useful.

  
  

  Nowhere near as accurate as the 1960's evolutionist books which amongst other things occasionally lined up modern apes in a sequence to man, and taught that the different races evolved from different ape men. Though they did I believe teach that people had fish in their direct ancrestral tree, which from what I undesstand is still considered "science".