Palaeontologist Phil Senter has a persuasive strategy for convincing doubters that all life on Earth has a common origin.
As an evolutionary biologist and atheist you’ve used the research techniques of creation science? What are they exactly?
Creation scientists take data from nature and try to reconcile it with a literal interpretation of the Bible, such as the creation of the world in six days. Nowadays many have real scientific training, with PhDs in geology, biology or chemistry, and their procedures often involve testing of hypotheses through observation and experimentation – the essence of science – although mainstream scientists interpret their results very differently.
Why are you using these techniques?
It’s important to demonstrate evolution in a way that cannot be countered by creation science. One way of doing this is to use creation science itself to demonstrate evolutionary principles.
Read the interview to find out how he does it.
I just ask creationist “Do you look EXACTLY like your brother/sister? No? That is evolution. You both had the same parents, yet you look different. Now just multiply those small changes over millions of generations.”
jbenson2 said, “The believe that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything.”
This is simply a lie and an appeal to ridicule. “Don’t know” is not the same as a statement that “nothing magically exploded”.
This is just more evidence that creationists are deeply dishonest.
Face it, the Bible was written by Jules Verne just before he wrote Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. It should be obvious to all by now that the book is a clever device aimed at extracting money from stupid people. Take a look at any evangelical congregation and you’ll see the graduates of the local high school slow learner class.
#20
The same mainstream scientific techniques can be used to attempt to square evolution with the Bible.
Not true. Real science requires evidence. Generally theists that attempt to “square evolution with Bible” end up completely altering the meaning of what is written in order to fit the evidence. That is not how science works.
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Thus, scientists are in no way obligated to prove that a deity exists. That burden rests on the shoulders of believers. You have to provide evidence that said being exists in order for us to believe.
Furthermore, science only deals with what is observable and measurable. The natural world is by definition that which we can observe and measure and is thus the only arena for science. Religions generally deal with beings defined as “supernatural”. If you were able to scientifically prove that said being existed, it means you were able to provide tangible, repeatable, unbiased physical evidence. If that were possible, the being would no longer be supernatural but natural.
Once again, neo-Darwinists are changing the “science” of evolution, to account for its growing obvious failings. And blaming the need to do so, on the creationists’ arguments becoming more sophisticated and pervasive. God forbid the creationists should win too many people over on the origin of life model (Never a theory. CAN’T BE TESTED!). Why do such atheists care? Why do they feel so threatened by others wanting to believe in something other than “survival of the fittest”. Especially when plenty of not “fittest” individuals and businesses survive via political influence. And these atheist biologists are getting taxpayer funded grants to prove their side. While the creationists and intelligent design folks are getting by with private donations.
So why are the atheists still feeling so threatened? Why do they care what people believe in, if the atheists believe in nothing but themselves? Apparently, they crave the public’s belief and approval, in them and whatever it is they’re wasting money on “proving”. Which, BTW, can’t be proved. The origin of anything, that predates the science created to study it, simply can be proven. That would be “an effect before a cause” dilemma. And all the atheistic rants aren’t going to change that. So they might as well stop corrupting the Scientific Method, just to suit their need for us to believe in them. Which is a kind of religion in itself. Their own ego-centric religion.
Want to stump an evolutionist. Ask them to explain how eyes manage survive heing a useless, non-functioning organ, thru millions of years of natural selection, that would have long eliminated anything not immediately useful to an organism? They’ll either walk away. Or exclaim “you just don’t understand what natural selection is”. Which isn’t an explanation at all. Just a way of saving face, because they can’t explain it either. And the “Cambrian Explosion” of variety, also defies explanation. As fossils preceding it, in pre-fully developed forms, are totally lacking.
But evolutionists are more than willing to ignore the lack of evidence needed to support their beliefs. While applying the same “lack of evidence” disproof to religion, special creation, and intelligent design. And apparently the common consensus of a few thousand scientists’ belief, trumps the common consensus of a few billion people who believe in a God. But they don’t count because they’re not scientists. So most scientists only accept what most scientists accept. That’s called Circular Logic. And it proves nothing. Nothing but the arrogance of science. That claims it’s always right, and everyone else is wrong. Mostly because it gets paid better.
#26
“…explain how eyes manage survive…”
Wat?
Eyes are obviously necessary to see deep inside your heart of darkness.
27 Or 26 could take a general course in basic genetics.
#26
thru millions of years of natural selection, that would have long eliminated anything not immediately useful to an organism?
That’s your ignorance about evolution showing. Natural selection does not necessarily eliminate features found not to be useful to survival. It only states that generations that acquire features that help them survive and thus reproduce will continue. Those non-useful features that survive in later generations are called vestigial (e.g. your tailbone). See http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/ to learn more. There they refute your arguments about Cambrian Explosion even through I note that the information is comparatively old given new research.
And apparently the common consensus of a few thousand scientists’ belief, trumps the common consensus of a few billion people who believe in a God.
Science is not a popularity contest. Science is about what you can prove. For thousands of years the vast majority of people believed that the night sky was made of holes through which the countenance of heaven shown. That doesn’t make that hypothesis any more valid that creationism.
Sadly, I don’t think this will make much of a difference. Problem being is that many religious scholars have spent time reaching out to science, and even the Vatican has said evolution is completely compatible with the faith. Of course most of these creationists are the same time the people more concerned with the devil than Jesus, so they’ll just accuse the Catholics of being swindled by the devil.
Simply stated, this anti-science rhetoric is about control not faith. If science isn’t valid, statistics and scholarship can be faked. You ever wonder why so many of these people continue to believe things like Saddam Hussein being behind 9-11? They are trained to distrust facts, and instead only believe “trusted” leaders.
Just as many liberals have embraced pseudo-science hogwash like grounding themselves to the earth and that vaccines cause autism, our society is being convinced only to follow a select group of “confirmed” sources.
Skepticism is important, even against accepted scientific principals. Skepticism isn’t about absolutes, it’s about always searching for the truth, wherever it may lead.
lol a couple of of the remarks visitors distribute are kinda silly, over and over i wonder if they in actual fact read the articles and reviews and reports before writing or if perhaps they barely read over the post title and compose the first thing that drifts into their heads. nonetheless, it is actually useful to browse through sensible commentary every now and then in contrast to the same, outdated oppinion vomit that i mainly observe on the web cheers
I like the helpful information you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and check again here frequently. I am quite certain I’ll learn plenty of new stuff right here! Good luck for the next!
I also prefer to optimize my program by myself. This technique appears extra dependable for me. Many thanks for the post.