[nonhuman]

So, I just a few moments ago found this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...nos_on_ark.asp

Basically it is, as the title implies, a creationist article attempting to rectify the young Earth idea with dinosaurs. For the most part it's what you'd expect; the Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs were created on day 6 with the other land animals (although I'm not sure where that leaves the flying and swimming ones...), they were on Noah's ark, &c.

Where it threw me a little bit however was this part:

Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like “kind”, Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine “kind”, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.

What? Are they saying that the different species in the genus equus and the different species in the genus canis (well, presumably the whole caninae sub-family) 'descended' from their own respective common ancestors? So there was once a horse-like thing that evolved into horses, zebras, donkeys, &c. and one dog-like thing that evolved into dogs, wolves, coyotes, &c.?

That right there would be speciation, which, I had been under the impression, was the part of evolution theory that creationists denied.

[SirCastor]

On both sides of the evolution argument, it seems that most people only see the extremists of the other side. I believe in the creation, but that doesn't mean that I wholly swear off evolution as the work of the devil. There's lots of supporting evidence. Not all creationists deny evolution. Many of us just don't quite accept it the same way as pure evolutionists do. While I don't subscribe to the idea that every living being has a single, common, protein ancestor (which isn't always a permanent point of argument in evolution), I do believe that creatures adapt, and change to environmental situations in and outside of generational growth.

There are all degrees of concepts behind creationism. This is one of them.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What? Are they saying that the different species in the genus equus and the different species in the genus canis (well, presumably the whole caninae sub-family) 'descended' from their own respective common ancestors? So there was once a horse-like thing that evolved into horses, zebras, donkeys, &c. and one dog-like thing that evolved into dogs, wolves, coyotes, &c.?

That right there would be speciation, which, I had been under the impression, was the part of evolution theory that creationists denied.

Obviously they've begun to recognize some of the flaws in their theory. This just might be the beginning of the end. (Like when christian astronomers began using overly complex models to explain the elliptical orbits of the planets and star wobble)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

On both sides of the evolution argument, it seems that most people only see the extremists of the other side. I believe in the creation, but that doesn't mean that I wholly swear off evolution as the work of the devil. There's lots of supporting evidence. Not all creationists deny evolution. Many of us just don't quite accept it the same way as pure evolutionists do. While I don't subscribe to the idea that every living being has a single, common, protein ancestor (which isn't always a permanent point of argument in evolution), I do believe that creatures adapt, and change to environmental situations in and outside of generational growth.

There are all degrees of concepts behind creationism. This is one of them.

Ok. But do you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or do you think God created the universe longer ago than that (either though the 'days' of the creation week being longer than an actual day, or some other means)? Do you also believe that evolution can lead to the creation of new species? That last one, from my experience, seems to be the sticking point where most creationists won't go. Generally they seem to say that creatures can adapt, but all species that are alive today were created by God in more or less their current form, which this site is completely contradicting.

[BRussell]

So you've found a flaw in the reasoning of young-earth creationists? Whodathunkit.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Ok. But do you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or do you think God created the universe longer ago than that (either though the 'days' of the creation week being longer than an actual day, or some other means)? Do you also believe that evolution can lead to the creation of new species? That last one, from my experience, seems to be the sticking point where most creationists won't go. Generally they seem to say that creatures can adapt, but all species that are alive today were created by God in more or less their current form, which this site is completely contradicting.

I believe that the 'days' described in Genesis aren't literal 24 hour periods. How long are they? I don't know. I don't much care either.

As for creation of new species, that's a really good question. I've not taken the time to define where one species ends, and another begins. How do you split the difference between a species of Canine and a breed of a dog? I don't know. As stated above, I don't believe in Macro-evolution (going from protein to person), but if you grow fruit flys in a cold environment, and they develop hairs (which are subsequently passed down to offspring), are they "hairy fruit-flys"? Or still just fruit flys?

I don't know all the particulars of the creation. I don't typically read it literally in the Bible. I don't know if God showed up on earth and pointed to open space and *Poof* there was a dog, or if He did orchestrate the careful assemblage of proteins into nucleic acids leading onto life. I think it's somewhere in the middle, where that is, I don't know...

[Saetre]

Evolution is a tool that helps him justify his insane view of the world. He isn't quite insane enough to believe that Noah build an ark big enough to fit two of all the species in the world. Afterall the bible doesn't say that evolution doesn't happen, just that god created animals in the first place.

Has anyone seen this site yet?
Dinosaur - Conservapedia

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I don't know all the particulars of the creation. I don't typically read it literally in the Bible. I don't know if God showed up on earth and pointed to open space and *Poof* there was a dog, or if He did orchestrate the careful assemblage of proteins into nucleic acids leading onto life. I think it's somewhere in the middle, where that is, I don't know...

Taking the middle ground is great, unless, as seems to so often be the case, one side has the truth and the other is false. Then when you take the middle ground, you just end up half-way false.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What does it matter to one's personal beliefs if they adopt an origins story that's not objectively true? Unless they're working in a field related to evolutionary biology (which arguably could include most of biology, but not much else), I don't see how there's any problem.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What does it matter to one's personal beliefs if they adopt an origins story that's not objectively true? Unless they're working in a field related to evolutionary biology (which arguably could include most of biology, but not much else), I don't see how there's any problem.

(Not sure if you were responding to my post, but I'll answer anyway... )

Perhaps it doesn't really matter. God knows we all have all kinds of strange and flat-out wrong beliefs, and the world doesn't end. I suppose this would be just another in the list. For example, does it really matter if people believe the sun moves across the sky, rather than the earth rotating? Probably not, for practical purposes. Most of us probably think about it that way when we see the sun appear to move across the sky, no matter how well-versed we are in the truth of the matter. I suppose you could say the same thing in this case.

But I think it's different. The reality is that, in the US, there is a very well-funded and popular attempt to de-legitimize this fundamental basis of the earth and life sciences. Evolution isn't just some minor sub-theory. It's one of the bases of just about everything that happens in a huge chunk of science - geology, biology, botany, geography, genetics, comparative anatomy and physiology, etc. etc. Every life science and most earth sciences. I'm sorry, but I see de-legitimizing science as damaging. If large populations of kids grow up believing that science is an illegitimate and false pursuit, because their parents are fighting such a fundamental part of it in the schools, that's Not a Good Thing.

And I also have to wonder - what's next? If we all just say "OK, it doesn't really matter so I won't say anything," what's the next organized and well-funded machine going to target? We already see it with climate change. We see it with research on sexual orientation. Where does it stop? No, I think it's best to stand up for empiricism and science in all cases.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

geology ... geography ... most earth sciences

How so?

I think it's best to stand up for empiricism and science in all cases.

Live and let live, but not if they disagree with me? Doesn't that make this a war of faiths, science vs the other religions? How do you justify demanding that others put science at the same priority in day-to-day life values?

Do you think this is exactly what the "well-funded machine" is doing, but to defend religion instead of science? "I think it's best to stand up for faith and morality in all cases" slippery slope they're trying to destroy us yadda yadda yadda...?

I think it's important to teach everyone to understand the principles of the various sciences, but I don't think it's appropriate to try to force people to believe them as their core value system, superseding all others.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How so?

You mustn't have ever taken geology. I remember a huge portion of it being about how rocks store fossils in time. And geography is intimately tied in with how species differentiate within different geographical limits.

I'll give you an example: My brother-in-law liked plants, so he went into botany. He's now a botanist specializing in plant classification. He had no liberal God-hating agenda whatsoever, but now absolutely everything he does every day in his work deals with evolution. Many other scientific fields that people don't normally think of as involving evolution are the same way. It's the fundamental basis of all the life and earth sciences, which covers a very large amount of all science.

Live and let live, but not if they disagree with me? Doesn't that make this a war of faiths, science vs the other religions? How do you justify demanding that others put science at the same priority in day-to-day life values?

Do you think this is exactly what the "well-funded machine" is doing, but to defend religion instead of science? "I think it's best to stand up for faith and morality in all cases" slippery slope they're trying to destroy us yadda yadda yadda...?

I think it's important to teach everyone to understand the principles of the various sciences, but I don't think it's appropriate to try to force people to believe them as their core value system, superseding all others.

First, to suggest I'm advocating not letting someone live ("live and let live, but not if they disagree with me") or forcing people to believe something is quite a straw man. I'm just suggesting standing up against wrong beliefs rather than letting it go, which you appear to be advocating.

Second, I don't see religion and science as incompatible at all. Most Christian denominations, including Roman Catholicism and all the mainline Protestant denominations, including my own, don't see them as incompatible and don't deny biological evolution. So this idea that if you unashamedly stand up for facts, you're forcing people to reject their faith is just untrue.

Third, yes, I believe in truth. I'm not a relativist. I don't see everything as just having two co-equal sides. So if someone says the earth is 6,000 years old, as a majority of Americans say they believe, they are simply wrong. If someone says that humans have always existed in their current form and evolution did not take place, as the majority of Americans say, they are simply wrong. If that's what they believe in, even if they call it a faith or religion or whatever, they are still wrong.

Other things are unknown. If someone says science can't tell us how the universe got started and therefore they believe in a creator, I wouldn't say they're wrong. If someone says that there is more to human existence than blood and guts, and they believe in a spiritual side, I wouldn't say they're wrong. But some things are true and some things false, and I really can't see what's wrong with standing up for truth.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You mustn't have ever taken geology. I remember a huge portion of it being about how rocks store fossils in time. And geography is intimately tied in with how species differentiate within different geographical limits.

You seem to be saying that geology and geography contribute to evolution. That doesn't mean the reverse is true.

I'll give you an example: ... botany.

I guess you didn't catch it. I was asking how evolution is a "base" for a science that is not under the heading of biology (you know, things that are alive).

First, to suggest I'm advocating not letting someone live ("live and let live, but not if they disagree with me") or forcing people to believe something is quite a straw man.

Someone asked the dude what he believed. He answered, with the prefix "I believe..." You then told him he was wrong. If that isn't you trying to force people to believe something, you're being pretty disingenuous.

Second, I don't see religion and science as incompatible at all.

Sure, not the watered down and/or liberal religions that are compatible with your beliefs. But some religious people believe things you think are "wrong," and we're not talking human sacrifice or child molestation. If people think their religion is incompatible with universal common ancestry, then it is. It's not up to you to misinterpret other people's religions.

So this idea that if you unashamedly stand up for facts, you're forcing people to reject their faith is just untrue.

That's a straw man. I didn't say you're forcing anyone to reject their faith just because of standing up for "facts," (which evolution and other scientific conclusions are not), I said it because that's what you're doing.

Third, yes, I believe in truth. I'm not a relativist. I don't see everything as just having two co-equal sides.

He wasn't telling you how it is, he was talking about his personal beliefs. He's entitled to them. When you try to change his mind on them, it validates faith-based war machines' various efforts to change them back.

I'm not a relativist either, and one thing that's true is facts are facts, they stand on their own weight, and if you have to "fight" for them to stick, they're no longer facts, they become faith.

So if someone says the earth is 6,000 years old, as a majority of Americans say they believe, they are simply wrong.

No, no one is wrong for believing in things that aren't true. They are wrong to claim those things are true, because that is a statement of fact. There's a world of difference between knowing something and believing it.

Other things are unknown ... But some things are true and some things false

This is kind of a tangent, but scientific theories aren't "known" or "true," they're deduced; they're the best scientific conclusion based on the evidence at hand. They're different from scientific observations (the data themselves), which are more what you'd consider "true." But even those aren't really "true." Science isn't about truth; if you think it is, what you're thinking of is faith.

and I really can't see what's wrong with standing up for truth.

Ok back on topic, what's wrong with "standing up for truth" is when the stand takes place over someone's beliefs, not their statements of fact. People should be free to believe any ridiculous thing they want.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You seem to be saying that geology and geography contribute to evolution. That doesn't mean the reverse is true.

I guess you didn't catch it. I was asking how evolution is a "base" for a science that is not under the heading of biology (you know, things that are alive).

Do you even know what you're arguing any more? Evolution is absolutely fundamental to the fields I mentioned. If you study them, you study evolution. The contribution is mutual. Fossils are analyzed with evolutionary principles in mind. And evolution-relevant data are acquired from fossils. Use "fundamental" or "base" or whatever terms you want, but those fields simply couldn't function today if you pulled evolution out.

Someone asked the dude what he believed. He answered, with the prefix "I believe..." You then told him he was wrong. If that isn't you trying to force people to believe something, you're being pretty disingenuous.

No, if you define "force" as me telling someone he is wrong, then you don't know what the word "force" means. Perhaps you're looking for the word "debate," or "argue," or "challenge." And I didn't tell him he was wrong. His statements were indirect, and so was my response. If he had directly said "I believe the earth is 6000 years old," then I'd have directly said "you are wrong."

Sure, not the watered down and/or liberal religions that are compatible with your beliefs. But some religious people believe things you think are "wrong," and we're not talking human sacrifice or child molestation. If people think their religion is incompatible with universal common ancestry, then it is. It's not up to you to misinterpret other people's religions.

Did you just call Roman Catholicism and all the mainline Protestant Christian denominations "watered down and/or liberal?" Wow. No, I'm sorry but I have as much right to interpret Christianity as a creationist. And I have as much right to debate people's beliefs as anyone, even if you would rather I didn't.

That's a straw man. I didn't say you're forcing anyone to reject their faith just because of standing up for "facts," (which evolution and other scientific conclusions are not), I said it because that's what you're doing.

He wasn't telling you how it is, he was talking about his personal beliefs. He's entitled to them. When you try to change his mind on them, it validates faith-based war machines' various efforts to change them back.

Here we go again with you saying that debate = force. I've never heard someone turn a concept so upside down. Debate is the exact opposite of force. This is, you know, a pretty fundamental premise of a liberal society such as the ones we live in: We debate ideas because we don't force them.

I'm not a relativist either, and one thing that's true is facts are facts, they stand on their own weight, and if you have to "fight" for them to stick, they're no longer facts, they become faith.

Nonsense. Facts can be worth fighting for. The fact that the slaves were human beings was worth fighting for. And I think the fact of biological evolution is worth fighting for.

No, no one is wrong for believing in things that aren't true. They are wrong to claim those things are true, because that is a statement of fact. There's a world of difference between knowing something and believing it.

"No one is wrong for believing in things that aren't true." What? You've gotten yourself so twisted up that I suspect that even you don't know what you're saying here, but I can tell you for sure that I don't know what you're saying.

This is kind of a tangent, but scientific theories aren't "known" or "true," they're deduced; they're the best scientific conclusion based on the evidence at hand. They're different from scientific observations (the data themselves), which are more what you'd consider "true." But even those aren't really "true." Science isn't about truth; if you think it is, what you're thinking of is faith.

And you say you're not a relativist. Is it or is it not true that the earth is 6000 years old? If you can't answer that straightforwardly, you're most certainly a relativist.

Ok back on topic, what's wrong with "standing up for truth" is when the stand takes place over someone's beliefs, not their statements of fact. People should be free to believe any ridiculous thing they want.

Again with the "people should be free to" nonsense. Let's state your position for what it is: You think people should be free to believe any ridiculous thing they want without anyone ever challenging them. Because that, according to you, would be "forcing" them. Your argument is solely about whether someone should debate someone else; you think they shouldn't. I can hardly think of a more fundamentally illiberal idea.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Evolution is absolutely fundamental to the fields I mentioned.

How so? Just asking.

Fossils are analyzed with evolutionary principles in mind.

I know fossils are; what about geology or geography?

No, if you define "force" as me telling someone he is wrong...

I said "try to force."

Did you just call Roman Catholicism and all the mainline Protestant Christian denominations "watered down and/or liberal?"

Counterexamples don't prove that no religions are inconsistent with evolution.

And I have as much right to debate people's beliefs as anyone, even if you would rather I didn't.

What I would rather you didn't do is drag the "science says otherwise" debate into people's personal beliefs. Science says a lot of things, but it doesn't say anyone's faith is "wrong." For you to say it does is exactly why there is so much backlash against science these days. You were complaining about that earlier, so I'd think you'd be interested in preventing more of it, rather than fueling it.

We have enough trouble trying to make the distinction between science and "belief" without the proponents of science lending credence to the claim that science is just another faith among many.

If you ask how someone reconciles their belief with certain pieces of evidence, that's an entirely different matter. But if your version of debate involves the other person bending to your will and accepting evolution as "fact" because of your force of will (or force of insults), then he's just trading faiths. I would rather no one fuel the misconception that evolution is a faith.

Nonsense. Facts can be worth fighting for. The fact that the slaves were human beings was worth fighting for. And I think the fact of biological evolution is worth fighting for.

The fact that slaves were human was not in dispute. What was in dispute was that enslaving them should be outlawed as a matter of law. That was not a fact, it was a belief. If you want evolution to become a belief, keep fighting. Just keep in mind that we might not win that fight, and we'll be far worse off for not leaving it as a matter of evidence.

"No one is wrong for believing in things that aren't true." What?

Remember the first amendment? Freedom of belief and all that stuff? Just imagine if the roles were reversed, and the majority decided that it was "wrong" or "false" to believe that evolution was true, or unacceptable to doubt that god exists.

And you say you're not a relativist. Is it or is it not true that the earth is 6000 years old?

It's true that the evidence suggests it's not. The nature of science and its greatest strength is that it is tentative; conclusions the evidence supports today may be overturned tomorrow with the discovery of new evidence. If you rule out the possibility of error, you've slipped from the realm of science to that of faith.

You think people should be free to believe any ridiculous thing they want without anyone ever challenging them. Because that, according to you, would be "forcing" them.

Well, the term you used was "fight," not "force," but I don't really see the difference. And yes, I think that if you "fight" or "try to force" someone not to have the beliefs they have, you're in the wrong. Beliefs are not always about facts. You can know all kinds of facts which contradict your beliefs.