Anyone notice that many people are scientifically illiterate

[BCP1928]

Have you ever actually watched Kent Hovind’s debates? You can learn a lot by listening to the scientists and professors talk about the subject. Like when Dr Hartman openly admitted that there is no place on earth where you can actually go and witness the geological column. Or when Dr Rainbow admitted that we have never actually witnessed macro evolution or life deriving from chemicals. They both state that they have evidence that supports the theories but that the theories are largely based on predictions and assumptions. See these are the facts about the evolution theory that everyone seems to just ignore. Most people claim evolution to be a fact and completely ignore the fact that it is never actually been proven. They say oh we have tons of evidence, yeah tons of evidence that can be interpreted numerous different ways.

And what "facts" do creationists have? What "evidence?"

 

[BNR32FAN]

And what "facts" do creationists have? What "evidence?"

Oh just the word of God, that’s all.

 

[BCP1928]

Oh just the word of God, that’s all.

Do you ever wonder why most people prefer the provisional knowledge about the natural world provided by science?

 

[AV1611VET]

And what "facts" do creationists have? What "evidence?"

I've made thread after thread on this:

What would be the evidence for ex nihilo creation?

Evidence for creatio ex nihilo?

My Evidence Challenge

Scientific Evidence for Creation

What Specific Evidence Should Point To Ex Nihilo Creation?

Conclusion: No Scientific Evidence Exists

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you ever wonder why most people prefer the provisional knowledge about the natural world provided by science?

No.

And I believe every scientist and academian on earth ever born, alive today, and will be alive tomorrow should read and familiarize himself with John 9.

 

[Estrid]

Have you ever actually watched Kent Hovind’s debates? You can learn a lot by listening to the scientists and professors talk about the subject. Like when Dr Hartman openly admitted that there is no place on earth where you can actually go and witness the geological column. Or when Dr Rainbow admitted that we have never actually witnessed macro evolution or life deriving from chemicals. They both state that they have evidence that supports the theories but that the theories are largely based on predictions and assumptions. See these are the facts about the evolution theory that everyone seems to just ignore. Most people claim evolution to be a fact and completely ignore the fact that it is never actually been proven. They say oh we have tons of evidence, yeah tons of evidence that can be interpreted numerous different ways.

If a "Dr Hartman" said that, it's no
reluctant confession. And whatever he
said (you gave no quite or source) doesn't mean
one could expect see a minutely detailed geologic column
Intact anywhere- unless of course the earth actually was
6000 yrs old. But the cluelessmare easily conned- eso by themselves.
No geologist would say as you claim.

" Dr Rainbow"- if he even exists and commented as
yiunclaim- only said the obvious that nobody has seen
life originated.

"Macroevolutioh" is a phony creationist term.

But if the topic is nobodynseeing an Eohippus evolve
into a racehorse, well duh.
It takes like a long time.
Nobody saw Everest rise, either.
So macromountaining must be fake.

Only those who have studiously ignored all
chances to rise above abject scientific illiteracy
think any theory can be proven.

And you are 100 percent wrong saying that evolution
Is not a fact.

Your "different interpretation" bit ignores a couple of
important facts.

You cant interpret worth a darn if you don't know anything

No unterpretation is worth anything if it doesnt
match the data.

 

[Estrid]

And what "facts" do creationists have? What "evidence?"

We wait and ask and wait.
They have nothing now and never will.

 

[BCP1928]

No.

And I believe every scientist and academian on earth ever born, alive today, and will be alive tomorrow should read and familiarize himself with John 9.

It really would be a miracle if their eyes were opened and they saw that a controversial reading of an ancient religious text was absolute truth after all

 

[AV1611VET]

"Macroevolutioh" is a phony creationist term.

Perhaps Berkeley hasn't gotten the memo yet?

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

SOURCE:

What is macroevolution?

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[AV1611VET]

We wait and ask and wait.
They have nothing now and never will.

My nephew could have told you that.

 

[BCP1928]

Perhaps Berkeley hasn't gotten the memo yet?

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

SOURCE:

What is macroevolution?

evolution.berkeley.edu

On the whole I agree with Estrid. There is quite a bit of difference between "macroevolution" as the term is defined in the context of that article and the way it is used by apologists like Hovind.

 

[AV1611VET]

It really would be a miracle if their eyes were opened and they saw that a controversial reading of an ancient religious text was absolute truth after all.

The interaction in this chapter between a miraculously-cured man and academia demanding evidence is priceless.

Note how academia responded when they didn't get the evidence they were after.

It's like that chapter was written yesterday.

 

[Estrid]

It really would be a miracle if their eyes were opened and they saw that a controversial reading of an ancient religious text was absolute truth after all

It will, I think, involve a great miracle if
anyone ever finds a way to disprove ToE
or deep time.

 

[AV1611VET]

On the whole I agree with Estrid. There is quite a bit of difference between "macroevolution" as the term is defined in the context of that article and the way it is used by apologists like Hovind.

That doesn't make the term "phony."

Had that same conversation been over gravity, would you say "gravity" is a "phony creationist term"?

 

[AV1611VET]

It will, I think, involve a great miracle if anyone ever finds a way to disprove ToE or deep time.

I totally agree.

And, oh what a miracle it's going to be, when it happens!

(And for the record, no one is going to "find a way." The way is already known.)

 

[Estrid]

On the whole I agree with Estrid. There is quite a bit of difference between "macroevolution" as the term is defined in the context of that article and the way it is used by apologists like Hovind.

Here, I will perform an act that would be a miracle
if a creationist ever could do it - acknowledge an error.

I made a mistake saying macroevolution is just a creoterm, though in five years at uni i never heard it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you ever wonder why most people prefer the provisional knowledge about the natural world provided by science?

Well atheists prefer it because because they don’t believe in God and from what I’ve experienced in numerous discussions on the topic here on CF most Christians don’t know the facts about what science actually knows and doesn’t know about evolution. They just assume well it’s taught in college so it must be true. I mean I’m sure you have all types of different reasons for different people but it seems to me that the majority of them just went straight to reinterpreting the Bible instead of studying about what scientists actually know and how accurate their interpretations actually are.

 

[AV1611VET]

I made a mistake saying macroevolution is just a creoterm, though in five years at uni i never heard it.

But let me guess:

You still think it's "phony" ... right?

I can show you definition after definition from the dictionary, the encyclopedia, and college sites, but in this case, academia can take a hike, I take it?

 

[driewerf]

Oh just the word of God, that’s all.

No, words in a book that is alleged to be the word of god. T

 

[BCP1928]

The interaction in this chapter between a miraculously-cured man and academia demanding evidence is priceless.

Note how academia responded when they didn't get the evidence they were after.

It's like that chapter was written yesterday.

I was entirely satisfied with BNR32FAN's answer. He has a preferred reading of an ancient religious text which he accepts as absolute truth. He does not feel the need to provide any other evidence for his position.