(May 3, 2018 at 9:51 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Sure, which is why we've been talking about ways to make evolution more understandable.  But even those that do not accept evolution MUST acknowledge that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the topic, and that painting the issue as a 'controversy' in science or listing of 50 PhDs that reject evolution is laughably dishonest.

Until it's understandable, no, it's not reasonable to say what anyone MUST acknowledge.

You say "those that do not accept evolution," yet 25% of those who DO accept evolution still answered "no" on the consensus question. Those people don't have an agenda. Maybe they've seen articles discussing whether humans are still evolving. Such articles are out there - some people think that, as most humans now survive to reproductive age and can find a mate, natural selection isn't much of a factor anymore, and so humans aren't evolving. Yet, with the concise definition we've discussed, natural selection isn't necessary for evolution to occur.

---

(May 3, 2018 at 10:14 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(May 3, 2018 at 9:51 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Sure, which is why we've been talking about ways to make evolution more understandable.  But even those that do not accept evolution MUST acknowledge that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the topic, and that painting the issue as a 'controversy' in science or listing of 50 PhDs that reject evolution is laughably dishonest.

*my bold*

Contradicted by the facts sadly, but not because there isn't sufficient reason to accept it.  For those who don't accept it, reason just isn't fully engaged.

But as noted, even 25% of those who DO accept evolution said "no" on the consensus question. How do you explain that?

...Because evolution hasn't been communicated very effectively to the lay public?  That's what the whole thread is about.  There's an overwhelming consensus among scientists that evolution is true.  That is a fact.  There's evidence and data to support that, and that evidence has been reproducible for a looooong time now.  

Even if you don't accept evolution, even if you think scientists don't know what they're talking about, even if you don't understand the first thing about scientific theories - you have to concede that AMONG SCIENTISTS there is a huge consensus, and the scientific community is not divided on the controversial topic of "is evolution true?"  Trying to suggest that science is being vitiated by creationist claims or that there are large contingents of scientific fields that reject evolution is simply lying.

I'm not talking about the public perception of a consensus (public perception is often garbage) - all I'm saying is that you, Alpha, after seeing this data, must concede that scientists overwhelmingly agree on the fact of evolution.

(May 3, 2018 at 10:20 am)alpha male Wrote:

(May 3, 2018 at 10:14 am)Whateverist Wrote: *my bold*

Contradicted by the facts sadly, but not because there isn't sufficient reason to accept it.  For those who don't accept it, reason just isn't fully engaged.

But as noted, even 25% of those who DO accept evolution said "no" on the consensus question. How do you explain that?

Well it certainly has nothing to do with evolution or the strength of the evidence for it. It simply speaks to the difficulty of knowing what is in other people's minds. In this case it is probably because the forces behind creationism are so strong and vocal.

(May 2, 2018 at 12:30 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 12:19 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: No.  No one implied you were wrong on this occasion.

Vulcan did - he said there's more to it than that. Waiting to hear what he has.

Uh... the fact that 98% of scientists aren't creationists... did you even read the OP?

Your 25% claim has nothing to do with the scientific consensus or the weight of the peer review evidence. Thus it means fuck all.

What interests me at this point is why you, AM, who are able to speak intelligently around evolution nonetheless seek to promote young earth-ism.

(May 2, 2018 at 12:32 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 12:30 pm)Kit Wrote: I was thinking this morning after my poo that a designer could not have been too intelligent to have created corn and then made the human body absolutely incapable of properly digesting it.

From the guy who yesterday was complaining that there isn't enough serious theist discussion going on...

You're not exactly the best example of a theist to be taken seriously though . . .

I've mentioned this before, but the Creationist/ID arguments have evolved over the years. (LOL, I remember we didn't even have ID in the 60s, for example) Rather curious The Lord God Almighty did not imbue His followers with the best arguments in the first place, but instead, let them evolve their points over the years.

Probably a lesson there, but I'm sure it won't register . . .

(May 2, 2018 at 2:03 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 1:14 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Look up evolution by natural selection.

He won't he will just keep demanding we spoon feed him one . Then he will play dumb again .

Disingenuousness does appear to be Christian apologist 101.

---

(May 2, 2018 at 2:17 pm)alpha male Wrote: I already gave one. Anyone who reads up on evolution should have recognized it as valid.

But you're a creationist, right?

---

(May 2, 2018 at 2:22 pm)alpha male Wrote: https://phys.org/news/2005-09-poll-docto...heory.html

Quote:A national survey of 1,472 physicians indicates more than half -- 63 percent -- believe the theory of evolution over that of intelligent design.

A third of doctors need some re-education...

Uhhh yes. 100% of people should believe in the theory of evolution.

(May 2, 2018 at 11:47 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Surely by now with tens of thousands of Christian schisms, you're not surprised that Rule 34 has a counterpart in the religious world?  IOW, every conceivable belief exists somewhere in Christianity.   Christian Scientists have the balls to call themselves Christians just like scads of the rest of them.  No surprise there.  That Jesus failed to set up a proper and rigorous franchising and/or multi-level marketing plan for His religion is something the True® religious folks of this era are just going to have to live with.

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. - Proverbs 3:5

Again, I'm only interested in what the scriptures say, not someones misguided belief of what they think the scriptures imply.

Find me anywhere in the bible where it states one is not to go to a doctor.

Quote:Luke 8
43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,

44 Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.

Why is this Jewish woman seeing doctors if it is forbidden?

(May 2, 2018 at 11:47 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: And, does the following ring a bell?

. . . they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


Believe it or not, it's in the Bible, and there are folks that take it absolutely seriously.   I believe they are called Literalists.  Perhaps you've heard of them ???

That scripture doesn't mean "don't go to a doctor"...

There are conditions that doctors cannot treat, as in the above scripture, therefore "they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."