Nor appealing to popularity.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
As you now realize, even many creationists are now finding a way to accommodate the facts of evolution, as Answers in Genesis is currently trying to do.
About 0.3% of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field, doubt Darwin's theory. Not 3%, 0.3%. So you see how that belief fits reality.
And the American public?
About 55 percent of Americans believe humans evolved from other forms of life.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
Creationism is just one of several factors bringing down evangelical beliefs:
Evangelicalism is dying. Oh, Evangelicals still make lots of noise and have a stranglehold on the Republican Party, but their grip on America is weakening and, in time, their hold will falter, leading to epic collapse. The Week reports:
While 63 percent of Americans over the age of 65 are white Christians, only 24 percent of those under the age of 30 are, a group far outnumbered by the 38 percent of young adults who are unaffiliated. Unless there’s some kind of dramatic Christian awakening that produces millions of converts, that means that in the future the ranks of Christians in general and white Christians in particular are likely to shrink.
This won’t happen any time soon, but that train is a coming, and nothing can stop it. Younger Evangelicals, in particular, are exiting their churches stage left, never to return. Those who remain tend to be more liberal politically, socially, and theologically, than their parents and grandparents. These cradle Evangelicals will, in time, seek out the friendlier confines of Liberal/Progressive Christianity. The late Rachel Evans is a good example of an Evangelical who tried to change things from within, but failing to do so, left the church of her youth and became an Episcopalian.
...
Most Evangelicals believe God created the universe in six twenty-four-hour days. Older Evangelicals are more likely to believe Genesis 1-3 is the de facto scientific explanation for how the universe came into existence. Younger Evangelicals, exposed to non-religious science curriculua, are less likely believe the old Evangelical canard: God Did It! They know the universe is billions of years old, and that evolution best explains the natural world. The more science training young Evangelicals receive, the more likely it is that they will cast aside creationism and its gussied-up cousin, intelligent design.
https://brucegerencser.net/2019/05/why-evangelical-christianity-dying/
Granted, some of it is the Trump ring-kissing by corrupt evangelical leaders:
Right Divider
Body part
Habitually lying is not helping your case.
Fallacious appeals to authority are very popular among evolutionists.
Fallacious appeals to popularity are very popular among evolutionists.
As you now realize, even many creationists are now finding a way to accommodate the facts of evolution, as Answers in Genesis is currently trying to do.
Perhaps you're not lying, and are just not aware that AIG accepts limited common descent, acknowledges speciation, and recognizes that natural selection does increase fitness in a population. Maybe you should know something about it before making false accusations.
Well, let's take a look...
About 0.3% of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field, doubt Darwin's theory. Not 3%, 0.3%. So you see how that belief fits reality.
And the American public?
About 55 percent of Americans believe humans evolved from other forms of life.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/21814/E...nt-Design.aspx
Fallacious appeals to popularity are very popular among creationists.
Nope.
It denies evolution. Your lies are just desperation. You will seek validation anywhere.
Therefore, something. :idunno:
It's easy to test whether a Darwinist's claim is a logical fallacy; just ask for a therefore. They never provide one, because if they ever did, their idiocy would be even more obvious.
It's a fun game. First creationists say "look how no one accepts evolution anymore!"
Then they get shown the facts.
Then they pivot: "Fallacious appeals to popularity are very popular among evolutionists!"
Never gets old, watching them spin.
Then they get shown the facts.
Then they pivot: "Fallacious appeals to popularity are very popular among evolutionists!"
Never gets old, watching them spin.
Right Divider
Body part
Using my quote OUT OF CONTEXT is called LYING. But that's nothing new for you.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It was precisely in context. You were telling us that evolution was "dying." I showed you that your belief was false; evolution is more accepted now than it was even a few years ago. And of course you pivoted, and said:
"Fallacious appeals to popularity are very popular among evolutionists!"
But that's nothing new for you.
Right Divider
Body part
Show the QUOTE where I posted that "evolution is dying".
You are a habitual liar.
(Barbarian cites evidence for evolution)
Barbarian observes:
I showed you that your belief was false; evolution is more accepted now than it was even a few years ago. And of course you pivoted, and said:
"Fallacious appeals to popularity are very popular among evolutionists!"
But that's nothing new for you.
You referred to it as my doctrine. And yes, claimed it's dying.
Let's just leave it as you are either careless or remarkably forgetful. I'll be generous and assume the latter.
Edit: I changed my mind. I'm not doing you any good here, and you haven't contributed anything remotely worth discussing for a while, so you're in my troll bin, now.
Barbarian observes:
I showed you that your belief was false; evolution is more accepted now than it was even a few years ago. And of course you pivoted, and said:
"Fallacious appeals to popularity are very popular among evolutionists!"
But that's nothing new for you.
You referred to it as my doctrine. And yes, claimed it's dying.
Let's just leave it as you are either careless or remarkably forgetful. I'll be generous and assume the latter.
Edit: I changed my mind. I'm not doing you any good here, and you haven't contributed anything remotely worth discussing for a while, so you're in my troll bin, now.
Last edited:
Oh, I get it. :idea:
Barbarian thinks that because something is popular, it can't be dying. :chuckle:
Gosh, that had me stumped for a second there. :noid:
Also, Barbarian celebrates the rise of Darwinism's popularity while cheering the decline in Americans who call themselves Christians. :think:
Barbarian thinks that because something is popular, it can't be dying. :chuckle:
Gosh, that had me stumped for a second there. :noid:
Also, Barbarian celebrates the rise of Darwinism's popularity while cheering the decline in Americans who call themselves Christians. :think:
Right Divider
Body part
Barbarian cites his evolutionist take on the evidence. :banana:
You've already admitted that geneticists say that genetic load has to be mitigated or it will lead to a loss in fitness. By definition, a loss in fitness is devolution.
Devolution is a process of decline. Loss of fitness is a process of decline. It's what the word means if scientists want to admit it or not.
But what is most interesting is your line of argument. Instead of discussing the topic, you would prefer to argue whether geneticists literally say a word or infer it. This is typical of common descentists to talk about anything except the evidence.
Again, this is another example of discussing anything but the challenge to the theory. Since there is no reason to discuss evolution because its definition is vague, it was necessary to use the term "common descent" to refer to "the belief that every living thing we find on earth today was originally a single common ancestor that reproduced and changed by means of random mutation plus natural selection". That was OK until Barbarian was smart enough to realize that he couldn't defend common descent, so he has to change "common descent" to mean the same as "evolution" so he can go back to talking about anything except the evidence.
So the question we have for Barbarian now is, when referring to "the belief that every living thing we find on earth today was originally a single common ancestor that reproduced and changed by means of random mutation plus natural selection" what is that called?
I guaranty Barbarian won't answer with what the belief is called because that would lead him down a path of a losing argument. And winning an argument is the most important thing to Barbarian because he abandoned pursuing truth long before he got on TOL.
So you agree that genetic load leads to a loss of fitness unless mitigated, and you agree that de novo genes are produced by lucky mutations. How many lucky mutations does it take?
Barbarian observes:
I'm glad you've dropped your claim that geneticists say it's "devolution." We're making progress. And as you learned, they point out that natural selection reduces genetic load.
I showed you that, several times. I'm pleased you learned it.
We checked on that belief, but as you learned, you couldn't find even one geneticist who thought so. And that's pretty much all there is for that idea.
It was your claim; if you didn't want to talk about your new term "devolution", you shouldn't have brought it up. I asked you to show me even one geneticist who agreed with you; you couldn't find even one. This is typical of common creationists to talk about anything except the evidence.
You've forgotten again. Remember, the scientific definition is "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time."
And you've once more confused evolution with a consequence of evolution. And as you learned, even honest creationists admit that common descent is true for species, genera, and often families. They just don't want to allow it for all living things. Would you like me to show you that, again?
As you now realize, even your fellow creationists accept a limited form of common descent. Do we need to show it to you again. But "common descent" is not evolution. It's merely a consequence of evolution. Remember, the scientific term is very specific; "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
I just showed you that it's not the same as evolution.
Your somewhat odd redefinition of common descent, which as you surely must know by now, is a consequence of a change in allele frequencies, not evolution itself.
Getting angry and abusive won't help you now. It merely shows that you're out of arguments.
I showed you that genetic load leads to a loss of fitness unless mitigated, and that de novo genes are produced mostly by mutations of non-coding DNA.
How many lucky rolls of the dice does it take to get a win while gambling? When you figure out that, you'll be close to understanding. But remember natural selection intervenes.
I'm glad you've dropped your claim that geneticists say it's "devolution." We're making progress. And as you learned, they point out that natural selection reduces genetic load.
I showed you that, several times. I'm pleased you learned it.
We checked on that belief, but as you learned, you couldn't find even one geneticist who thought so. And that's pretty much all there is for that idea.
It was your claim; if you didn't want to talk about your new term "devolution", you shouldn't have brought it up. I asked you to show me even one geneticist who agreed with you; you couldn't find even one. This is typical of common creationists to talk about anything except the evidence.
You've forgotten again. Remember, the scientific definition is "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time."
And you've once more confused evolution with a consequence of evolution. And as you learned, even honest creationists admit that common descent is true for species, genera, and often families. They just don't want to allow it for all living things. Would you like me to show you that, again?
As you now realize, even your fellow creationists accept a limited form of common descent. Do we need to show it to you again. But "common descent" is not evolution. It's merely a consequence of evolution. Remember, the scientific term is very specific; "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
I just showed you that it's not the same as evolution.
Your somewhat odd redefinition of common descent, which as you surely must know by now, is a consequence of a change in allele frequencies, not evolution itself.
Getting angry and abusive won't help you now. It merely shows that you're out of arguments.
I showed you that genetic load leads to a loss of fitness unless mitigated, and that de novo genes are produced mostly by mutations of non-coding DNA.
How many lucky rolls of the dice does it take to get a win while gambling? When you figure out that, you'll be close to understanding. But remember natural selection intervenes.
Right Divider
Body part
:duh:
Of course we believe in "a limited form of common descent".... from the MULTIPLE originally created KINDS.
What we disagree with is the belief that ALL life that ever lived was descended from a single universal common ancestor.
Darwinists will say anything to pretend that people are part of their religion.
Getting angry and abusive won't help you now. It merely shows that you're out of sensible arguments.