Creationist Scientists

>all it means is that we perceive the present through a different worldview of the past

At which point the scientist, were he not a hypocrite, should be inclined towards the view which has more experimental evidence to support it. Evolution isn't something you can deny, you can literally see it happen in nature and in the lab at scales both microscopic and macroscopic.

Fuck, I could say I perceive the past as containing me winning the Nobel prize and that doesn't mean it's just as valid as any other interpretation.

Creatonists know that kids will eventually be faced with scientific evidence so they just say ''there's no contradiction!'' until they're blue in the face because otherwise so many would leave altogether. And since the kids probably come from religious families, if they have any interest in science they're all too eager to believe they can choose both.

I don't think science necessarily invalidates religion but creationism certainly doesn't fit in.

File: dog hold swim cute.gif (2MB, 250x308px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x308px

>>7673680
Creation is full of contradictions which no intelligible person can simply ignore and continue believing. Also what the other anon said; evolution isn't something deniable because it's being observed. Evolution is the outcome of mutation + natural selection and we do observe both of them.

>>7673680
evolution is a phenomenon of belief which, in the later cases such as macroevolution and ultimately speciation, is believed by many scientists. The issue that is being called into question is the following: why is it that these so-called scientists purportedly belief in such a phenomena? if these textbooks and opinions are to be maximally believed, then this must indicate that evolution is the case and is a fact. however, the case many not be so, exactly. one problem with the opinion is the EVIDENCE... there are usually illustrations in books and textbooks that demonstrate the transition from fossil to human. However, how is it possible that one single fossil would be able to give rise to all human creativity? This point is bolstered by the fact that these drawings are just taht: DRAWINGS. There are no actual fossils/animals to go along with the drawings, merely an artist's creation, which, though applausable in the right circumference, is unfortunately out of place in the realm of scientific inquesitionings. Many scientists are simply victims of sociological manipulation of their superiors who are overcome by the spell of the monolithic science figure of Richard Darwins, therefore they are willing to believe in and work under the stipullation of the "theory" without the correct amounts of fortuitous evidence.

>>7673900
I must say, i have to respect your ideals. It's not like you are distorting the meaning of theory. We should doubt all our theories, like gravity. I see the past as if everyone just floated around so i guess that's as true as creationism, right?

File: simple2_0.png (40KB, 598x584px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 598x584px

>>7673680
You're spelling college wrong. Unless its a thing to jokingly mis-spell college as collage. I don't know anymore.

>>7673942
I legitimately don't see the point you're trying to make with this.

File: 1437195355148.png (6KB, 478x373px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 478x373px

>>7673900
>copypasta with guaranteed replies

>>7674031
>copypasta

>>7674031
Aha, the arraignment of baitedness. such a petty solilliquous development in the life and time of this incrementational existence. Disolocutionally, such an accusation is widespread among those denizens of such a forum as this. Such an interlocution inevetariably leads one to assert a number of logical 'fallacies,' the likes of which include the impossiblity of one such that he is of the disposition most true to the belief system in question, simply put, thusforth such a fallacy has been known in the modern day and age as a "strawman" or a "slippery slope" fallacious argumentation. one of the problems with such an argument as "bait" is a supplemenation of one "murphies law," a decree which holds that one extreme argument may be so similar to that of a comical appropriatation of such as to be indistinguisable from it. this concern though, as far as can be determined by an unbiased and logically unfallacious person such as have considered the issue, is nevertheless wrought by one slight issue, which is that one can never "prove" the truth value of the stipulation of murphies law using a proof-theoretic analysis, which imbues a degree of uncertainness into the "law." one solution therefore would almost certainly be to accept the non-baitedness of such a proposition, taking such a stance as the "null hypothesis" of the claimant, who should be required to prove his own stance as an impressionist of extremism before a communal-forum shall take his own thoughts as bait or such as.

>>7673900
>muh missing link
Evolution is a spectrum. For ever so called missing link that's found, you christfags will just say we're missing two more, one just before and one just after the newly found fossil.

So unless you think it's possible to find fossils of every single ancestor that's ever lived (its not), there will always be missing links. You're going to have to interpolate some of the missing data. Refusing to do so doesn't disprove evolution, it just makes you stubborn.

>>7674176
that isn't what happens. when you claim to have found a missing link, creationists will say that it's not intermediate, it's really a deformed animal from before the flood.

File: 1442357692284.png (51KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1000x1000px

>king crocoduck

fuck that edge lord fggt

File: vatt.png (3KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 160x160px

>>7674176
>christfags

Nah, it's protestants.

>>7674176
This. Saying we descended from apes does not mean that a chimp spontaneously gave birth to a modern human. Anyone viewing evolution as meaning such obviously has no idea what evolution and natural selection actually are. They need to crack open a book and apply some reading comprehension skills. Otherwise, they just sound like willfully ignorant cultists, ready to spout nonsense at people who actually have a grasp on the concept.

>>7673900
This is what happens when you read, but don't comprehend. You go on the internet and throw around words that sound awesome in your head, but are actually just a jumble of nonsensical shit.

>>7675058
>when you claim to have found a missing link, creationists will say that it's not intermediate
Or, they insist that now there are twice as many gaps.

Seriously how annoying is this cunts voice

>>7675128
You excited for that movie about how journalists exposed the Church as a haven for pedophiles? You gonna go see it?

>>7675467
It has nothing to do with Church teaching though.

Can a scientist reject the scientific method and remain a scientist?

File: Catholic-Church-Abuse-Graph-1970-2009.jpg (40KB, 259x406px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 259x406px

>>7675467
>a haven for pedophiles

You mean public schools? Teachers rape children a 100 times more often than catholic priests and only get a slap on the wrist of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" and don't even get treated as sex offenders.

Not to mention the rate of pedophilia among priests is half that of the general population and most of the scandals happen back in the 70s when there was a lapse of standards. "Catholic church = pedo" is nothing more than shameless propaganda .

>>7675150
that would be incredibly stupid. it makes sense that creatures should have maintained a different form prior to the flood. therefore the so-called neanderthal fossils which are said to be relations of the intermediary past could easily be explained by such an explanation as a pre-flood deformity of a normal old, bipedal humanoid.

>>7675503
if its part of their fundamental identity to be a scientist (aka they are a scientist) then yes. they could claim to not be a scientist, they could be transformed supernaturally into another body, but they would still remain a scientist because that's their nature.

>>7675655
>implying that graph doesn't just mean they got better at covering it up

File: tmp_10145-1441349558481-421205971.jpg (26KB, 500x449px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x449px

>>7675838
>the so-called neanderthal fossils which are said to be relations of the intermediary past could easily be explained by such an explanation as a pre-flood deformity of a normal old, bipedal humanoid

This is the creationist excuse for neanderthals? That groups of deformed humans all over northern europe and asia banded together only with other people who shared their exact deformity, with no variation, for hundreds or even thousands of years? I simultaneously lost 5 IQ points and caught cancer from reading that. You, anon, should be ashamed of yourself.

File: statistics-about-statistics.jpg (83KB, 930x439px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 930x439px

>>7675503

>implying every practicing scientist uses scientific methods

wake up man

>>7676215
>anti-Catholicism
>In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 11111011111

>>7673900
No you dummy. Evolution is a completely random act of nature. DNA goes through many random altercations, however depending on the environment and population of organisms undergoing mutations, depends on the outcome of traits of an animal that leads to future generations of a species. There are no mysteries to evolution, no psuedo-knowledge of it nor is it some psuedo-field of science. It's simply an act of entropy on an organism's reproductive history.

>>7677666
lolwut

lrn2science

>>7676729
>groups of deformed humans all over northern europe and asia banded together only with other people who shared their exact deformity, with no variation, for hundreds or even thousands of years
this is not a rediculously thing to believe if you clear up your blatant misrepresentations. of course people band together, that's the way people behave generally in life. also, it is not necessarily the case that they should have been living in northern europe and asia. after the flood the continents shapes and sizes were changed dimensionally, causing a misunderstanding of pangeaic history. next, you wouldn't expect too much variation in a homogenous population over (not a hundred thousand) one or two thousand years. finally, perhaps deformity is the wrong word to use. it is more likely to have been a bit of phenotypical genovariation present in pre-flood human beings. therefore after the flood, due to an instance of genetic drifting (bottleneck effect), many characters present in the human genotype would have been erased, including neanderthal characteristics.

>>7677713
>it's an act of entropy on an organism's reproductive history
what you're describing is a theory. it has never been proved to be correct in any case or instantiation of the facts. for example, it has never been observed for one species to "mutate" into one another. the reason so many people beleive in it is not due to overwhelming evidence, but due to personal authority of darwinists in the scientific community.

>>7673900
Don't worry anon, I appreciated this post

>>7679322
thanks anon, not everybody gets what I was going for

Is there any evidence for punctuated equilibrium? I've only done evolution in high school and we barely covered this topic but I thought it sounded quite interesting.

>>7679290
>also, it is not necessarily the case that they should have been living in northern europe and asia. after the flood the continents shapes and sizes were changed dimensionally, causing a misunderstanding of pangeaic history.

I'm sorry, did you just call bullshit on plate tectonics, something with literally mountains of evidence to support it?

You keep referencing a flood. I assume you speak of the "great flood" in the bible, seemingly corroborated in so many other culture's myths. Here's a riddle for you: what do catastrophic floods and historic examples of human civilization have in common?

>They both occurred near major bodies of water.

>>7679390
>they both occurred near major bodies of water
and by mountains but you don't hear about megolithic mountain monsters meddling up mankind, now do you

>>7679417
Catastrophic floods happen, even now. It's no wonder that so many cultures have myths about how their diety or ancestor spirits "cleansed" the whole world (that they knew of) with a horrific storm and flood. What do mountain monsters have to do with any of this?

>>7679435
the geography of a culture isn't enough to account for common accounts, it requires a real explanation.

>>7679477
Fine then a comet hit or a volcano erupted and sent half of a mountain range into the ocean at some point in formative early man's history causing near world-wide flooding.

It's a common, though unnecessary, theory with plenty of candidate craters and fault lines that could lend it plausibility.

>>7679379
>Is there any evidence for punctuated equilibrium?
Sure, they're called fossils

>>7679486
Sorry, I mean meteor of course. It's late.

>>7679477
>All of these primitive cultures living near large bodies of water doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they experienced catastrophic floods after massive storms.

This is your argument?

>>7679429
In fact, almost all primitive cultures that developed in mountainous areas had myths about mountain monsters/demons/spirits, etc. But we don't have widespread, thouroughly documented reports about mountain monster attacks. Flood disasters, on the other hand...

>>7677695
What about all that shit where they jailed/interrogated a journalist in the Vatican for reporting corruption.

This is like medieval era shit.

>>7679525
>>7679542
>>7679486
ok, but even if they all developed myth stories specifically about floods, then why do they all have similar storylines? i.e. one guy builds giant boat and saves animals and humans for future generations, sends out birds to check for olive leafs, etc.

>>7676215
I would interpret it as the victims having to grow up for roughly 20 years before reporting the abuse as adults.

>>7679429
>megolithic mountain monsters meddling up mankind

Nice alliteration.

Nobody there's actually a scientist in the creation community has ever denied that there have been several genetic changes over the years. That being said, one species does not just morph into another. Really look into evolutionism and see how ridiculous some of the changes really are.

>>7679740
>That being said, one species does not just morph into another.
Kirk Cameron, is that you?
Saving Christmas was great.

>>7679692
>A massive flood sent from spirits/angry gods was sent to wipe us out

>What could save a person who lives near water from dying by floods? Oh, a boat!

>The gods selected just one family, and a single mating pair of each animal

Because fuck the field of genetics, apparently, as well.

>>7679740
precisely. the developmental and ontologenetic changes required to evolve from, for example, a squid-like ancestor to a human is largely implausible. if you think about the number of changes required for such a transition over the few years permitted, it is just unlikely statistically speaking (the number of legs for example, going from 10 to 2 legs is at least 8 changes, and depending on the number of base changes in a sequence of DNA to produce those changes, it's unlikely just on the basis of the number of legs). for some reason though, straightforward analyses like this are not acceptible for the scientific community at large. they prefer verbosity and circumlocuitous discourse over straight and simple argumentation.

>>7679754

Nature is lazy, it always takes the easy and the most advantageous way out. God however is not lazy (considering the interest that he takes in mankind and the fact that laziness is a deadly sin) which to me, speaks for the existence of evolution, because what could be easier than letting things evolve on their own according to the planetary environmental development and automatically weed out the undesirables that won't survive.

>>7679754
>How from 8 legs to two in billions of years?

Evolution?

>Too complicated. Intelligent design! There, now we don't need to worry about it ever again!

You, sir, are a cancer on /sci/. Please take ridiculous fundamentalist claims without hard fact to back them back to /pol/.

File: crocoduck.jpg (51KB, 600x349px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x349px

>>7679754
>a squid-like ancestor to a human is largely implausible
lol

>>7679754
>the developmental and ontologenetic changes required to evolve from, for example, a squid-like ancestor to a human is largely implausible
Lucky for us, nobody is arguing that humans had squid-like ancestors. What is your point?

>>7679798
I want to punch his face. Not because of the crocoduck, which I do think is retarded, but because he has a really punchable face.

>>7679754
changing the number of legs is plausible if you allow a very long time between now and then.

>>7679866
Shit, look at polydactyly. The mutation in a single gene changes the number of digits that develop.

>>7679636
>>This is like medieval era shit.

You don't think EVERY country does the same shit?

>>7680051
Absolutely not but it's very reminiscent of old Catholic church is all.

>>7674147
Here's your (you)

>>7673680
>we haven't evolved night vision
What is this 'we' shit. I can see fine in the dark. I wish you blind monkeys would stop making 'realistic' lighting mods that only simulate your own night blindness. Fucking animals.

>>7679692
Because they story got changed to suit the religion. Do you know absolutely nothing about myth? You guys shit on humanities and act as if you could learn what a 4th year student knows in 15 minutes, then you don't even understand what a first year religious studies course would go over.

>>7673900
This is bait, and reads like some dumb cp.

>>7679803
The crocoduck is great and I wish I had a pet one.

>>7680371
Ok, so, a crocoduck pet would be sweet. It's the argument they use it for that's retarded.