How could an intelligent person still believe in evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

Questionable and credibility are not scientific terms.

Learn to be more objective, when using my time. I prefer not to carry a discussion, for your kind.

Nothing will convince an unconditional skeptic. There were never any conditions. I live with this kind of behavior, every day.

I may come back, later, and add a couple of names, but, for now, am protesting, just a little.

Were you going to convert to Christianity, when I do. I highly doubt it.

Creationists study both sides and do keep notes, where it is taught, formally.

It would be nice if a creationist actually saw the "creation process" in "real time."

We are seeing evolution as we speak. We are not seeing anything "created" by God in "real time."

(Back from my BBQ to my fan.)

No one example of a beneficial mutation has been claimed.

Examples of a creative miracle have been claimed but can never be "credible".

Creationists have an unwritten rule called, 'teach the controversy'.

There is a bias, absolutely. But, all of your claims are taught thoroughly, front ways and back ways, inside out, and upside down. Nothing is totally ignored, even if we dispute it.

I'm sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there are SNL church ladies and Bible campers, in the mix.

But, academics want you to be prepared with an answer, always. (In season and out of season, as the saying goes.)

I can post factoids, all day, with the www as my cheat sheet, or I can say what are the usual opinions, on my side.

If you are being sincerely curious, I will do my best.

References, though, are usually disputed or of 'questionable credibility'. I have someone disputing the thermometer and weather man, and weather website, today. Why have it, then. (And, with other references.)

It is not un-scientific, to speculate that there was some vague, pre-existent, intelligent force.

None of that means that scientism will take fundies seriously, though.

Your "facts" were in regards to how many ideologues favor an interpretation.

What is unscientific about positing a generic, first cause, under the assumptions of time, cause, and effect.

Or about saying that, under entropy, all systems are prone to decay, and all orders of information generally come from a higher order, without even putting a name on that, or anthropomorphizing it.

You have no intellectual bias against that, are just playing politics.

I have heard speculations, based on the amount of energy, in a pocket dictionary or thimble full of water, yet no secular ideologue has ever tested that, so much as taking it on faith. You respect Drake and Chandrasekhar on the same level as prophets, as best I can tell. The rules are whatever they say.

in my case, i always consider stuff on my own.
first, i propose myself a question, and then i have fun trying to solve the puzzles that lead to the answer in my mind.

i never start with a blank slate of a mind, and then start reading stuff from other thinkers in order to just become "educated".
i do not care if i am educated unless i desire to know the answer to something that i am curious about.

but if i am curious, i always run it through my own mind to solve it.
then if i read other stuff from great thinkers who have also arrived at the same general conclusion, my belief is fortified, and then i will look into their methodology of arriving at the same conclusion i did.

if i can not get a grasp of the problem on my own, then i will not seek peripheral information from others to help me.
i lose interest rapidly in questions that i realize i have no idea about how to solve.