Space Wasp

I have frequently seen answers and comments posted that say things like "accepting evolution means that you are calling God a liar", but the Bible (and all other religious texts) say nothing about evolution, and at best only make very brief reference to how life was supposedly created.

It is also pretty much universally accepted that religious texts were written by humans, and are interpreted by humans (which is why there are so many sects with different beliefs within religions).

So how is disagreeing with specific interpretations "calling God a liar" rather than treating the part humans played in writing/interpreting the texts as potentially flawed?

Be honest - you aren't going to fool me!

Questions like the one below are not unusual:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20...

What people apparently don't understand though, is that personal testimony is only evidence that someone believes, or claims, that something happened - it is not evidence that what they say is true.

*this also applies to some people who believe other religions.

I asked the same question yesterday but it somehow offended someone and they got it deleted:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylc=X3oDMTBuNm...

Additional question: How often do other people find their correct spelling being criticised (and 'corrected') by people of other nationalities?

Every creationist I have encountered has either shown that they don't understand the science or has refused to answer questions that would demonstrate what they knew.

Creationists:

If you want to prove me wrong, feel free to answer the question in this link:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20...

Rejection of evolution is relatively common, but those who reject it rarely (if ever) show that they understand what they are rejecting.

Surely some of you can show that you understand what evolutionary theory genuinely suggests happens?

*It is only evidence that the person giving the testimony believes that a god exists.

Kind after kind is EXACTLY what evolutionary theory predicts, all changes are within lines of descent, not between them.

The article is linked in this question:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20...

Note how most of the answers point out that the claims in the article are false - are all the answerers lying?

Is it because they know that a truthful representation can't be dismissed like their straw man portrayal?

An example here: http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g20150...

Note to JWs: I'm just as interested in your reaction to this question as your expansions as to why the website intentionally spreads misinformation (+ I'll answer any questions asked for clarification).

...or is that just a minority of those who post on Y!A?

I've just answered a couple of questions from 'Sunshine', and now I can neither edit my answers or comment - in other words I'm blocked (something I'm not surprised by).

How would you even start to justify a claim like this?

The statement was posted as part of an answer to this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201401...

The answer given (in full) was:

"For those who keep score - in it's entire history (1500 to the present) so far as we know today - Scientists claims about the natural world have been right about 17% of the time."

How would you even start to justify a claim like this?

The statement was posted as part of an answer to this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201401...

The answer given (in full) was:

"For those who keep score - in it's entire history (1500 to the present) so far as we know today - Scientists claims about the natural world have been right about 17% of the time."

"You're assuming origins is a scientific discussion. It is not. Since no human was around to observe the origin of life, the universe and everything, it cannot be considered a scientific process, as the scientific method requires observation, testing and replication. Since what we believe about our origins dictates how we see all of life, particularly our own, origins is a worldview discussion. What you believe about where you came from dictates how you view every aspect of your life.

My worldview is that God created everything that has a beginning. Your worldview is that everything created itself out of nothing. And while neither of us can use the scientific method to prove our worldview is correct, I have the advantage over you in this: All of our observations thus far have led us to conclude that it is utterly impossible for life to arise from non-life. All of our observations thus far have also led us to conclude that to every effect there is a cause. You and I both agree that the universe is an effect. Where we disagree is on what its cause is. I believe the universe's cause is God. You believe it is nothing. Literally nothing. So between the two of us, I'm far more likely to be correct than you are, given what we have observed so far about how the universe and causality work."

The above was posted as an answer on R&S about 20 minutes ago, which bits can be considered accurate and supportable?

Obviously I'm not referring to anyone who thinks a god created the first life and it then evolved (with, or without, 'guidance').

However, it does seem like many creationists think that evolution should be rejected outright because every precise detail of the mechanisms involved cannot be demonstrated, and 'proven' in triplicate - yet also claim that the creation account in their chosen religious text is undeniable fact, despite a complete lack of any detail about how life was created and came to exist in its present forms.

So why the double standards?

If you want to say that we are not monkeys please also answer the following questions:

1). Can you give a suitable taxonomical definition which would include ALL monkeys but exclude apes?

2). Have you heard of cladistics, and if so why don't you think it is valid?