evolution or creation? lets talk...

by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends

Abaddon

Sam87
You have already disowned your reference to pre and post Flood brains, but it isn't that easy. You have shown in one blow the level of research and thoroughness you have undertaken. I suppose despite this you still want to be taken seriously in discussion?
As for the brain claim in the URL you provided, jgnat provided one of the links in my Favourate's Evolution folder. For those not following the link, this claim was made-up by someone at some point and has never been made after comprehensive research by any scientist. It just gets repeated a lot by people who think it supports their argument.
.... again, your failure to check facts in a thorough fashion have lead you to quote utter nonsense. Will you now embark on a serious re-examination of what you know and an indepth study of certain key subjects, having been shown your knowledge (note, knowledge, not intelligence) is lacking? Or will you carry on making claims you have lifted from websites that you don't know enough to gauge the reliability of?
Ignoring silly fairy stories about brain size you drop as soon as they are questioned, there is the samll matter of the so-called Flood. If you DO mean the Noachian Biblical Global Flood, then aren't you aware many arcaeological artifacts as well as trees that are alive to this day preclude any Global Flood as having taken place when the Biblical chronology says it did. The Great Pyramid in Egypt is just ONE of these evidences precluding the Biblical account being accurate.
to me the evolution therory has quite a few downfalls that cant be explaned properly though,
How much do you know about evolution? Obviously you have an opinion, but is it a qualified opinion? Please cite the 'downfalls'; I am sure the >97% of professional scientists who have no major issues with the general run of Evolutionary theory will be very interested to know what they've missed. At the same time your theory of Creation, with evidences and explanations for the origin of the Creator that do not involve 'special pleading' would be appreciated.
Having done this MANY times before I am wary about spending time in conversation with someone who hasn't studied the subject at length independently and has decided it couldn't possibly have happened based upon their limited knowledge of the subject; an 'argument from personal incredulity'.
Here's a quick one-line analysis of the other claim on that URL
1. The Fossil Record
... totally refutes any Creation myth, be it Myan, Christian, Islamic, Hindu or Aboriginal. It is not perfect, but I suggest reading something like 'The Ancestors Tale' by Dawkins to see explantions of why it isn't perfect. For a start, please think how often animals get fosilied today and extrapolate.
2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field
Proper research would have revealed Barnes used an out-dated model of the Eart's interior;
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
3. The Global Flood...
As stated herein, it simply has no evidence to supppoort it and lots (direct and indirect) to indiocate it never happened.
4. Population Statistics...
This shows the intellectual honesty of the people writing this article; wars, disease, infant mortality, all upset the tidy convenience of their calculations. They also fail to mention that if the Great Pyramid was built 100 years after the supposed Global Flood, it would have had a work force of 13 people... of course, the Great Pyramid was built before the suposed dates of the Flood, but it's a nice illustartion of Creationist honesty or competence.
5. Radio Halos...
Read this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column
Cite these 'evidences' one by one and see how much dishonesty and incompetence you allow me to illustrate in Creationist writing.
7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere...
Didn't you check to see if any of these claims were relaible? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html
8. Expansion of Space Fabric...
Read this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html and let me know if you're still willing to stand behind this claim...
9. Design in Living Systems...
I think I've made enough comments in this post to cover this one...
Beardo
Interesting comments. Can you please give me evidence that 'spiritual values' are not 'supersticious nonsense'?
You also use the typical 'special pleading' used to overcome the inherent contradiction of any Creationist belief system based on an intelligent designer, i.e., some variance on the lines of 'a condition that has existed forever needs no beginining'. This has no more intellectual subtlety than a child blaming an invisable purple kangaroomfor the disapperence of cookies. You are implying compexity can exist without an origin in part to justify your disbelief in non-god evolution because non-god evolution couldn't happen without pre-existing complexity to 'design' things.
Trying to get out of a self-refuting argument you simply validate the most atheistic of evolutionary beliefs by belieiving in exactly the same thing; complexity without origin.
You also make a suprising leap to the assumption you are no god (or I assume any part of god). How do you know? Likewise, how do you know your 'spiritual experiences' are valid or invalid compared to those spiritual experiences of others that contradict your own? Maybe they're all based in the imagination.
I just exist.
Or you think you do. Or you think you think you do.
whyizit
As elegently proved by stevenyc, your claims regarding Darwin's beliefs are based upon lies. You then go to make further comments about Darwin.
How come religionists et. al. object to atheists pointing out racism/sexisim/Imperialism/brutality by religionists (even for example Christians in the 19th Century), when many religionists in attacking evolution, rather than referencing modern works, attack a 19th Century scientist?
Please given me a handful of reasons why you find MODERN evolutionary theory lacking. Or is your knowledge based on the writings of Creationists who attack Darwin as it is easier dealing with dead 19th Century scientists and their theories than it is dealing with 21st Century live ones and their theories.
The problem is you have an enquring intelligent mind ("If humans "evolved" from apes, why are there still apes? If we evolved from a pit of slime, how did the pit of slime know how to make us (purely by accident, mind you) male and female?"), yet obviously have next-to-no knowledge on the subject you have chosen to disbelieve. There are answers to both those questions (allowing for the misconcwptions apparent in you framing those questions).
Are you happy to go on believing based on inaccurate knowledge? To exit a conversation when it gets too difficult and looks like you might have to do some work (in your spare time) to carry on the discussion in a meaningful fashion rather than repeating other people's errors as you have thus far done?
And why have you excluded god USING EVOLUTION as an explanation? The FACT of evolution (as testified by the fossil record) is, afterall, beyond doubt; it is 'how and why it happened' as described by evoltionary THEORY that can be critiqued.
M.J.
Nice post. Pity that the evolutionary prize is asking evolutionists to prove something that evolution doesn't require. It states "If the system is closed to additional instructions".
Please find me an evolutionist who will support this claim. Don't you (or rather, the people making this offer) know that there are mechanisms that allow additonal instructions to develop within the system?
dido
No evolutionist has ever claimed humans 'just happened'. By all means disbelieve in Evolution, just please take the time to know what it actualy is before you disbelieve it.
As ever, we have a Creation-Evolution debate characterised by false or clueless traditional Creationist claims, wild non-traditional Creationist speculation that commists the same errors as the traditionalists, far too few religionists bothering to consider maybe god used Evolutionary processes and people who have taken the time and trouble to study Evolution wishing that the 'opposition' provided something more substancial to get their teeth into.
sir82

Evolution is just way to complicated
My favorite argument..."I'm too dense to understand it, therefore it has to be false".
Beardo

@ Abaddon
Yes, but I no longer give a flying hoot what you think or anybody else thinks of my " spiritual " experiences and ongoing quest to connect with the occult (hidden) world. I am not in the business of trying to persuade you or anybody else what to believe.
I would describe myself as a panentheist loosely - because that's where I'm at.
I am entitled to believe what I want to believe and let's face it, I may be as right or wrong as you
because non-god evolution couldn't happen without pre-existing complexity to 'design' things
Yep - I'll go with that. Thanks, I'll add that to my internal data-bank of absolutes.
Trying to get out of a self-refuting argument you simply validate the most atheistic of evolutionary beliefs by belieiving in exactly the same thing; complexity without origin.
You lost me there Mr Spock - could you try and be a little clearer. I do not actually believe in complexity without origin and if I lead you down that pathway, then, oops, sorry about that old boy.
stevenyc

A couple of points brought out by creationist in the thread typifies the difficulty of discution between the creationist and evolutionist.
I will try and explain these difficulties by showing three separate points of view.
Two people, Bob and Tom, are walking together outside. It starts to rain.
Bob: what creates the rain?
Tom: the cloud.
Bob: what is the cloud?
Tom: the cloud creates rain.
Imagine if the question was posed to someone who had studied the theory of weather dynamics. Even though the response would have been different, would it make it more or less valid to Bob?
Here are some factors involved which I have seen cause an impasse:
- Does the person require evidence, or a test to be performed to satisfy them?
- Does the person have a vested interest in the answer?
- Is the person aware of other answers which either add or remove weight to the response?
This leads me to believe that generally, the main battleground is not at whether creation or evolution can be argued successfully but to what extent rationality and mysticism can coexist.
For the atheist-evolutionist they cannot. To the atheist-evolutionist, mysticism belongs in the beautiful stories of fairy tale and lore, not in a post renaissance world of today. To the atheist-evolutionist, mysticism is the anathema of logic and rationality.
To the theist-evolutionist they can. The theist-evolutionist has allowed his mysticism to be resigned to fairy tail, page by page. But, only as each page becomes demystified. The theist-evolutionist will not accept a leap of faith that the universe 'just came about' but will only accept 'GOD just was'. For now...
The traditional theist-creationist lives in both worlds. The theist-creationist will allow all logic and reason up to the point of where the logic and reason poses a threat to the mystical writings. To the theist-creationist, the interpretations of these writings hold the balance of power.
Me, I'm an atheist-creationist.
steve
dido

I`ve noticed that people that believe in evolution are really dogmatic about it. To be quite honest with you i find evolution a complicated subject and don`t understand all the `big` words as i am not a scientist, and prefer laymans terms. I tend to agree with whyizit, if we are supposed to have evolved, why aren`t we or any other species still evolving? Simple question.
stevenyc

dido:

I`ve noticed that people that believe in evolution are really dogmatic about it. To be quite honest with you i find evolution a complicated subject and don`t understand all the `big` words as i am not a scientist, and prefer layman's terms. I tend to agree with whyizit, if we are supposed to have evolved, why aren`t we or any other species still evolving? Simple question.
dido, you've asked a very good and honest question. In layman's terms I'll try to explain. I assume that your view is a traditional christian teaching on how life came to be. This view says that we as humans are the product, or result of creation. This means that we, you and me, are the END of a chain of events. That chain being that God (and Jesus) created all plants and animals and then humans. We (our species) were the last of His works. That for millions and millions of years into the future, what we see here today will never change. The evolutionist believes that we are still evolving. That we are not the end of a chain of events. The evolutionist believes that we are at where evolution has brought us so far. That as time goes on, evolution will too. Evolution takes a very long time for complex things to change enough to see that they are evolving. I hope this helps you understand the difference. steve
Abaddon

Beardo
I am entitled to believe what I want to believe and let's face it, I may be as right or wrong as you.
So you are saying all opinions are equal? I don't think so; I think you in real life accept opinions are not equal, and thus go to an MD when you are sick and a plumber when your pipes are blocked, rather than some random person who says they know lots about human sickness or blocked pipes.
However, this common-sense seems to evaporate when applied to questions of origins or evolution, et. al.. Whilst you are obviously entitled to believe what you like, to succesfully argue you may be as right or wrong as any other person requires you to show both people are equally qualified to pass judgement on something.
because non-god evolution couldn't happen without pre-existing complexity to 'design' things
Yep - I'll go with that. Thanks, I'll add that to my internal data-bank of absolutes.
If you are not being sarcastic above then I will point out if you agree with the above your belief that some compexity was always there is not compatable with the above statement. You cannot say 'complexity cannot arise without complexity' out of one corner of your mouth and 'some complexity has always been there and gave rise to more complexity' out of the other. Well, you can say it, but that doesn't stop the statements contradicting each other.
And seriously, how do you know you are not part of god?
dido
I`ve noticed that people that believe in evolution are really dogmatic about it.
Really? And people who believe in Creative myths written by bronze-age goatherds for which there is no evidence are what but who have not bothered to learn enough about alternative theories about origins of mankind are, what? ... open minded?
I've already said I don't know why more religionists don't believe in god-directed evolution. How is that dogmatic?? I'm open (ish) on the god topic. Evolutionary processes having got us where we are doesn't mean there is no god.
It just means Judaeo-Christio-Islamic etc. ideas of god are highly infected with supersticious nonsense written by bronze-age goatherds and that there is no 'inspired' and 'accurate' book written by god or those under his control. Do you really want to believe the Creative myths of a misogynistic patriarch who though women were unclean when they menstrated, and that a woman who gave birth to a child was unclean longer than if she gave birth to a boy?
To be quite honest with you i find evolution a complicated subject and don`t understand all the `big` words as i am not a scientist, and prefer laymans terms. I tend to agree with whyizit, if we are supposed to have evolved, why aren`t we or any other species still evolving? Simple question.
Simple answer; we (and other organisms) are still evolving. You are honest enough to admit you don't know much about the subject, and such a statement shows it. Who ever told you things have stopped evolving? Not an evolutionist, that's for certain.
If you admit you don't know much about a subject (be it baseball or evolution) surely it shouldn't be a surprise if your assumptions about the subject are sometimes entirely false.
And please don't play the 'oo, it's difficult, there are big words' card. I don't believe for a minute you're too dumb to engage in the debate. You might not be willing to make enough of an effort to be informed enough about the subject to have an opinion that is worth anything, but that is YOUR decison.
It is very simple to make up for a lack of knowledge, all it takes is time and effort. If you're not willing to do that, don't blame others for your lack of knowledge, play the 'dumb' card, or expect to have a worthwhile opinion. Would you expect to be able to make worthwhile comments about computer programming if you know nothing about it? Then how come you expect to make worthwhile comments about evolution when you know nothing about it?
funkyderek

dido:
I`ve noticed that people that believe in evolution are really dogmatic about it.
As are most who believe the earth orbits the sun.
To be quite honest with you i find evolution a complicated subject and don`t understand all the `big` words as i am not a scientist, and prefer laymans terms.
That's fine. If you don't understand a term, there's no shame in looking it up or asking someone to explain it. It's a difficult subject. Just remember though, until you put the necessary work in, don't expect anyone to think much of your uninformed opinion.
I tend to agree with whyizit, if we are supposed to have evolved, why aren`t we or any other species still evolving? Simple question.
It is a simple question, so simple that were you really interested in the answer, you would have had little trouble finding it. But I'll do the same for you as I did for whyizit. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised and see different results.
Anyway, here are some links to help answer your question:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB928_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
(Any terms you don't understand, just let me know.)
dido

Abaddon- first of all i am not playing the `dumb` card, but i hate it when science boffs quote stuff which the average person doesn`t have a clue about. Whether they are trying to impress others with their `intellectual` mind comes into question. After believing in creation for all my life, and not ever contemplating evolution, i admit i don`t know a lot about it, but why should all my assumptions be false? Another example of dogmatism if you ask me! Okay, give me one example of something that is still evolving, as i don`t know one? Also, i actually agree with the `creative myth` that women are `unclean` while menstruating. Well, i`ll put that in laymans terms, women need a break from sex during that time of the month, but selfish men don`t see it that way. I am not that thick that i don`t understand the difference between evolution and creation, just would like to see evidence of it, not just quotes from boffins.
Beardo

@ Abaddon
to succesfully argue you may be as right or wrong as any other person requires you to show both people are equally qualified to pass judgement on something
I would say my " feelings " and insights gained through direct experience, are as qualified as I need to be in order to state my case. But, I know that will not be enough for you.
... and yes, concerning matters of eschatology, I may be as right or as wrong as you Tuvok.
how do you know you are not part of god?
I believe I am - I do not think I said otherwise. Unless I was tripping.
I was being sarcastic before btw - a belief in a supreme being / overmind / great spirit etc - summons forth paradoxical cunundroms continually. But for me, that is no problem, as wrestling with these apparent contradictions is all part of the exercise.

evolution or creation? lets talk...

Share this