15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

by JanH 114 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  gravedancer

  Evolutionists can't have it both ways.

  The purpose of each of our lives is to preserve the human species. Motivated by our own intense desire to experience pleasure and promote our own survival, we will each try to be psychologically as far away from facing death (or discomfort which we instinctually associate with death).

  Our sexual urges, desires, motivations, drives, CULTURES, attitudes, values are all setup for the purpose of self and group preservation. I have yet to find an instance where this is not true.
• 

  Gedanken

  Grunt,

  You have chosen an apt name.

  Is a snowflake complicated? Who's the maker? How about amino acids spontaneously forming in a test-tube? Your barn analogy is not only pathetically idiotic, it is also self-aggrandizing. So you are Mr/Mrs back-to-the-Earth former of barns. Who gives a stuff? I've painted tons of houses, replaced scores of windows, fixed fleets of cars and mown meadows of grass. So what? Any fool knows that those things cannot be done by chance. You aren't so much missing the point as being too ignorant as to even know that there is a point. Lest you be unduly insulted, I will state that I do like you - for you are trying. But it's a big mf of a universe and trying don't count for much. Try thinking, and after that, get some education. Without that you are just as worth listening to as a monkey with its finger up its ass and its head firmly buried in a pile of deep doodoo.

  Harsh? yes. But get used to it, that is the way of evolution - you can perhaps accrue attention on a board like this, or amongst loony creationists, but can you go out into the real world? That's the acid test. My "buddy" Jan - who I don't even know other than electronically, but whom you stupidly associate with me based only on our coalescence of opinion - no doubt can. I can too. can you? If not then trust in God. Or the Watchtower.

  Hugs,

  G-man.

  ps: not all educated people in the world know each other.......there are many of these types

  pps: edited for typos and several missed opportunities for insult.

  Edited by - Gedanken on 6 August 2002 1:0:23

  Edited by - Gedanken on 6 August 2002 1:3:26
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  Hanibal:

  Skin color is an obvious racial adaptation to the environment. How is this not a minor form of evolution? You dont see dark skinned people developing in Sweeden just like you dont find the Vikings in Congo.

  If I give

  birth to a handycaped child this doesnt mean its offspring will nesseccarly be

  handycaped.Many times they are not. And on down the line this doesnt even

  come close to new species being created.

  In nature, the handicaped child would not survive so there would be no offspring (survival of the fitest). Also, many handicaped problems are chromosome related and the children are sterile (Im not saying all handicapped people are sterile!)

  I am not saying that by having different skin color makes you a different species, I am saying that the body, given a long period of time, adapts to the environment in which it lives; this by defenition is evolution.
• 

  NewWay

  Jan and Xander:

  Is it not possible that people are not convinced of evolution simply because they are not convinced. Should not the same courage and independent thinking that this board often applauds not be shown the same respect when applied to other matters? For instance, evolutionists will commend Darwin and others who did not keep with the 'status quo'. It seems to me that just as the tables have now turned in popular support of evolutionists, so do we often see the same attitudes from evolutionists that they decried in theologians when theologians had the popular vote. Really this proves that humans beings in general are no different to each other. On the one hand we have the faith of those who believe in Creation, on the other hand we have the faith of those who believe in Evolution.
  
  I'm am not so happy with the term Creationist as some associate it with those who believe in a literal six-day creation, for instance. I certainly don't believe that. As has been pointed out, evolution should not be seen as synonymous with atheism. So my rejection of evolution is certainly not based on a fear that this could endanger my belief in God. I would also make the point that 'one man's poison is another man's medicine', so one's perspective of what constitutes 'poison' can be simply a matter of personal bias. I think it better not to use potentially inflammatory remarks and labels which, for instance, by association at least, calls into question a person's intellect. That is not an honourable way of debating an issue, as many of us (evolutionists or otherwise) have noted concerning the WTS. I assure you I am anything but lazy when it comes to research, but as I hope you will appreciate it all takes time. Jan, you said with regard to one's educating oneself on evolutionary evidence that, "doing so would require reading some quite technical books and articles". Most people do not have the time to trawl through such literature, which is why evolutionists must seriously consider presenting their evidence in forms that the non-specialist can digest. I will in fact be reading the article you pointed out.
  
  I wrote what I did not to 'stir things up' but to present my thoughts on the first page of the article. I hope you will not consider me to be among those you call 'braindead', since you should know from my various posts (if you've read them), that my brain is very active! Also, if you wish to convince me of your views then you will have to do so by reasonable, logical answers, and not by pointing to my belief in God as an excuse to hold my actual arguments in contempt. I am reminded of the person who argues for the non-existence of God on the basis of not being convinced of God's care for humanity, but that same person would not judge the existence of a human being on the basis of his/her personality or morality, since we know that 'good' and 'bad' people exist. So, lets adopt an academic approach to the subject, devoid of labelling.
  
  Thank you for providing a link on the subject of observable transformation of species, which I will read with interest.
  
  Kind regards.
• 

  LyinEyes

  It is too early in the morn for me .... I think I will go take a nap, and come back and really read all the post of Jan's topic. This is interesting, but my fluff needs to go on the back burner before I tackle this one. But I have been wanting to read others viewpoint on this. Look forward to reading it when I am not so sleepy.... this one needs my full attention.
• 

  NewWay

  "We are in a similar predicament with our understanding of the origin of life. Since we don't have detailed information on the exact steps we will have to be content with developing plausible scenarios based on information concerning conditions on the early earth around the time life originated nearly four billion years ago. One plausible scenario holds that the first life on earth was based on ribonucleic acids (RNA), a simpler chemical cousin of DNA. Many researchers have focused on RNA because it can store genetic information and it can catalyze reactions; these are essential processes in living systems. In this scenario, it is proposed that RNA, a polymer (long-chain molecule), arose from the gradual stringing together of repeating chemical units, known as monomers, that naturally arose on the primitive earth."

  
  plausible - 1 (of an argument, statement, etc.) seeming reasonable or probable. 2 (of a person) persuasive but deceptive. - Oxford English Reference Dictionary.
  
  scenario - 1 an outline of the plot of a play, film, opera, etc., with details of the scenes, situations, etc. 2 (a) a postulated sequence of future events. (b) any situation or sequence of events. - Oxford English Reference Dictionary.
  
  So the above paragraph is saying that although scientist are in a 'predicament' (thanks for being refreshingly honest!), they still do not fear 'developing' (some will read here 'making up') what they see as reasonable or probable. Note too that this is not cast in stone, for it is only one 'plausible scenario'. Sorry Jan, but this paragraph does not tell me that scientists know what the earliest form of life was, only what they think may have been.
  
  Jan: I don't know when, or even if I will have the time to be able to read let alone fully understand the arguments put forth in "29+ Evidences For Macro-evolution..." I didn't realise it was such a large document, so I think I will have to leave discussion of that particular work to someone else. I will, however, peruse the first few pages, in order to get an idea of what is being presented. Perhaps, as this is 'your' thread and you have made certain assertions, you would like to highlight the main points in order for us to get the gist of the evidence being presented (maybe you already have and I've missed it). I've printed out a copy of "Observed Instances of Speciaton" and will be reading it, as I said, with interest. I will let you know my thoughts when I've fully absorbed all the information (it ran to 16 pages).
  
  Kind regards.
• 

  NewWay

  BTW, the use of the word 'evolution' to apply to tiny changes in physical makeup is the thin end of the wedge. Once a person is able to get others to agree to using the word in this sense, it is only a matter of time before they are coerced in to accepting that greater changes were/are possible. I do not accept such a definition as applying to these small changes. In the mind of the general public 'evolution' occurs when one species changes into another. Indiscriminate use of this word actually serves the interests of evolutionists in a way they may not even be aware of, as people can seem to be agreeing to something that they don't actually believe.
• 

  Xander

  Is it not possible that people are not convinced of evolution simply because they are not convinced.

  Those aren't the people I (and, I suspect, Jan) have a problem with. If they have an open mind and are considering the evidence, great.

  We have several posters here that do not. THAT is what I have a problem with. They read through pages of the material we site...essentially looking for a line where the author says 'elephants are grey'. Then they cry 'HA! There are WHITE ELEPHANTS!! EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS FALSE!!!' and that's the extent of their argument against evolution.

  It's ridiculous and irritating. There ARE some possibly valid arguments against evolution, which are the source of some interesting debate in the academic community, and could be here. Those are interesting, and I welcome them.

  Uneducated 'everything must have a maker because everything in my limited experience does' arguments are nothing more than irritating.

  I do not accept such a definition as applying to these small changes

  Then you're wrong. That's *exactly* what evolution is. At least one commonly accepted theory holds that all macroevolution (speciation) is, is a combination of smaller - microevolutionary - changes. At some point, all those minor changes end up causing the two variants of a species to stop breeding together, which accelerates the process of speciation.
• 

  plmkrzy

  In the mind of the general public 'evolution' occurs when one species changes into another.

  Newway , I can appreciate what you are saying, but IMHO I'd like to add that I think this is also what causes a majority of the problems.

  I personally like not having a mind that fits in with the general public.

  I wouldnt be very comfortable if everyone agreed with what I was thinking, my instincts would kick in and tell me somethings wrong with what Im thinking. I would examine my own thoughts before trying to examine others.

  It isn't always popular but it is definitely mine. If I depended on the general public to do my thinking for me chances are I wouldn't even be alive now. There have been many times when taking the more popular road would have killed my kids and me.

  I think there is a lot more to be said in favor of instincts and gut feelings that most people probably brush off and not give much weight to including scientists.

  I think humans have instincts that are WAY different then any other creature. And I think it's for a reason.

  Instincts that go far beyond just survival.

  plum
• 

  dubla

  I think humans have instincts that are WAY different then any other creature. And I think it's for a reason.

  thats natural selection for you......just think of the hightened instincts our future offspring will have....i wonder what we are currently evolving into? maybe a super-human species thatll make humans seem like monkeys in comparison.....who knows.

  aa