CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar 72 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • rem
    rem

    Wow, so many misconceptions in this thread. Some people sure have a grudge against science... and yet they vent these grudges on an Internet forum which would not be possible... not even imaginable without the very science that they malign. Oh well.... but I digress...

    First: Evolution is NOT atheistic.... I repeat... Evolution is NOT atheistic. So any arguments such as: "Evolution is there only because it [sic] adherents cannot accept the possibilty [sic] that there might be a God" are simply wrong. End of story. People who accept Evolutionary theory (I won't say Evolutionists just as us laypeople are not Physicists) simply do so because the facts support it. There is no conspiracy against god here... in fact, many scientists do have some belief in god even though they accept the Theory of Evolution (TOE). Many Christians around the world accept the TOE... Are you going to argue that these Christians are atheists? Go ahead, if you'd like, but you just make yourself sound misinformed.

    Second: Even if you could "disprove" the TOE, then that does not necessarily mean Creationism is correct. You need evidence to show a theory is correct and so far there is zero evidence for Creationism. Also, if anyone were able to disprove Evolution, that person would be a wealthy and admired man. It would be like toppling Relativity or QM... who wouldn't want that glory? But so far, the smartest minds have not been able to falsify the TOE. There is no conspiracy within science to keep Evolution because of some atheistic agenda. If anyone has evidence that supports the Theory of Creation and/or evidence that goes against the TOE, then by all means get it published in a reputable peer reviewed journal and become a rich and famous person.

    This is also a requirement of any useful theory: it must be falsifiable. Unfortunately, the Theory of Creation (which there really is no coherent one drawn up) is not falsifiable. Therefore it is useless as a scientific theory and as a means of helping us understand our Universe any better. The TOE, on the other hand, is clearly falsifiable and has enriched our knowledge of the Universe in more ways than we can probably imagine. In fact, many of us are probably alive today due to the research in medicine that has advanced thanks to the TOE.

    I could go on, but it's probably pointless.

    rem

    Edited by - rem on 24 September 2002 23:12:56

  • rem
    rem

    Zech,

    Your entire post has me ROTF.

    Perhaps you should spend less time ROTF and more time doing some research.

    I am sure you're working on it. I'll see you in about 2 billion years and you wont be any closer than you are right now.

    A silly statement indeed, and you have no idea why. You have no idea of the advances scientists have made in the field of Abiogenesis because you refuse to do the research. Its your head in the sand, not mine.

    Don't you realize what you're up against. All the greatest scientific minds in the world with the finest computer technology cannot intentionally replicate a process they claim happen totally by chance.

    Yet another misconception. Nobody says the process happened totally by chance but you wouldnt know that would you because you havent even looked at any of the research. You do like to do a good bit of writing, though. The foolish man thinks he is wise and so forth, I suppose.

    Even if they could it would not prove it could happen without intelligence at work.

    Sure they could you just dont have a good enough grasp of the concepts.

    Then too the problems just begin. It has to be demonstrated how simple life forms can progress to more improved and complex forms without intelligent guidance.

    Already been done look it up.

    Then too what created the environment this lifeform would need for survival.

    Reversal of cause and effect here. Typical misconception.

    All things left to themselves without controlled maintenance deteriorate and die.

    All things? Even self replicating organisms? Ever heard of natural selection?

    Even if a simple lifeform could evolve on its own what would account for the reproduction process requiring male and female without supernatural guidance.

    Sexual reproduction has been explained. Look it up.

    The mental gymnastics people are willing to go thru to believe we are not creation are both vain and stupid.

    Oh, you mean like the mental gymnastics needed to explain away the consistent order of fossils in the strata? The design mistakes in organisms? Junk DNA? DNA similarities between related species? Dinosaurs and other carnivores? Extinction? Neanderthals and other humanoid species? Etc, etc, etc?

    Are you insinuating Newton did not believe in creation?

    Dont know where you got that idea from.

    Are you likewise implying knowing refracted light makes a rainbow that the miracle of what a rainbow is is even remotely explained?

    It explains that it is a natural phenomenon and not the supernatural one that the Hebrew Bible says it is. Any use of the word miracle is just poetic license.

    Creation and evolution are diametrically opposed concepts. Either somebody made it or it just happened. Lack of evidence for one is evidence for the other.

    So if there were lack of evidence for Evolution, it would prove that Yahweh created the Universe? How do you gather that? You still need evidence otherwise you cant differentiate between Yahweh, Zeus, Smurfs, or any combination of the three.

    Whoever created the universe must have the ability to do so. I don;t think smurfs foot the bill.

    Why dont you think smurfs foot the bill? Do you have any evidence to show that Yahweh is more powerful than smurfs, or that Yahweh even exists?

    In the creation theory there is only one hurdle to overcome. That is where the creator came from.

    Thats not the only hurdle. But then again, Evolution doesnt have anything to do with a creator or a beginning it only concerns itself with self replicating molecules and organisms that already exist. Again, you get confused with Abiogenesis. Sigh. Who says that the Universe (or Metaverse) had to have a beginning, anyway?

    If we learn from the object lesson of my PACman analogy PACman cannot have any comprehension about a Creator who lives outside the limits of the world he created and are not subject to its rules.

    Ooh ooh a PacMan analogy! Wow, this is some deep thinking indeed. Unfortunately your analogy has a flaw the creator of PacMan certainly did have a beginning, therefore implying that God had a beginning, thus a cause. And the infinite regression continues.

    What made you think at all I was ever interested in a no God theory of life. NOT.

    Evolution is not an atheistic theory but thats lost on you, isnt it?

    I rather stay stupid.

    And you will.

    rem

  • Xander
    Xander

    I would have to show some cars(at least one) that was part one model and part another model

    You demonstrate an astonishing lack of knowledge of evolutionary theory.

    Evolution is there only because it adherents cannot accept the possibilty that there might be a God.

    As has been noted before, that's simply wrong.

    Evolution is fact - deal with it.

    That has nothing at all to do with if their is a god or gods or not. Or, if there are, if they created everything or not. Evolution doesn't address any of those issues - because it is not concerned with them.

    The theory of evolution does not explain how life, the universe, and everything started - it just explains how it is changing.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Free advice, if you are actually interested in an educated debate instead of spewing forth other people's words and thoughts instead of developing any of your own:

    Visit this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/

    It is a great source of information.

    If you're too lazy to read the whole thing, PLEASE AT LEAST READ THIS PAGE:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

    It details the FIVE MAJOR MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT EVOLUTION. Each of these misconceptions you appear to show evidence of holding true.

    Edited by - Xander on 25 September 2002 12:10:28

  • tkmmorgan
    tkmmorgan

    Xander,

    Do me a favor and define what evolution says please. The type of creationism we are taking about has been defined already. I am interested in honest debate not flaming. I don't think you are an idiot for believing in evolution and I would like to see facts that you say support evolution but as there are apparently differing views on what evolution is please define it as you understand it, and where God has any place in it.This is evolution as I understand it:

  • Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
  • Planets and stars formed from space dust.
  • Matter created life by itself.
  • Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
  • Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)

    • A transitional species has to be proven to me before I can take evolution seriously and your websites didn't do that. I read the rather large article about the "misconception" that there aren't any and will copy a few quotes for you from it:

    "Evolutionary theory predicted that they must have gone through a stage where they had were partially aquatic but still had hind legs, but there were no known intermediate fossils. A flurry of recent discoveries from India & Pakistan (the shores of the ancient Tethys Sea) has pretty much filled this gap. There are still no known species-species transitions, and the "chain of genera" is not complete, but we now have a partial lineage, and sure enough, the new whale fossils have legs, exactly as predicted"

    "GAP: There are almost no known perissodactyl fossils from the late Paleocene. This is actually a small gap; it's only noticeable because the perissodactyl record is otherwise very complete. "

    "GAP: Here's that Oligocene gap again. No elephant fossils at all for several million years. "

    Note the "there are still no known species-species transitions" without that there is no evolution as I was taught it in school. That some micro-cosmic event involving lightning created the first microscopic life which then evolved into all life as we know it. The articles on those pages are full of "apparently""palentologists believe""probably" statements which means they have no facts for what they are about to say. How they can postulate those conclusions with gaps, some huge, in the fossil record is beyond me. I'm also not really interested in fossil evidence, if it can be produced it will lend credence to evolution in my mind. However, since we can cataloge 10's of thousands of bug species in vast rain forests why can't we find a single creature on this earth that is actually in species-species transition. Has evolution stopped then? I do believe that microevolution(minor variations found in all of the various life forms) happens but if we really evolved from apes then how come it isn't happening still?Where are the apes with "rudimentary speech"?If evolution is true then would it be possible for trees growing over an iron ore deposit to one day millions of years from now become a simple wooden box?I would almost bet you think that is ridiculous but yet you can believe that something as complicated as a human being can evolve from the raw materials of life.

    Here are a few quotes from scientists and researchers:

    "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

    "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France

    If I "demonstrate an astonishing lack of knowledge of evolutionary theory." why did Darwin himself say this? I think this quote vindicates my statement at least a little bit.

    "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

    "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

    "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deityomnipotent chance."*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102

    "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

    "What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseenbelief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."*Arthur N. Field

    And my favorite:

    "With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

    I read yours, would you do me the same courtesy?You can start here http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k with a $250,000 offer for someone to prove evolution. Since you can claim "Evolution is fact - deal with it." you should have no problem coming away from there $250,000 richer. Here is one on transitional fossils http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=32 and in case you have the misconception that science has no place in creation :

    http://www.creationevidence.org/ As you browse our pages you will receive educational information presenting scientific evidence for creation and design by a personal Creator. This scientifically chartered museum was established in July of 1984 for the purpose of research, excavation, and display of scientific evidence for creation. The Museum's team, led by its Founder and Director, Carl Baugh, Ph.D., has excavated eleven dinosaurs (Acrocanthosaurus, Stegosaurus, Allosaurus, etc.), 475 dinosaur tracks, 86 human footprints, 7 cat prints, and other fossil remains - all in Cretaceous limestone. These excavations were professionally documented along the Paluxy River and various other international locations.

    Todd

    Sorry, one more thing, you say "Free advice, if you are actually interested in an educated debate instead of spewing forth other people's words and thoughts instead of developing any of your own: " neither one of us are scientists so that is what we are reduced to doing. Other people's work has shaped how we believe. If I am wrong and you are a scientist, I take my lumps now and apologize for assuming.

    Edited by - tkmmorgan on 25 September 2002 14:16:47

    Edited by - tkmmorgan on 25 September 2002 14:37:39

  • rem
    rem

    tkmmorgan,

    It's difficult to take you seriously when you post glaring errors and misconceptions in your first couple paragraphs:

    This is evolution as I understand it:

  • Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
  • Planets and stars formed from space dust.
  • Matter created life by itself.
  • Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
  • Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)

    • Well, you don't understand it... at all:

    Time, space, and matter coming into existence have NOTHING to do with Evolution... See Big Bang and Cosmology.

    Planets and stars forming have NOTHING to do with Evolution... See Physics.

    Matter creating life has NOTHING to do with Evolution.... See Abiogenesis

    Early life-forms learning to reproduce: A silly comment since you cannot be living unless you first reproduce... thus Evolution has nothing to do with this... this is Abiogenesis... the theory of how the first self-replicating molecules got started.

    Major changes occurred between diverse life forms: Not quite... not so diverse life forms branched out into several different types and the branching continued and still continues down to the species level.

    Obviously you did NOT read any of the material that was suggested. If you did, then you have reading comprehension issues. Try again. There is no way to have an intelligent discussion with people who deliberately choose to be ignorant.

    rem

  • cellomould
    cellomould

    About the 'species-species transition':

    This concept really doesn't make sense. A species does not change into another species. 'Species-species transition' is just semantic, that's all. A species can diverge, of course.

    For example, there are several 'strands' of the bacterium e. coli. Some are symbiotic in humans, others lethally parasitic. At what point are these considered separate species? The common definition is... when it can be demonstrated that they cannot interbreed. The interesting thing about bacteria is that they usually reproduce asexually. They simply divide and conquer.

    But bacteria and other single celled organisms are also known to swap genes by another mechanism, called horizontal transfer. This even happens across enormous species barriers.

    The following article states that an estimated 20 percent of e. coli DNA came from other species.

    http://www.sciencenews.org/20000722/bob2.asp

    So how to define a species may be somewhat complicated in such cases. But it is not at all uncertain that bacteria, thanks to their rapid reproduction rates, are evolving under our eyes.

    cellmould

  • Xander
    Xander

    *sigh*

    Obviously too lazy to even read the section of the site I pleaded with you to read.

    Copied from answering misconception #4:

    First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact.

    And, just for fun, here are a few more definitions:

    Evolution: changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of time1.
    Microevolution: the shifting of gene frequencies in a local population1.
    Macroevolution: major transformations of organisms over geological time1.
    Genetic Variation: the genetic difference between members of a population2.

    Note that, of these, only #3 - macroevolution has not been OBSERVED FIRST HAND by humans! There is substantial evidence of it, however, and denying this is burying your head in the sand.

    Edited by - Xander on 25 September 2002 15:23:47

  • tkmmorgan
    tkmmorgan
    4. Young universe, young earth, recent life: This is the classic Christian model which is so widely disputed by those of the evolution camp. In this model the entire universe, including, of course, the earth and all life, is less than 10,000 years old. This is in keeping with the most straightforward reading of the Genesis account in combination with the lists of generations in Genesis 5, 10 and 11.

    That is what I believe and it was defined in the opening of this thread. You have yet to define what you believe is evolution. You tell me what it is not but don't say what it is. I posted that because that is what I was taught as evolution in school. I am chided for "spewing" the ideas of others but then when I ask what should be a simple question for you, to define what you believe as evolution, you can't even answer in your own words you just direct me to some website. I would just go to Google and do a search if that is all I wanted. By the way, Darwin's book is called "The Origin of Species" so obviously this has something to do with evolution.

    The very first supposed transition in the material I was directed to is the species-species transition of ape to man. So unless you believe ape and man are the same species I don't really know what the point is to your post cellomould.

    But it is not at all uncertain that bacteria, thanks to their rapid reproduction rates, are evolving under our eyes.

    However it's not at all certain that it is either.

    It is obvious that we are all talking about different things so until you define evolution as you see it this is all a big waste of time and accomplishes nothing.

    Todd

    Edited by - tkmmorgan on 25 September 2002 15:53:11

    Edited by - tkmmorgan on 25 September 2002 15:55:17

  • tkmmorgan
    tkmmorgan

    Sorry xander I went straight to what was the heart of my argument, the transitions. This thread would be forgotten by the time I got time to read everything there. I was hoping you could sum it up for me.

  • tkmmorgan
    tkmmorgan

    Xander, just for fun, I'll post from the rebuttal to the source of your definitions

    EVOLUTION
    Wayne Duck: changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of time
    The Truth: Ducks definition is broad enough to cover everything from a blue-eyed child with brown-eyed parents to the proposed change from a unicellular organism to trees, penguins, and humans. While this definition is therefore technically correct, it must be noted that what is being argued is not mere variation but changes in body types and functions due to mutations and natural selection over long periods of timei.e., macroevolution.

    MICRO-EVOLUTION
    Wayne Duck: the shifting of gene frequencies in a local population
    The Truth: This is exactly how breeders can breed selectively and how all natural variation happens. It does not depend on either mutation or natural selection as the varieties present in sexually reproducing populations are due to the mixing of the two individual parents DNA.

    MACRO-EVOLUTION
    Wayne Duck: major transformations of organisms over geological time
    The Truth: To clarify, major refers to changes in body type or function (e.g., new organs or broad physiological changes). This concept rests on the four legs of time, chance, mutations, and natural selection. It is a purely theoretical phenomenon, and has not been scientifically observed.

    GENETIC VARIATION
    Wayne Duck: the genetic difference between members of a population
    The Truth: Genetic variation can be determined on an individual basis, on a population basis, or on a time basis. Narrowly defining it only in terms of a difference between members wrongly ignores every other application, as if to exclude population-wide shifts in the manifestation of existing genetic information (which is essentially the same thing as micro-evolution).

    • Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit