Questions for Creationists

by IronGland 184 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ThatSucks

  I don't see any real debates here. I see a bunch of people wasting time while a child in Africa is starving to death.
• 

  rem

  Zechariah,

  I have no argument with people who believe god created the first replicating molecules. I don't happen to believe god did it, but there is too little evidence for abiogenesis to argue that point. The only thing I've been arguing all along, and nothing more, is that the theory of evolution is sound. The theory of evolution does not have anything to do with the first replicating molecules or abiogenesis or how it all started. Evolution is just a model that explains why we see the progression of different animals in the fossil record and why all animals on earth share similar DNA coding.

  Classic Creationists deny that evolution has happened - they believe that god specially created every species or 'kind', as they call them. Some people call themselves "Creationists", but what they really mean is that they deny abiogeneis - not Evolution. I believe Ros fits into this category. Unfortunately, the use of the label "Creationist" becomes confusing when used in that context, even though technically it may be true (the "Creationist" believes that god started it and used and maybe even directed Evolution). The term "Intelligent Design" has come into fashion to describe that point of view and helps to differentiate between Fundy-Christian Creationists and typical Christians who accept Evolution.

  So far there is no evidence that "Intelligence" is needed to explain the diversity of life that we see on earth. In fact, much short sightedness and non-intelligence is seen in the fossil and DNA record. Natural Selection, among other mechanisms, is a powerful creative force that has been shown to be able to make novel 'designoids' (structures with the appearance of design) and successful organisms that fully exploit their ecological niches. Time and time again when people try to posit areas in which 'Intelligence' is necessary, scientists have been able to show how Natural Selection could mold such structures and how an outside 'Intelligence' is superfluous.

  rem

  Edited by - rem on 7 November 2002 23:32:14
• 

  Zechariah

  Zechariah,
  I have no argument with people who believe god created the first replicating molecules.

  There is far more to the formation of life as we know it that requires God than just the the beginning organism. I was conceding only to it being a vain argument over the details of something that requires every step of the way intelligent spirit direction even in the ongoing birth processes of all animals and man. Theres no way you can minimize this. You make yourself look stupid trying.

  I don't happen to believe god did it, but there is too little evidence for abiogenesis to argue that point. The only thing I've been arguing all along, and nothing more, is that the theory of evolution is sound.

  If by sound you mean true then your statement is ignorant.

  It is obvious that you believe in God and that evolution is it.

  The theory of evolution does not have anything to do with the first replicating molecules or abiogenesis or how it all started. Evolution is just a model that explains why we see the progression of different animals in the fossil record and why all animals on earth share similar DNA coding.
  Classic Creationists deny that evolution has happened - they believe that god specially created every species or 'kind', as they call them. Some people call themselves "Creationists", but what they really mean is that they deny abiogeneis - not Evolution. I believe Ros fits into this category. Unfortunately, the use of the label "Creationist" becomes confusing when used in that context, even though technically it may be true (the "Creationist" believes that god started it and used and maybe even directed Evolution). The term "Intelligent Design" has come into fashion to describe that point of view and helps to differentiate between Fundy-Christian Creationists and typical Christians who accept Evolution.

  The whole time on the board you have been in debate about evolution you have tried to put all believers into a box and label them fundies. This enables you to criticize them as being irrational and unscientific. It is only a tactic and you know it in no way represents anybody on this board with widely differing viewpoints of the actual method of creation.

  If you choose to believe no God was ever necessary fine but don't be making wild, ridiculous, unsupportable claims about evolution being a fact without your being called to account. I may not be able to prove to you theres a God. But the ridiculousness of your constant contentions that evolution is fact is another story. It a no brainer. That is a lie. Thats all I need to say about it as you presented no specific evidence to dispute.

  So far there is no evidence that "Intelligence" is needed to explain the diversity of life that we see on earth.

  You are so backward and outside the realm of reality its beyond words to say. But I'll try my best. The only thing that it so far no evidence of is that it "doesn't" take intelligence to explain the existence of anything even a ballpoint pen yet alone living organisms. It is sad to say it takes intelligence for one to even say like you just did this most unintelligent thing.

  Then you have the audacity to say the following:
  
  

  In fact, much short sightedness and non-intelligence is seen in the fossil and DNA record. Natural Selection, among other mechanisms, is a powerfulcreative force that has been shown to be able to make novel 'designoids' (structures with the appearance of design) and successful organisms that fully exploit their ecological niches.

  Do you not realize how ridiculous it makes you sound for you to critique the wisdom evident in creation. Then you try to imply that some well qualified segment of the scientific community would uphold your ridiculous claim. NO noted scientist pro or con evolution would ever publicly make such an assinine claim. All his credibility as a scientist would be lost in the instant as yours is lost now.

  Time and time again when people try to posit areas in which 'Intelligence' is necessary, scientists have been able to show how Natural Selection could mold such structures and how an outside 'Intelligence' is superfluous.

  Why are you putting the word intelligence in quotation marks. My guess is so that you have some denial that when someones calls you to account for the statement you can say that no intelligence is not what you meant just no "Intelligence". Nice try but it won't work.

  It is useless to try to rationally debate someone with so little regard for wisdom and truth. Jacques Cousteau, The Crodile Man and all the other animal lovers of the world would be greatly offended to hear someone so belittle creation as you are doing. Where were you when God created the earth. Who cares what you think about it. Certainly not God.

  Zechariah
• 

  rem

  Zechariah,

  I believe the definitions I've used are extremely reasonable. They allow for different types of 'creationists'. It is a fact that the majority of Creationists fit into one of those two categories. Do you have another category you would like to discuss? I'm not sure why you are arguing this point.

  was conceding only to it being a vain argument over the details of something that requires every step of the way intelligent spirit direction even in the ongoing birth processes of all animals and man. Theres no way you can minimize this.

  You believe that god has to have his hand in every step of life, including the developmental stages of childbirth. Many Creationists and Intelligent Designers would disagree with you here, and for good reason. If you are to believe that god has a role in every developing fetus, then you have the problem of birth defects and miscarriages to explain. Is god just sloppy? Incompetent? His ways are just mysterious?

  If by sound you mean true then your statement is ignorant.

  So far you have not been able to show that Evolutionary theory is not sound. In fact, time and time again Creationism has been shown to be a flawed concept that does not fit with observed facts of nature. If by "ignorant" you mean intelligent, then I would have to agree with your statement.

  The whole time on the board you have been in debate about evolution you have tried to put all believers into a box and label them fundies.

  Never. I have always maintained that there are millions of believers who accept Evolution. I have never said all believers are fundies. Please provide evidence of this claim.

  It is only a tactic and you know it in no way represents anybody on this board with widely differing viewpoints of the actual method of creation.

  There are many viewpoints, but the only scientific and rational viewpoint is the one that accepts that Evolution happened. Creationism (that is Fundy Special Creationism that you subscribe to) has been proven to be both unscientific and irrational - and downright dishonest to boot.

  If you choose to believe no God was ever necessary fine but don't be making wild, ridiculous, unsupportable claims about evolution being a fact without your being called to account.

  Just because you choose not to accept it doesn't mean it's not a fact. There is plenty of evidence to support Evolution. Look it up. I'm not going to do your homework for you. The fact is that there is no evidence to support fundy-Creationism and so far there is no scientific theory of Intelligent Design.

  Do you not realize how ridiculous it makes you sound for you to critique the wisdom evident in creation. Then you try to imply that some well qualified segment of the scientific community would uphold your ridiculous claim. NO noted scientist pro or con evolution would ever publicly make such an assinine claim. All his credibility as a scientist would be lost in the instant as yours is lost now.

  Ever heard of Stephen J.Gould? hehe. Well, there are many problems with the design of organisms. The many mass extinctions is proof enough of that. Many scientists have shown that many structures of organisms are badly designed. There is junk DNA that litters our chromosomes. There are vestigal organs that take up space. There are eyeballs that are designed backwards. There are spines that are not located in the optimal place. There are panda thumbs that looks to be an oversight, etc. Here are some examples of what scientists have to say.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

  Why are you putting the word intelligence in quotation marks

  I put the word intelligence in quotation marks because Intelligent Designers try to claim that they don't care to define what this intelligence is or where it comes from. They say it could be space aliens for all we know. But then they go on to say that this 'Intelligence' can only come from a supernatural source, which hints at a god - most notably their version of the Judeo/Christian god. Their agenda is clear. They are using the "Wedge" strategy (their words) to try and legitimize creation science as a real scientific theory. If they are successful in that, then they can "Wedge" their way into the school curriculum and start teaching their version of who this 'intelligence' comes from - their god. It's a brilliant strategy that seems to be working. Unfortunately many school boards are not competent enough to see the difference between science and myth.

  rem
• 

  Realist

  ros,

  sorry if i misunderstood you!

  rem,

  thank you for clearing that up!