Evolution vs. Creation (on Earth)

by StinkyPantz 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  peacefulpete

  Myonself...I will blame my illustration for your missing the point. In my illustrastionthe cat and the spider and I myself had not planned the unique convergence of events and so therefore were not responsible for anything other than their respective roles. For the moment ignore the spider cat and me. The point being illustrated was the faulty logic of post hoc arguments. For you to suggest a supernatural design is supported by the improbability of the events that were essential for life to be as it is, is the same as my arguing for god's supporting my going to the strip bar which was the result of millions and millions of improbable coincidences, most of which are beyond my control.For instance the billion to one chance my parents gametes met and implanted, the entire youth with all its trillions of events which enabled me to survive to this day, my living near the strip club, I got the job that gave me extra money for such things, That Kart was open and gave me a refund for a returned item that gave me the $5 cover charge, that my toyota made it to the place dispite having 250,000 miles on it,That the owner of the club got his buisness license dispite protests, on and on and on to the point of dizzying nausium. The only reason I would be impressed with this mass of coincidences would be IF someone years ago had predicted or announced that on Jan 3 2003 10:30 pm Peacefulpete will be at the nudey bar in xville. Then it would be evidence of some supernature involvement. If you think about it carefully you will see that this is the normal way we judge our world and rightly so. Yet in the question of human origins or other emotionally charged subjects this objectivity vanishes. It is this very same faulty logic that "confirms" superstitions of all sort. How often the phrase "It COULDN'T be a coincidence!" has been used by believers in fate or voodoo.

  Besides this, the fact that atoms act consistantly makes the universe as a whole as it is unavoidable. Contingencies resulting from intelligent or semi-intelligent life forms have also shaped our world in a less predictable way it is true but no one mind has governed these actions to an end.

  By the way the radio signal was in real life the first radio pulsar discovered not intelligent life as was hastily concluded by those with the desire to believe in alien life. A perfect case against attributing to intelligence what inanimate forces can do by simply being consistent.
• 

  MYOHNSEPH

  Peacefulpete, with all due respect, I really don't think it's I who's missing the point here. Think about what you're saying for a moment. In essence you're saying that just about everything that happens in life is the net result of countless illions of improbable coincidences all converging at a given moment in time and space and that the astronomical improbability of it all does not, of itself alone, argue for the existence of some supernatural controling force. You're right! Of course it doesn't! But that scenario is nothing akin to the emergence of biological, intelligent life from nothing. While all of the countless incidents in your scenario were random and none deliberately designed and instigated to accomplish the ultimate result or end, each and every one of those incidents is the effect of a specific cause. Deliberate or not, designed or not, each component of your scenario is the result of mental and physical processes already in existence. You surely don't think that is comparable in probability to the emergence of a universe of uncomprehensible symetry, complexity and aparent purpose out of essentially nothing and without a specific cause!

  But let me just say a couple of more things. First, my perception of intelligence and design in the universe does not arbitrarily insinuate a belief in "God", in the traditional religious context. If there is indeed an entity, or entities, of intelligence and power involved in our being here, I seriously doubt he, she, they, it, would bear much resemblance to the common religious conceptions of "God".

  Secondly, what we're really discussing here is nothing more than probability. We all conduct our lives and make choices and decisions each day based on probabilities. I go to sleep each night confident the sun will rise tomorrow, based on the probability it will, but allowing for the possibility I might be wrong. My belief that intelligence and design are manifest in the universe is based on the probability of such being the case, from my assessment and finite understanding of the evidence. However, I also allow for the possibility I may be wrong. There is simply too much we don't know, to be to closed-minded and dogmatic about what we think we do know.
• 

  rem

  MYOHNSEPH,

  You surely don't think that is comparable in probability to the emergence of a universe of uncomprehensible symetry, complexity and aparent purpose out of essentially nothing and without a specific cause!

  Where you percieve uncomprehensible symetry and purpose, others do not. What is the purpose that is so apparent? And if everything needs a specific cause, then you are just pushing the question back and not really answering it with 'intelligence'. Why can't matter/energy just 'be' - eternally existing without cause? We have no idea what happened 'before' the singularity of our universe but there are many theories that address this. Why are they any more fantastic than positing an eternal intelligence?

  Oh, yeah, and don't call Peacefulpete Shirley.

  My belief that intelligence and design are manifest in the universe is based on the probability of such being the case, from my assessment and finite understanding of the evidence. However, I also allow for the possibility I may be wrong. There is simply too much we don't know, to be to closed-minded and dogmatic about what we think we do know.

  That's cool, and I respect your belief. Basically you described yourself as an Agnostic Deist, whereas I would consider myself an Agnostic Atheist. At least Agnostics don't go around killing people because of their ideas about god!

  rem
• 

  meadow77

  I believe that God created the Universe. I believe he spoke it into existance and then created man from dust. I think that it is possible that the 7 days spoke of in the bible were not 24 hour days, but there is something else to consider. If they were 24 hour days, God created everything old. I mean the trees were created already bearing fruit and ready to be used. So perhaps that would make the earth seem older than it is. For example Adam was not born, he was created as a man. Even if he was say 25, he was still techncally only one day old. I am a christian, but I tend to believe even if I wasn't it would be hard to swallow evolution. I mean if you threw a bunch of trash in your trashcan and waited around for billions of years, what's the likelyhood that humans would develop? Even scientists agree that nothing comes from nothing. So, if their were atoms out in space, how did they get there? If there were meteors, how did they get there? If there was a slime that we all crawled out of, where did it come from? The universe does not suggest chaos, the universe suggests order. The thought out plan of a mind.There are many factors other than the ones mentioned. We also should remember that after all these years evolutionis still just a theory. Nothing discovered has been enough to elevate it to fact. The missing link is still missing. We still can't make an eyeball. And many many other things, but these are the main quick reasons why I tend to accept creationism over evolution.
• 

  hooberus

  Why believe that

  goo turned into you via the zoo!
• 

  peacefulpete

  Myonself...I don't know it is possible for me to miss the point of my own illustration. Cause and effect are real. Yes of course. Are the causes supernatural ? no. Then are the effects ? No. You continue to use the word random, I have not. Nothing is random, it is only complicated. I have attempted to convey the mistaken logic of post hoc arguementation. And you have ignored this very point. You may choose to get the last word in but it will not be relevent to this discussion unless you stop yourself and think about my points in this light.
• 

  MYOHNSEPH

  Peacefulpete, let me assure you I have no interest in having the last word, the first word or any word in between. I am interested in truth. And regardless of whether or not either of of ever discover it in it's purity, truth is not contingent upon the first word or the last word nor upon my perceptions or yours nor upon affirmation or negation by any post hoc or any other hypotheses. And, by the way, it's not that I've tried to ignore post hoc ergo propter hoc, I just don't think it's much of an argument in this case. I think you've presented a gross mis-application and over-simplification of this principle. We're talking about something just a little more profound than 'after this, therfore because of this'. Obviously, all sequential events are not causally related. But it would be rather foolish to conclude that since all sequential events are not causally related, then no sequential events are causally related, regardless of the volume of evidence to the contrary. If my dog bites me on the ass one day while I'm whistling "Dixie" and I immediately conclude he bit me because I was whistling "Dixie", that would certainly be classic post hoc reasoning. But if I own that dog for fifteen years and he bites me on the ass every time I whistle "Dixie", but never on any other occasion, that's quite a different matter. If I conclude, under those circumstances, that the sequential events of my whistling "Dixie" and the dog biting my ass are causally related, that is not a matter of post hoc reasoning.

  But having said that, let me say that I do sincerely respect your beliefs on this matter and certainly acknowledge the possibility that I could be the candidate for cranial proctology, rather than you!