by dottie 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
rem said:
Evolution, on the other hand, has evidence that supports it. This is why evolutionary theory is able to make correct predictions and has helped us understand biology better, including how microorganisms become resistant to medicine. Creation theory has made no worthwhile predictions for science.
microorganisms resistance to medicine is of couse micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is accepted by both sides of the creation/evolution debate.
Also, were organisms like bacteria directly created or did they evolve from non-living precursers?
Creation predicts that they would due to complexity have to have been created.
If they weren't created please explain their origin using natural laws. How did the long polymers of DNA or RNA link? Also, how did the original bases get ordered?
natural laws that have always been in existence.
Hey Rem.....nice to hear from you again,
What evidence or proof can you use to make your understanding believable?
How are things......."already in existence"?
Hooberus,
microorganisms resistance to medicine is of couse micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is accepted by both sides of the creation/evolution debate.
But evolutionary theory predicts this and creation does not. In fact, there is no need for micro-evolution in the creation theory. Creation theory does not enhance our knowledge of micro-evolution in any way.
Also, were organisms like bacteria directly created or did they evolve from non-living precursers?
Bacteria and other simple organisms evolved from other living precursers. Where and how the original self-replicating molecules formed is not known and is not the realm of evolution but abiogenesis. God could have made the original self-replicating molecule, but from then on the evidence supports evolution, not special creation of all later life forms.
Gumby,
What evidence or proof can you use to make your understanding believable?
Unfortunately I have no evidence or proof. For me it just comes down to simple logic. With Occham's Razor (if you choose to accept it) the god explanation has less chance of being true than the godless one. There is no proof either way, but we can see which one is logically more probable:
1) An intelligent god or gods that always existed or was uncaused and created the universe
2) The universe always existed or was uncaused.
Since we know through QM that uncaused events do happen, it is more logical to assume the explanation with fewer unknowns is true. Since the god explanation asserts the existence of an unknown entity or entities, it is less probable.
If there is ever evidence of a god or gods, then I would have no problem believing that said god or gods used evolution as a tool to create life.
rem
(refering to micro-evolution) rem said:But evolutionary theory predicts this and creation does not. In fact, there is no need for micro-evolution in the creation theory. Creation theory does not enhance our knowledge of micro-evolution in any way.
Creation theory does predict micro-evolution. Creationists use micro-evolution to explain the rapid diversity of animals from fewer created kinds both originaly, and after the flood. We have discussed this on previous threads. If you know about both sides of the creation-evolution debate then you should know this.
rem said:Bacteria and other simple organisms evolved from other living precursers. Where and how the original self-replicating molecules formed is not known and is not the realm of evolution but abiogenesis. God could have made the original self-replicating molecule, but from then on the evidence supports evolution, not special creation of all later life forms.
rem, you seem to admit that creation is at least possible on this level. In fact since self-replication is so complex it would appear that creation should be considered as the preferred explanation. Thus a prediction of creation seems to be supported by the evidence.
Hooberus,
Creation theory does predict micro-evolution.
This is false. Creation theory does not predict micro-evolution. The fact that you can interpret micro-evolution as being consistent with creation does not mean it predicted it. Predictions are more concrete:
Evolution predicted that DNA within related animals would be similar even before DNA was discovered! If DNA had no hierarchical pattern between species, evolution would have been falsified.
How would Creation be falsified if micro-evolution did not happen? It wouldn't, thus creation does not predict micro-evolution. The main problem with creation is that it predicts nothing and is not falsifiable. Therefore it is pretty much worthless as a theory and teaches us nothing about our biology. It does not add to our body of knowledge. Worse, it hinders the progress of knowledge in biology and other fields.
rem, you seem to admit that creation is at least possible on this level.
Yes, I agree that creation is at least possible at this level, but at this point I don't believe it is probable. The reason is that there is no unambiguous evidence of an intelligent creator or creators. With such lack of evidence I have two choices:
1) An uncaused or always existing being or beings created the universe and ultimately life through natural laws
2) The universe is uncaused or always existed and life formed through natural laws
Option one posits an extra being with no evidence, thus logically it is less probable because it just makes the problem more complex. This is not to say that it is not true - only that logically it is less likely to be true than number two is.
In fact since self-replication is so complex it would appear that creation should be considered as the preferred explanation.
Creation does not adequately explain the complexity of self replication because all it does is add an even more complex entity to the equation. There is no evidence that complex self replication is impossible through natural laws. It is theoretically possible, though it has not been observed in practice. Note, though, that this is still an immature field of study.
Again, please do not interpret what I'm saying as evidence for abiogenesis. I'm just saying that both the creation model and the abiogenesis model seem to be at least theoretically possible. Logically, though as explained above, the abiogenesis model is more probable. I'm not asking anyone to take this as gospel, though. The study of the origin of life is not nearly on the same level of confidence as evolutionary theory.
Thus a prediction of creation seems to be supported by the evidence.
Creation does not predict that self replication is complex. Simple to moderate self replication would not falsify creation.
Can you find a way to falsify creation? If you can, then you should be able to provide an unambiguous prediction that creation theory makes. If creation theory cannot be falsified or does not make any meaningful predictions, then, again, it is worthless and adds nothing to the scientific body of knowledge. It does not help us cure and understand diseases, make vaccines, perform epidemiological studies, help us learn to best preserve life forms through conservation, aid in genetic engineering, etc. etc. etc. Can you name one field of study that creation theory itself has had an unambiguous, positive impact in broadening and deepening our scientific knowledge base?
rem
Francois; If you believe that god created using evolution, at least your beliefs are not contradicted by the evidence in the world around us.
Francois, not only is macro-evolution completely unbiblical (For example in the Bible Whales came before land mammals such as cattle; whereas evolution teaches that Whales evolved from land mammals similar to cattle, or wolves.) , but it is also actually a poor way to create new stuctures. Why take millions of years of trial, death, and evolutionary dead ends, to create a structure such as the eye? In fact the "God of macro-evolution" basically sat back and watched things make themselves.
And this is where the faults of your philosophy are highlighted hooberus. Yes, I agree that macro-evolution is completely un-Biblical. For that matter, micro-evolution is completely un-Biblical
macro-evolution was itself not subject to direct observation
Speciation has been observed at least five times this century, most recent case being in a train station car park in
For all your attacks on detail of evolutionary theory, you have yet to demonstrate an alternative. You assert that God made the world, but the account you use to base this on DOES NOT match the evidence supplied. If you feel it does, I will enjoy reading you explanation of how the fossil record is explained by Scripture.
If you know about both sides of the creation-evolution debate then you should know this.
You object when your knowledge is shown to be incomplete, yet do the same to others. AGAIN you have a double standard.
Please try to support your beliefs in an even-handed fashion. As has been demonstrated quite adequately on this thread, the problem with many creationist websites is that they don't even know what peer-review is, which is why charlatans like Dr. Jerry are regarded as credible. Because of this I will regard any link to a site that uses non-peer reviewed material or quotes from non-peer reviewed material as you view the Book of Mormon.
Abaddon said:
And this is where the faults of your philosophy are highlighted hooberus. Yes, I agree that macro-evolution is completely un-Biblical. For that matter, micro-evolution is completely un-Biblical
macro-evolution was itself not subject to direct observation
Speciation has been observed at least five times this century, most recent case being in a train station car park in
Abaddon, speciation is not macro-evolution !
Abaddon said:
You object when your knowledge is shown to be incomplete, yet do the same to others. AGAIN you have a double standard.
My pointing out the error in rem's statement to the effect that "there is no need for micro-evolution in the creation theory" is not a double standard.
With these facts in mind his comment on micro-evolution as related to the creation model was very inaccurate and hense my comment "We have discussed this on previous threads. If you know about both sides of the creation-evolution debate then you should know this." was not out of line.
