Evolution or Creation??

by dottie 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Liberty

  Hooberus,

  I fear you are making a real effort to cloud the debate rather than just having trouble understanding our points. We know that tadpoles turning to frogs or embryonic developments are not examples of macro-evolution. These are clear examples however, of evolutionary principles we can see in our everyday lives as oppossed to Creationist principles which have NO illustration what-so-ever in our dailey experiences. You should ask yourself honestly; why would a God who uses direct creation make land animals, toads for example, which start out life as little fishes in water and then change into air breathing land animals?

  Whales are another good example of an illogical direct creation. What is the point of creating an air breathing, warm blooded animal which is destined to live out its whole life in the deep ocean when fish have proven to be a far more effecient design for such an environment? It makes far more sense that whales still breathe air and are warm blooded because they evolved from land mammals in an irratic environment rather than that God designed them to be ineffecient in the first place. You are muddying the debate waters with your straw man arguments about the details of micro vs macro evolution. The evidence is clear that creation by invisible spirit beings is the most unlikely possibility for the diversity of life we see on the Earth. You have presented NO evidence at all for such an extraordinary claim, let alone the extraordinary evidence which would be required for reasonable people to believe in such a far fetched and improbable theory. The details of evolution are open to question and our knowledge of all its mechanisms remains incomplete yet it still fits all the evidence we have available far better than direct creation by invisible super beings in the recent past. I could claim that giant pink cotton candy beings created the Universe as a carnival ride but few people would believe me unless this incrediable claim could be proven with some extraordinary evidence. If not for our cultural ties to Christianity your creation by invisible God theories would sound just as silly.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  Yes, and creation by a common creator would also predict "that vertebrates would have a more similar looking embryology with other vertebrates than with invertebrates. That's exactly what we see (invertebrate embryos look much different)."

  Again, you have trouble understanding what a prediction is. Creation does not predict this. There is no reason why a creator could not have made the embryos look completely different - say a chicken would just look like a miniature chicken and keep getting bigger and bigger. Evolution, on the other hand, states that we are all related, so species that are more related will probably have a more similar embryology. If embryologies were qualitatively different between related species, then evolution would be falsified. Remember, when you say prediction you are talking about falsification.

  Also the fact that invertebrate embryos look much different than vertebrate embryos, while not disproving evolution in general, does disprove the old "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument.

  There is no "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument. Perhaps you didn't notice the subtle difference between vertebrate and invertebrate. Vertebrates and Invertebrates are not closely related, so there is no prediction that their embryologies should look similar. It would be quite intriguing, though, if the embryology of a human and a chimpanzee were quite different since they are both vertibrates and closely related.

  rem
• 

  funkyderek

  It would be quite intriguing, though, if the embryology of a human and a chimpanzee were quite different since they are both vertibrates and closely related.

  It would indeed but unsurprisingly they're remarkably similar. In fact, baby chimpanzees look remarkably like human babies, (see http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Neoteny_in_humans.htm), much more so than the adults of each species resemble each other. This is due to the much longer development process of humans that allows us to have bigger brains without causing our mothers too much pain! This extension of parts of the embryonic stage in humans neatly explains why we are so different from chimpanzees when we are so similar genetically.
• 

  hooberus

  rem said: "There is no "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument. "

  The top row drawings have been used to try to prove the "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument.

  Above, top row: Haeckel’s drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible similarity in their early ‘tailbud’ stage. Bottom Row: Richardson's photographs of how the embryos really look at the same stage of development. From left: Salmo salar, Cryptobranchus allegheniensis, Emys orbicularis, Gallus gallus, Oryctolagus cuniculus, Homo sapiens. Many modern evolutionists no longer claim that the human embryo repeats the adult stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors, but point to Haeckel’s drawings (top row) to claim that it repeats the embryonic stages. However, even this alleged support for evolution is now revealed as being based on faked drawings. The embryo photos used in this article were kindly supplied by Dr Michael K. Richardson. They originally appeared in M.K. Richardson et al., ‘There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development’, Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2):91–106, 1997, © Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co., Tiergartenstrasse, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany. Reproduced here with permission.
• 

  hooberus

  Liberty said:

  The fact that you can't see the difference between finding ancient artifacts which are logically atributable to human manufacture and comparing this to finding ancient artifacts which are claimed to be made by invisible spirit entities speaks volumes for your state of mind.

  The fact that you didn't grasp the meaning of my tadpole to frog example as proof that life forms can and do change from one form to another also illustrates your inability to grasp the most basic modern biological concepts.

  I fear you are making a real effort to cloud the debate rather than just having trouble understanding our points.

  Liberty, I have been polite to you as well as trying to give a reasoned reply to some of your points. However your put downs, as well as your accusations are not helpful in a discussion of origins. For example, from the limited information that I have posted on this thread on the issue between macro and micro-evolution you generate an accusation such as:

  You are muddying the debate waters with your straw man arguments about the details of micro vs macro evolution.
• 

  hooberus

  rem said:

  Again, you have trouble understanding what a prediction is. Creation does not predict this. There is no reason why a creator could not have made the embryos look completely different - say a chicken would just look like a miniature chicken and keep getting bigger and bigger. Evolution, on the other hand, states that we are all related, so species that are more related will probably have a more similar embryology. If embryologies were qualitatively different between related species, then evolution would be falsified. Remember, when you say prediction you are talking about falsification.

  rem, rather than going into a long discussion here on terms such as prediction, I will re-phrase my argument to "similar embryo development with regards to similar adult morpholgy is a reasonable expectation based on a common creator".

  We could go on for hours here discussing the various means of prediction, consistency, support, etc. but basically we are down to two different options when it comes to similaries.

  1. Common creator

  2. Common ancestors

  While its possible to use scientific terminology to a priori define out the first item out of the discussion before evidence is looked at, I think that it is much more profitable to discuss the evidence as it relates to both models, rather than using terminology to exclude one from the start.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  While its possible to use scientific terminology to a priori define out the first item out of the discussion before evidence is looked at, I think that it is much more profitable to discuss the evidence as it relates to both models, rather than using terminology to exclude one from the start.

  ???

  You can't get around the fact that the creation model is not falsifiable and evolution is. There is nothing less profitable about pointing out that fact and being consistent in dealing with the facts as they relate to each model. To say that one model is just as good as another using sloppy terminology does not help your argument.

  rem
• 

  freedom96

  Creation definately, started by God, with a little evolution thrown in.
• 

  hooberus

  rem said: You can't get around the fact that the creation model is not falsifiable and evolution is. There is nothing less profitable about pointing out that fact and being consistent in dealing with the facts as they relate to each model. To say that one model is just as good as another using sloppy terminology does not help your argument.

  rem, I will try do discuss the falsifaction issue from various perspectives.

  First of all, lets say for the sake of argument that the above statement is correct and that creation is not falsifable and that evolution is. The following points assume this:

  I'm sure that you would agree that this in itself not prove that evolution is true and that creation is false. In fact the issue of origins could still be discussed with evidence appealed to.

  Lets say that we have three options for origins:

  Option # 1 Evolution

  Option # 2 Creation

  Option # 3 Other unknowns

  Let us now say for the sake of argument that only option # 1 is falsifable. If scientific evidence were to show that option # 1 is indeed falsified, then by defalt one of the others must be true even though they are not falsifable. Thus a beliver in option # 2 or # 3 would not necessarlly have to first provide a creation mechanism in order to critique various proposed evolutionary mechanisms. Thus the idea that I have to fist prove "the theory of god" before I appeal to evidence which may possibly falsify evolution is not valid.
• 

  hooberus

  As an example to the above some here, seem to have tried to place me in the impossible position of having to first prove the existance of a God which is not subject to observation before I can discuss evolutionary issues. Also it has been implied that before I critique an evolutionary mechanism that I must first provide a creation mechanism even though everyone agrees that creation is not happening today, hense it is impossible for me to prove a specific creation mechanism. Thus I am dialed out before I begin.