blind faith is an oxymoron!
The evidence AGAINST evolution
by AlmostAtheist 68 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AlmostAtheist
What is the point of this thread?
The point was to give the creationists an opportunity to show why they feel the way they do. As has been pointed out, they have presented some points of view, but view arguments to support them. It hasn't been entirely successful. :-(
Dave
-
Abaddon
GetBusy
Okay, here's my 'creationist' argument.
All traditional accounts of creation as espoused by various cultures and beliefs systems reflect the understanding that culture or belief system had when those accounts were developed.
They have not been revised as understanding progressed and can now only be viewed as broadly allegorical.
The evidence we have points to cosmological expansion following a 'big bang' event. There is no demonstrable proof of either a mechanistic or theistic cause of this event.
However, although many if not most of the cosmological and biological development since the 'big bang' event have mechanistic causes, human intelligence does not have a credible mechanistic cause.
Millions of species develop survival traits; often the same trait is seen in many species.
Human intelligence is unique; if it were a characteristic selectable for by environmental or other selection pressure there would be other examples of such intelligence, just as other specific survival traits developed by means of parrallel evolution in different species.
Human intelligence is therefore not explainable by the theory of evolution. Mutation is not a satisfactory starting point as sophoncy is not something that could come about by any single mutation. Therefore one can assert that human intelligence is the result of direct intervention by a non-mechanistic agency. In the past few hundred thousand years we were genetically tweaked and raised to sophoncy or put on to a pathway that would lead us to sophoncy.
In view of the general commonality of values expressed by world religions one can also assert that this same agency is responsible for these common values as part of a continuing interest in the welfare of the intelligences thus developed.
That is all there is data, or the absense of data, to make a 'creationistic' claim for. One cannot reasonably claim for 'god' being the cause or part of the result of the 'big bang' event, as there is no data either way.
-
Amazing1914
The evidence for evolution is mounting. One only has to read the National Geographic site to see what is currently going on in the world of Paleontology:
The fabled "Hobbit" found: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0504/feature1/multimedia.html
Buffalo-size Rodent: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0922_030922_giantrodent.html
First Human: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0712_ethiopianbones.html
Modern Humans 195,000 years old: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo.html
New Human Face: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/03/0320_leakeyfind.html
New Origins Debate: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/01/0111origins.html
There are now hundreds of millions of fossils in the known record. The evidence is mounting. Considering how hard it is for fossils to form, and the likelihood that fossils will not form, the volume of evidence is staggering.
The question is not whether evolution took place, but the exact mechanisms, and whether and how God might have directed or influenced this process along.
The problem with fundamentalists is that they cannot allow for the possibility that God used evolution as a tool to build various species and sub-designs. Then at some point, he selected a species that he could work with on a spiritual level: humans. Instead, fundys have an all-or-nothing approach to creation-evolution. To them, evolution means no God, period.
If one takes a calm, open-minded rational approach, then other possibilities emerge that make sense without threatening cherished beliefs.
Jim W.
-
funkyderek
Abaddon:
Millions of species develop survival traits; often the same trait is seen in many species.
Human intelligence is unique; if it were a characteristic selectable for by environmental or other selection pressure there would be other examples of such intelligence, just as other specific survival traits developed by means of parrallel evolution in different species.
Human intelligence is therefore not explainable by the theory of evolution. Mutation is not a satisfactory starting point as sophoncy is not something that could come about by any single mutation. Therefore one can assert that human intelligence is the result of direct intervention by a non-mechanistic agency. In the past few hundred thousand years we were genetically tweaked and raised to sophoncy or put on to a pathway that would lead us to sophoncy.
Ironically, that is a far better argument than any of the real creationists have made in this thread. It's still flawed, but I'm sure you know that already.
Maybe one of the creationists would like to point out the holes in Abaddon's argument....
-
AlmostAtheist
What do you guys mean when you say "sophoncy"? I can't find a definition for it.
Thanks,
Dave
-
funkyderek
What do you guys mean when you say "sophoncy"? I can't find a definition for it.
I have to admit I'd never heard of it either but from context and my knowledge of Greek figured it meant something like intelligence/wisdom.
The only useful definition I could find was in the Encyclopedia Galactica (!) which says:
Possesses both sapience and autosentience.
-
Abaddon
funky
I've been waititng YEARS for a creationist to come up with this argument (without prompting). However, you need to really grok (http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/grok.html, after Heinlein) natural selection to get it (unless you regard something like 'The Mating Mind' as light reading, and even then you need to grok the arguments therein)
Of course, I know the weak spots of the argument as I express it; that's half the fun. And although I can come up with a counter argument it is based on a supposition and requires accepting something surprising about what benefits our sophoncy accords us.
As for sophont, sorry for the obscure word Almost - sentient is a word I avoid in discussing human intelligence as it just means the ability to feel or percieve. A sentient being is not by definition intelligent or self-aware in the way humans are. Sophont links feeling and perception to self-awareness. Although it comes from sci-fi it is a more satisfactory tag for defining human minds (and a few other species but that's an entirely different discussion) than 'intelligent' or 'sentient', which aren't specific enough to what defines our minds so clearly from, say, a horse's.
But now I want someone to attack my argument. Go on, please. From either the 6 x 24 hours end or the evolutionary end.
-
GetBusyLiving
:But now I want someone to attack my argument. Go on, please.
LOL. This is actually becoming kind of funny. Thanks for all the awesome info you guys.
GBL