Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!

by Qcmbr 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  zen nudist

  intelligent force is required to create life

  I think the sticking point is what is really meant by intelligent.... what does intelligence mean? ability to adapt, to learn, to understand... none of these apply to mythical all knowing gods which never do any of those things do they?

  if by intelligent design you mean what is only producible by something of our level or better, you ignore the important point that it seems that we evolved to get to this point...and there is no reason to suspect any being who can better us would simply exist without such evolving.

  the idea of a fully formed, fully un-evolved, all knowing being, capable of designing things that we cannot even phatom, without the need of being educated or learning, or doing things by trial and error--- seems to be the sort of magical thinking a child would accept, but practically no one else should.
• 

  doogie

  Great post Abbadon...you did a much better job than I could have...

  Me too. I could have saved 20 minutes

  shoot...at least you didn't go through the trouble of writing it twice...
• 

  EvilForce

  Doogie your post was great too !!!
• 

  doogie

  Doogie your post was great too !!!

  ah...jeez. honestly, that wasn't just a plea for affection. ("love me! love me!") but, shucks...thanks man...
• 

  bebu

  I'm not interested in arguing creationism/evolution on this board, but I agree with Q's comments about stonehenge. There is a rational defense for merely looking at something and recognizing that it has the marks of being made by a deliberate design. In reverse, it is not so irrational for anyone to think that a complex world was deliberately designed.

  BTW, I think an attack on his LDS faith (with which I disagree) is ad hominem. Save it for another thread. Please.

  N that's all I gots to say.

  bebu

  scootin' class
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hi bebu,

  do you debate it somewhere else? i like to debate it here because i think it might help some lurkers leave the org. i can talk from experience. evolution was the actual catalyst that started me leaving the org. people like AlanF and some of his essays. i am not saying you have to agree with him, but i know that the debate opens some JW lurkers eyes. it did mine.

  cheers,

  TS
• 

  funkyderek

  bebu:

  I'm not interested in arguing creationism/evolution on this board

  Then you're probably on the wrong thread.

  but I agree with Q's comments about stonehenge. There is a rational defense for merely looking at something and recognizing that it has the marks of being made by a deliberate design.

  Indeed there is. There is something about Stonehenge that we recognise as fundamentally different from the landscape around it. Unlike the trees and the grass and the mountains, it is immediately obvious that Stonehenge was deliberately designed, and further inspection bears this out. There is no known process that can adequately explain the position of the stones other than conscious design.

  In reverse, it is not so irrational for anyone to think that a complex world was deliberately designed.

  No, and it's probably the obvious first thought. However, complexity does not always equal design, and the complexity of life is very different from that of Stonehenge. While there is no process other than intelligent design that can account for the latter, the former can be explained beautifully by natural selection. Unlike large rocks which can only be cut to size and placed in meaningful positions by purposeful intelligent beings, life is self-organising. The complexity is emergent and cumulative.

  BTW, I think an attack on his LDS faith (with which I disagree) is ad hominem.

  I'm not so sure about that. Qcmbr is a member of a cult, and it's not entirely unreasonable to claim that the ridiculous beliefs he holds are due to being part of that cult, and that as he did not arrive at his conclusions through the application of reason, it will not be possible to correct him using reason. Personally, I prefer to provide a reasonable argument anyway. Even if Qcmbr is unable or unwilling to grasp it, others will be.
• 

  EvilForce

  Funky I'm with you on this!!!
  
  Evolution is an important religious discussion in my opinion. The JW's scoff at the evolutionists yet really have some crappy arguements that need to be pointed out. And most importantly if there are lurkers reading this and are interested in it, THIS MIGHT MAKE THEM STOP FOR A MOMENT AND THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
  
  And I for one have been too tough on Q sometimes for his beliefs and have apologized....however... I feel he sometimes uses his "Mormon Reflex" to rebute something without truly thinking about it. I get personally upset by some of his posts because I have 3 really good friends who are ex-Mormon's and have seen the damage that religion has done to them. So some of my venom towards the JW's gets directed (deservedly or undeservedly) towards Mormonism and hence Q.
  
  And why is it that women for the large part aren't interested in this topic??? Someone started another thread pointing that out.
  
  But I will take an evolution / creation debate anyday for it helps me examine my own understanding and question them. If they do not stand up to fire then they do not deserve to be a part of my rational.
• 

  bebu

  the former can be explained beautifully by natural selection. Unlike large rocks which can only be cut to size and placed in meaningful positions by purposeful intelligent beings, life is self-organising.

  funky... That is a 'beautiful explanation'??? It explained nothing to me--it actually caused further problems. Why is life self-organizing? How does a (at some point) non-existent concept overcome the 'fact' of its own non-existence in order to then organize (cut its own cell to size and place them in a meaningful position) and live/reproduce/evolve/survive? Life just "happened" to spring into existence? In a 'non-existent vacuum', no less?? Spontaneous animation, except impossibly more impossible? I cannot accept what it all keeps boiling down to, which is (it certainly appears) a sleight of hand: sneak 'something' into that absolute 'nothing', and have it scientifically hatch...

  Qcmbr is a member of a cult

  But his views here are certainly not limited to the LDS. Eg., Antony Flew is no Christian, so how would one argue with Antony? I'm sure he (Antony) already knows the arguments you'd use (as he probably wrote many of them)

  I think it all simply boils down to one making a personal interpretation/decision about what one sees--whether one perceives a cause and effect or not. I won't ridicule evolutionists for not perceiving a cause and effect. (But I guess that there are lots of theists/creationists/? who do, so I think that's where a lot of animosity here is coming from...?) I still think the world (universe) and stonehenge had a mind/designer.

  Anyway... As the vast majority of people in the world acknowlege that there is a designer here, in some shape or form, I think the LDS argument is still a red herring. If Q brought up J Smith or Moroni as evidence in some way, well then it's fair game. And what an interesting (but unlikely) thread that would be... I think Q was trying to keep this more general, rather than LDS-oriented (as some of his posts will tend).

  ...IMO.

  EF, Religion/evolution is an important question, I agree. I can't argue much due to lack of time and writing ability. I just notice small points and write... if I can...

  bebu

  Away for the rest of the day. Carry on without me!
• 

  EvilForce

  Bebu, your views are important...thanks for posting how you feel. I am sometimes like you, if I don't have 30 minutes to refute an entire post I may pick the 2 or 3 things I disagree with most and post my views/evidence to the contrary. But as one of the very few women posters here why do you think it is that women don't post on this subject much? I'd love a female perspective on this.
  
  I've noticed on sexual threads as well men tend to not post and let the women speak. (Of course if it's a homosexuality thread, then plenty of men jump in, usually to demean... and women as a whole tend to be much more supportive.)
  
  Sexual identies account for lack of desire to post on evolution? Thoughts? Comments? Anyone? Anyone?...... Bueller.... Bueller