Gedanken

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 134 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Gedanken

• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  ThiChi,

  It's really quote simple; the close corespondence between various animal genomes and humans points to a common origin for all living things, and certainly that chimps and humans had a common ancestor. The notion that we "descended from chimps" is absurd and stating that the two genomes have much in common in no way suggests or imples that connection. No more so than does the fact that genome companies are looking at fish and mouse genomes (amongst others) to try to discover human therapeutics suggests that we descended directly from mice.

  I do have a question: if a person believe in new earth creationism, and is a fundamentalist Christia, is it possible to examine the evidence logically and objectively or is there too much at stake - that is, could such a person even admit the possibility that they were wrong?

  Gedanken
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  pomegranate,

  Define your terms - what is a species? You obviously don't understand what the ring species idea is and your latest comments are unclear to say the least. Who said anything about "halted species?"

  Gedanken
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  pomegranate,

  I just find it interesting that the only things that you can say about Ridley's article are things that either appear on Creationist web sites (after all your quote was identical to theirs) or stuff that I have posted from his article. He discusses Salamanders in his book. Interesting. But if you say you read the article before you posted the quote then I suppose I will believe you - however, in that case you definitely misrepresented his point of view. You only switched to the charge of hypocrisy after I posted bits from his article, including the quote with the critical next sentence included.

  Now, can you define what a species is? Did Noah have to take two of every kind of salamander into the ark since, obviously, the different ring species members cannot interbreed.

  So let's have a good precise definition of what a species is. ACtually, as you know, Ridley's article also addressed this issue head on. What comments do you have on that?

  Gedanken
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Thing is pomegranate, Ridley didn't mention salamanders in his article.
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  pomegranate,

  But I don't go around quoting what people say as a substitute for actually reading what they wrote and trying to assess it's validity. However, you do - remember how you produced all those geologists as evidence that the scientific field of geology is consistent with a global flood?

  You also claimed that ring species don't exist which makes me think you didn't even read Ridley's article since he provides living evidence and photographs.

  Gedanken
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  pomegranate,

  :If you were a JW, that kind of "studying" is surely disqualified. If you call quoting the "bible scholars" from "biblestudytools" as studying the Bible, that studying of the Bible is also disqualified. Both ways of "studying" are studying other men who studied the Bible.

  Excellent point and eloquently put. Think about that, please, next time you are tempted to post a quote from somebody to prove a point about evolution or geology. The principle applies in exactly the same way.

  Gedanken
• 
  35

  Kangaroos and the Fossil Record

  by Gedanken in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  creationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.

  so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.

  we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  hooberus,

  How did they get back home after the flood? That was the original question of this thread.

  Gedanken
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  Jim,

  Actually I don't lump you in with the JW apologists at all - and I think I understand where you're coming from. If you aren't interested in evolution then fair enough. I'm not especially interested in electronics - and, really, that's all evolution is, another scientific discipline. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism - some evolutionists believe in God and some don't.

  But it is really inarguable that the Bible account of creation - and any theory of special creation - is inconsistent with the evidence and also lacks predictive power. If we go back to the origin of life itself then pehaps God started it off. I don't personally believe that but it's a legitimate point of view and my opinion is just that - opinion. On topics like how did kangaroos get to Australia, or how could God create plants before creating light, the New Earth Creationists are really out on a giant limb and must resort to inventing explanations, avoiding the issues, or misquoting evolutionists. Witness pomeganate's inability to explain the existence of ring species like the California salamander.

  Points have been made about what evolution is good for; personally I think that evolution is a powerful force for freeing people from enslavement to religion, just as physics and celestial mechanics was in the middle ages. Anything that makes people think and debate their long held beliefs can't be bad. People should no more have a blind belief in evolution than in creation but it's rare to find the former species.

  Gedanken
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  jrizo,

  Watchtower mentality. You Know used to post like that when he came up against stuff he didn't understand. Indeed, the typical JW response to criticism is one of boredom or feigned boredom. It's a well known psychological protection for people who are unable to deal with reality.

  Gedanken
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Gedanken

  jrizo,

  It is amazing how emotional Creationists get on this issue. I don't believe in evolution the same way that people, or how I for that matter used to, believe in Creationism. If evolution were somehow disproved tomorrow it wouldn't bother me in the slightest - in fact it would be incredibly interesting. Most evolutionists feel the same was as far as I can tell - they have not invested any emotional energy into believing it. Religious fanatics of the Creationist variety, on the other hand, have essentially grounded their entire lives in the validity of Creationism - remove that and their religion is gone. That's why they will lie and miquote all and sundry to reassure themselves that they are right.

  The irritation that evolutionists often express towards Creationist arguments is directed towards their tendency to be dishonest and to the fcat that Creationists almost always avoid dealing with actual data or confronting rational arguments. For example, the fact that the fossil record demonstrates that different species have existed at different times: in itself that doesn't prove or disprove evolution or creationism (although it does rule out the New Earth variety). But only evolution provides a credible, nonmiraculous explanation for the data; the idea that God made species and then after they went extinct, or were destroyed, He created new ones is possible but not palatable to most religious types. The list that Iron Gland has pot forth will not be seriously addressed by Creationists since they - like you - have no answers and so the responses tend to be ostrich like and stupid (monkeys for relatives - a very JW like argument indeed.)

  I'd suggest that you do start reading some serious books on the subject since your comments are pretty simplistic - which is not surprising since, apparently, you claim to have no interest in this subject. It certainly shows.

  Gedanken

  Edited by - Gedanken on 1 November 2002 18:4:58