Creationism: Right or Wrong?

[Thaddius]

Quote[/b] ]No if u show me proof that there is a god and he created the universe, real conclusive proof I'll believe u. But u can't and the only logical conclusion is evolution and ancestry.

If you'll show me proof that we came from a one cellled organism, real conclusive proof, I'll believe you. But you can't and the only logical conclusion is there is a God who created us.

Cory

 

[Dark Virtue]

You are both wrong.

We were genetically engineered by aliens.

Please see Lloyd Pye's book, "Everything You Know is Wrong."

I win!

 

[Thaddius]

Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Sep. 04 2004,8:27)]You are both wrong.

We were genetically engineered by aliens.

Please see Lloyd Pye's book, "Everything You Know is Wrong."

I win!

lol...Nice one

Cory

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]

I think u can't prove that it is gods doing, just like u can't say for sure that its ancestry.
It depends on how u look at it, and what kind of backround u come from.
I personally think its ancestry, but even if there was absolute proof that there is no god, u would still be skeptical because of your faith.
So I guess I agree with u about evidence GP. No matter what Bill says u'll always find a way to twist it to prove your faith.  

I can say the same thing about you and Mr. Bill and Dark Virtue.  But that would belittle their efforts to understand their world around them and would be construed as an attack on their personal faith and belief system.  But, its okay to attack a christian belief that way, right?

Quote[/b] ]No if u show me proof that there is a god and he created the universe, real conclusive proof I'll believe u. But u can't and the only logical conclusion is evolution and ancestry.

No if u show me proof that there is no God and an accident created the universe, real conclusive proof I'll believe u. But u can't and the only logical conclusion is creation.


You come here challanging our faith, and you still leave my challange back alone.  You expect answers to your question and you go off on little tirades when we don't.  Now the shoes is on your foot, explain to me how similiarities between apes and man are not evidence for creation.

 

[Jim]

There was an interesting thoery but I can't recall the site. if I do, I'll post it.

Some evidence (Note evidence, not proof, I won't get myself heated on something I cannot prove 100%) that is cited is micro evolution begets Macro evolution.

------------\
Eg, AIDS and HIV virus 'evolve' in a matter of months to resist drugs and chemicals. Cells in every form of life react in the same way, if they are not destroyed first. A hazardous environment tends to create changes in an animal, such as mammoths forming a thick coat to resist cold (Though it didn't save them from extinction). By the same token, cells, prompted by hazardous external evironments chage themselves to adapt, to change. But by no more can a computer program adapt without changing it's code, can a cell adapt without changing its own code. Note that a cell and a program are not that much different. A cell's component DNA consists of genetic codes which for the foundation of life. Change it even slightly and the whole cell system can collapse, much like tampering with a program can cause it to crash.

It is believed that cells are programmed with natural survival instincts. Unless a flaw develops early in the chain (Like a developing fetus develops a flawed genome), they will not and cannot develop faults as severe as catastrophic mutational crashing without an unnatural cause (irradiation for example). To do such is to contradict the idea of a perfect creator.

-----------/
There is more, but I cannot remember it off the top of my head. The above is my best possible recollection of what I read on that site. I think it was unlockingDNA.com or something. Again, if I find it, I'll let you know.

Just thought I'd chuck this out.  

 

[Jim]

Now that I think about it, there have been examples of imperfect creatures dying through flaws in their physiology. Dodos lost their ability to fly, I believe and fell prey to predators. An speaking of mammoths, they died because despite their physical adaptations, they succumbed to the perishing cold.

um, I know on the scientific side, the jury is still flinging evidence at each other but doesn't this suggest that God didn't quite make His designs perfect?

 

[Jim]

Look at this site:
http://mindprod.com/noah.html

It has (slightly extreme) evolutionist slant. But nevertheless it holds some water.

The part I consider to be the most relevannt is this:

Quote[/b] ]Not even all the biologists of all time working full time have even begun to collect them all. Yet Noah supposedly collected all manner of insects, fresh water fish, South American tree frogs, Australian kangaroos, not to mention white and black rhinoceri from thousands of miles away.

and onwards. For the Christians on this site, I know you probably don't approve of someone taking the mick out of your faith the way this guy does, just as I find it arrogant that a creationist would mock evolution without a damn good reason. Humor me and read the essay in its entirety before you you refute it. It does have some valid points.

 

[Thaddius]

Quote[/b] ]Now that I think about it, there have been examples of imperfect creatures dying through flaws in their physiology. Dodos lost their ability to fly, I believe and fell prey to predators.

could dodo's ever fly?  What about Penguins, could they ever fly or have they always been land-based birds?  Same with chickens and turkeys and ostritches?  

Quote[/b] ]The dodo was a large, plump bird covered in soft, grey feathers, with a plume of white at its tail. It had small wings that were far too weak to ever lift the dodo off the ground. Because it was flightless, those who saw the bird often thought it had no real wings at all, describing them as "little winglets." Study of the skeleton reveals, however, that the dodo did in fact have wings that were simply not used for flight, much like penguins' wings. The dodo's legs were short and stubby and yellow in color. On the end of the legs were four toes, three in front and one acting as a thumb in back, all with thick, black claws. The head was a lighter grey than the body, with small, yellow eyes. Many words have been devoted to the long, crooked and hooked beak, which was light green or pale yellow in color and was one of the most distinguishing features of the dodo. Those who saw it, marveled at the unique shape and size. One witness went so far as to describe it as grotesque. (Strickland and Melville, 1848; Fuller, 1987; Greenway, 1958; Britannica, 1986)

Quote[/b] ]An speaking of mammoths, they died because despite their physical adaptations, they succumbed to the perishing cold.

Frozen Mammoth remains were found in Siberia
:

Quote[/b] ]Mol also notes that the mammoth lay atop clay soil filled with frozen prehistoric plants that "still had their original green color." Mol says that these "smaller" clues, "this is very important, because it indicates a lake and pond 20,000 years ago, and might tell us about the climate and temperature at the time." Mol and his American colleague Larry Agenbroad of Northern Arizona University will begin studying the mamoth and its adjacent plants sometime next spring, in a cave carved out of ice.

Most likely this was caused by some sort of "flash freezing"

Quote[/b] ]" It is well known that its tusks are still so well preserved in cold countries that they are used for the same purposes as new Ivory, as we have before remarked, individuals have been found with the flesh,skin,and hair, which had been frozen since the final catastrophe of the globe. The Tartars and Chinese have imagined it to be an animal which lives underground, and perishes whenever it appears in daylight."

And

Quote[/b] ]But according to the Russian expert on this subject (Tolmachoff, cited by Hapgood), the frozen remains are not found in rivers or holes but are often found on the highest points of the tundra. Analysis of the stomach contents of the Berezovka mammoth indicated a temperate climate vegetation. The mammoth was feeding itself in a forested area apparently in late summer. There was no swampy terrain. How, then, can we explain the preservation of flesh in frozen ground? No gradualistic process can result in the preservation of thousands of tusks and whole individuals, even if they died in the winter. They must have been frozen suddenly.

I don't think any preparation could have saved the mammoth from whatever caused it to die, even from an evolutionary basis.

Cory

 

[Thaddius]

.You can find your answers to that page here.

Cory

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]could dodo's ever fly?  What about Penguins, could they ever fly or have they always been land-based birds?  Same with chickens and turkeys and ostritches?  

You have a point, but i believe penguins have fewer predators than Dodos.

Quote[/b] ]Frozen Mammoth remains were found in Siberia
:
Quote  
Mol also notes that the mammoth lay atop clay soil filled with frozen prehistoric plants that "still had their original green color." Mol says that these "smaller" clues, "this is very important, because it indicates a lake and pond 20,000 years ago, and might tell us about the climate and temperature at the time." Mol and his American colleague Larry Agenbroad of Northern Arizona University will begin studying the mamoth and its adjacent plants sometime next spring, in a cave carved out of ice.


Most likely this was caused by some sort of "flash freezing"

Quote  
" It is well known that its tusks are still so well preserved in cold countries that they are used for the same purposes as new Ivory, as we have before remarked, individuals have been found with the flesh,skin,and hair, which had been frozen since the final catastrophe of the globe. The Tartars and Chinese have imagined it to be an animal which lives underground, and perishes whenever it appears in daylight."



And

Quote  
But according to the Russian expert on this subject (Tolmachoff, cited by Hapgood), the frozen remains are not found in rivers or holes but are often found on the highest points of the tundra. Analysis of the stomach contents of the Berezovka mammoth indicated a temperate climate vegetation. The mammoth was feeding itself in a forested area apparently in late summer. There was no swampy terrain. How, then, can we explain the preservation of flesh in frozen ground? No gradualistic process can result in the preservation of thousands of tusks and whole individuals, even if they died in the winter. They must have been frozen suddenly.


I don't think any preparation could have saved the mammoth from whatever caused it to die, even from an evolutionary basis.

You have an interesting point. I'll look up more on this.

edit: but what is your take on the cell/DNA part in the above message?

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 04 2004,12:37)]

Quote[/b] ]No if u show me proof that there is a god and he created the universe, real conclusive proof I'll believe u. But u can't and the only logical conclusion is evolution and ancestry.

No if u show me proof that there is no God and an accident created the universe, real conclusive proof I'll believe u. But u can't and the only logical conclusion is creation.


You come here challanging our faith, and you still leave my challange back alone.  You expect answers to your question and you go off on little tirades when we don't.  Now the shoes is on your foot, explain to me how similiarities between apes and man are not evidence for creation.

Now see, we have a bit of a paradox here. Lets see if we can't work it out, eh?

I have a problem with you talking about logic in this way. 'Proof' can be given for neither side. So, then, why do we have different opinions? It is because we place our emphasis on different aspects of 'truth', or rather, how we go about obtaining it. We both share the same evidence, but we see different reasons for the evidence. However, you speak of the only logical conclusion, sans proof, being your point of view. The only? The only logical? Correct me if I am wrong, but the belief that god created the world our of nothing is the most 'illogical' point of view conceivable. Saying that it's the 'only logical conclusion' is pretty foolhardy. You are substituting logic for faith, which just cannot be done. Faith by definition has no logical backing. I'm not saying you should change your belief, but when you talk of logic, just know what you are saying.

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]I have a problem with you talking about logic in this way. 'Proof' can be given for neither side. So, then, why do we have different opinions? It is because we place our emphasis on different aspects of 'truth', or rather, how we go about obtaining it. We both share the same evidence, but we see different reasons for the evidence. However, you speak of the only logical conclusion, sans proof, being your point of view. The only? The only logical? Correct me if I am wrong, but the belief that god created the world our of nothing is the most 'illogical' point of view conceivable. Saying that it's the 'only logical conclusion' is pretty foolhardy. You are substituting logic for faith, which just cannot be done. Faith by definition has no logical backing. I'm not saying you should change your belief, but when you talk of logic, just know what you are saying.

If it wasn't for all the subjective you have placed in there, you'd almost be on target.

Objective statement 1: Proof can be given for neither side.
Objective statement 2: We place our emphasis on different aspects of truth.
Objective statement 3: We both share the same evidence, but we see diferent reasons for the evidence.


Everything else is argumentative and subjective, everything else is "my version is better then your version" mentallity. Which is, well, childish.

My statement "Similairities is evidence for a creator" is a statement of fact (the term fact belongs to the entire statement, not to the term evidence in the statement) because of the 3 objective statements above.

You can not deny my view of the evidence as be a fact, what is it then otherwise? A figment of my imagination. It is real, based on my belief system, my experience and my own logic. You can't say that your logic is better then mine, you can't proof that. I never said creation is the only explaination like you accuse me of, creation is the only explaination I will accept. World of difference there. Creation is not the only explaination for the evidence, but it is the only one I will accept. Another world of difference.

The evidence is just that, only evidence. How you wish to interpret it is up to you. And your interpretations are based on what you think is right or wrong, founded or not, logical or not. The reason why you can not show my how similiarities between ape and man is not evidence for a creator, is because it is. Just because you wish to interpret the evidence differently it does not invalidate my interpretation of the same evidence.

The biggest problem with these types of debates (well, arguements) is that it is nothing more then a battle of interpretations. Which, going back to the objective statement 1 above, there is no proof available to either party. So, it almost becomes useless debating it as it always comes down to

Quote[/b] ] Correct me if I am wrong, but the belief that god created the world our of nothing is the most 'illogical' point of view conceivable.

Feelings, nothing more then feelings.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]You can't say that your logic is better then mine, you can't proof that. I never said creation is the only explaination like you accuse me of, creation is the only explaination I will accept. World of difference there. Creation is not the only explaination for the evidence, but it is the only one I will accept.

EH? This bit of "logic" is flawed at best.

You have chosen to believe in an explanation and refuse to accept anything to the contrary. That doesn't make your choice "right", it merely makes it "your choice".

That's a bit closed minded isn't it? If you expect athiests to hold the slightest bit of doubt that they are wrong, you have to offer the same in return. That is precisely why I keep saying that I am waiting to be proven wrong. I am open to the possibility that I am incorrect. You, however, refuse to do that. You may as well log on to this board, shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and yell LALALALALA.

God can not be proven.

That is why religious types always ask for the burden of proof from the other side, because they know it will never come.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Sigh.. I concur with the above, GP.

 

[Thaddius]

Quote[/b] ]You have chosen to believe in an explanation and refuse to accept anything to the contrary. That doesn't make your choice "right", it merely makes it "your choice".

Our Choice is right to us. Whether you think it is right or not is irrelevent. I've said it before and I'll say it again. You will not find many here who will back down from our belief.

Quote[/b] ]God can not be proven.

That is why religious types always ask for the burden of proof from the other side, because they know it will never come.

The exact opposite can be argued. God cannot be disproven, and you guys always come here and lay the burden of proof on us. It seems we are once again at an impass....

Cory

 

[Avesther]

I guess Dark Virtue and Mr. Bill are the free thinkers they claim to be, they have yet to figure out how to answer my challange without going on some tangent.

I am not asking you to prove evolution, I am not asking you to disprove creationism.  I am not asking you to come up with a thousand new theories as to why.  I don't want any subjective statements about how or why you think your logic is better then mine.  I am simply asking you to show me how similiarities between apes and men is not evidence for creation.  Stop pussy footing around boys and get to it.

--

 

[Drelin]

Gods_Peon

Quote[/b] ]Makes logical sense.  Here you have a skeptic wanting to learn about Christianity going to the Christian experts.  You don't go to a Budhist monk to learn about Christianity, that would make no sense.

If Strobel was simply interested in what Christians think about Christianity, from a strictly observational point of view, then yes; his approach was sensible. However, I seem to recal that he claimed to be investigating, and he definately takes an active role through the book - asking questions of those he interviewed, and feeding the reader conclusions from his discussions. Given this, it would have been honest to interview some real skeptics to see what some serious objections are. But it's pretty OT for this thread.

Quote[/b] ]Koko was trained to display that behavior.  Koko is a great example of our ability to have dominion over the animal kingdom and subdue it.

Hmmm, I trained my dog to let me know what games she wants to play, and my son does the same thing.  I guess that is irrefutable proof that dog and man evolved from a common ancestor.

Let's pretend that unsupported assertions have any value, and conceede for the sake of argument that Koko was trained - that her behaviour is down to conditioning. So what?

The fact that some degree of training works pet dogs and children doesn't prove evolution, nor does anyone claim it to - but it does damage claims that humans and other animals are fundamentally different in this regard.

Of course, I don't accept that Koko is the product of conditioning just because you say she is. Source?

...

Quote[/b] ]My dog communicates with me in a way I understand.  And like Koko, my dog had to be trained to understand the means of communication.  Its not like Koko taught humans how to sign in Ape language.

Scenario: German man learns English in order to communicate with an anglophone.
Question: Are the German man's English thoughts and words invalidated?

...

Quote[/b] ]Despite all the uniqueness of this creature [platypus], it is a completely unchanged today compared to its fossilized ancestors.

Apparently. Is this just a stand-alone comment, or are you saying it proves something?

...

Quote[/b] ]I am simply asking you to show me how similiarities between apes and men is not evidence for creation. Stop pussy footing around boys and get to it.

Why? What's the point? It's impossible to prove that an all powerful being didn't do something. By definition an all powerful being could have done anything. I would challenge you to prove that the earth and everything in it wasn't created (with 'memories' and all) 12 minutes ago by an Invisible Pink Unicorn, but I recognise that such actitivities are futile and prove nothing. It can't be done. The fact that it can't be done doesn't prove anything.

Boswer

Quote[/b] ]Not quite.  Similar to my example about George Washington, apes and humans may look similar, but are not designed in the same way as humans are.  They may have a noticeable similar behavior, but that doesn't make them the same.
...
"Human Genes, Ape Genes" <snip>

We're different to other primates. According to Strobel and his friend, DNA alone cannot explain the differences, and similarities between DNA alone does not prove common ancestory. Not sure about but the first point, but it seems okay to me. What is it supposed to prove?

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 04 2004,10:54)]I am simply asking you to show me how similiarities between apes and men is not evidence for creation.  Stop pussy footing around boys and get to it.

The simularities between apes and men is evidence for creation. But in that mindset, so is everything else. The fact is this: you are right, but it doesn't matter. It has no arguementative or logical value. Like I said, a moot point.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 04 2004,10:54)]I guess Dark Virtue and Mr. Bill are the free thinkers they claim to be, they have yet to figure out how to answer my challange without going on some tangent.

I am not asking you to prove evolution, I am not asking you to disprove creationism.  I am not asking you to come up with a thousand new theories as to why.  I don't want any subjective statements about how or why you think your logic is better then mine.  I am simply asking you to show me how similiarities between apes and men is not evidence for creation.  Stop pussy footing around boys and get to it.

--

Didn't you already say that no matter what evidence or proof we show you will only hold true to your beliefs?

Why exactly should I bother undertaking your challenge if you're not willing to change your beliefs in the light of another option?

If you come flat out and say that you will consider being wrong and open to new ideas then we'll talk seriously about your challenge. Until then, you've already said you're not willing to change.

 

[Avesther]

We have spent darn near 40 posts trying to debate this and Jim is almost there.  And now Drelin has jumped in missing the boat all together.

Quote[/b] ]Yep.  Now, you can either accept the statement that similiarities is evidence for a single designer or proof me wrong.

This is the statement which people here are having a problem with.  I want somebody to show me how the similiarities is indeed not evidence for a creator.  I don't want some far fetched new theory on why the evidence exists, I don't want you to prove to me that creationism is  wrong or that evolution is right.  I've taken those burdons of your shoulders.  I just want to be shown how it is not evidence for creation.

---
Jim, I think you have almost got it.  But in your mindset, nothing has to do with a creator, so your logic reflects that.  You claim that it is more logical for evolution and common ancestory but, you have already closed your mind to the possibility of a creator, no mater how much you claim to the contrary.

Unlike christian "science", evolution is taught in the schools.  I have been exposed to it, I was taught it as fact and not theory.  I learned a great deal about it.  I learned all the text book and all the required extra reading.  But, because I am so open minded, I also found as much as I could on other viable theories as well, writen as biased as they possibly could.  I've read the most biased of evolution teachings and the most biased of creationism teachings and although there are still questions surrounding creationism, evolution was left in the primodel pond of goo that it was.

You don't need to be a Christian to believe in Special Creation.