Creationism: Right or Wrong?

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]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?

No source need, all communication is learned through conditioning and word association. If a baby is left in linguistical isolation, how will they comminicate with other people when they are reintroduced into the population at say, 20 years old?

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

No, but he had to be taught. And how is communication taught?

Quote[/b] ]Given this, it would have been honest to interview some real skeptics to see what some serious objections are.

He did though. He studied up on the "foremost" skeptics before interviewing the "foremost" christian experts.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 05 2004,1:06)]I just want to be shown how it is not evidence for creation.

Why are you so occupied by that point?

 

[Avesther]

Well, now that is done.

Given that you accept evolution as the superior explaination for the evidence of similiarities between apes and men, you can now explain what drove you to that conclusion?

Here is your chance now, to show me why I should consider evolution because Apes and men look alike.

And don't simply say, its more logical. Why is it more logical? What other evidence exists that would fit common ancestory (evolution) to the similairities between ape and men?

 

[Drelin]

Gods_Peon

Quote[/b] ]And now Drelin has jumped in missing the boat all together.

My humble appologies. I think it has something to do with timezones. Please, enlighten me as to the error of my ways.

Quote[/b] ]No source need, all communication is learned through conditioning and word association. If a baby is left in linguistical isolation, how will they comminicate with other people when they are reintroduced into the population at say, 20 years old?

I'm not sure how languages work. You seem unwilling to provide me with the source for these ideas, or if they are your own, support them. But it's an aside to the topic, so I don't really care. I suspect that what you say is mostly true, but it's more complicated than just that.

Anyway, you're jumping around a little bit, and I'm confused as to what you're claiming. I don't wish to debate how languages are learnt, because that seems irrelevant. I can accept they're learnt through conditioning; that seems a common-sense notion, but I thought you were claiming that Koko was a product of conditioning, not only her language skills - which is what I was getting at with my German man example.

Quote[/b] ]He did though. He studied up on the "foremost" skeptics before interviewing the "foremost" christian experts.

Suddenly studying equates to interviewing? And if he did study, I only remember one or two references to contempory views - Karen Armstrong's History of God being one, but then, he didn't really unpack it, he only mentioned it passing.

Quote[/b] ]Here is your chance now, to show me why I should consider evolution because Apes and men look alike.

I recommend that you don't, because if ape / human similarities are all you base your support of evolution on, you'll get pwned by the first YEC you meet. Rather, consider these similarities in context, and along all other evidence.

The similarities between apes and humans are considered supporting evidence for evolution instead of creationism for many reasons, including the fact that an interpretation in favour of evolution fits in fine with the theory of evolution, and is also consistant with the other data collected. Whereas it hasn't been shown how it would fit with a YEC view, and it being so would be inconsistant with all the other data collected.

I'm not going to attept to prove evolution to you here, because I lack the knowledge, patience and eloquence. If you're interested, read a book or go to TalkOrigins or something.

 

[Avesther]

Drelin, I will enlighten you very quickly:

In a nutshell:

What I said:

Similiarities between men and apes is evidence for a creator. This is a stament of fact.

What people read:

Similiarities between men and apes is evence for a creator being a fact.


Maybe what I should have wrote:

Similiarities between men and apes is evidence for a creator, is a factual statement.

Because the adjective "Factual" belongs with the noun "statement". Which would read the same as:

It is a fact that similiarities between men and apes is evidence for a creator.

But I figured splitting the two idea's into two seperate sentances would have avoided confusion or a misinterpretation (the single sentance is a long closer to "Similiarities between men and apes is evidence for a creator being fact), I was wrong. Somebody misinterpreted and then 3 freethinking people jumped on that bandwagon. Makes me wonder how freethinking they really are?

Quote[/b] ]I recommend that you don't, because if ape / human similarities are all you base your support of evolution on, you'll get pwned by the first YEC you meet. Rather, consider these similarities in context, and along all other evidence.

Oh, but they are aching so badly to do so. You are so right, I've seen 40 year olds who relied on the ape man connection for their bases of evolution get "pwned" by 16 years. But herein lies and issues that needs to be address by evolutionists: That if they common ancestor-ape-man connection is broken so easy, then what does that say about all the assumptions in evolution theory?

Quote[/b] ]I'm not going to attept to prove evolution to you here, because I lack the knowledge, patience and eloquence. If you're interested, read a book or go to TalkOrigins or something.

Actually, its not because you lack the knowledge, patience or aloquence that you are not going to attempt to prove evolution, its because that despite the efforts of thousands of evolutionists, that theory still hasn't been proven. I was interest in evolution and the arguments for it, that is why I have read stacks on top of stacks of books on evolution and creationism.

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]In a nutshell:

What I said:

Similiarities between men and apes is evidence for a creator. This is a stament of fact.

What people read:

Similiarities between men and apes is evence for a creator being a fact.

I think I understand. similarities between apes and men is evidence for a creator is a fact. Is the fact that it is evidence not proof?

I'm no expert, but what about cats/tigers? domesticated felines have somehow become the small pets they are today. It is unlikely they lasted very long if they were created that way. Apes/humans are in the same type of genus, namely simians, while cats/tigers are feline.

I'm not an expert on this stuff, so any suggestions?

 

[Mr.Bill]

GP! Ooof, stop overusing the word 'fact.' Yes, I suppose it is a fact, though I use the term loosely in general, but it's pathetically irrelevant. I am not sure where you are going with this, but I hope you are going there with the knowledge that you are basing it upon highly uneccessary information.

 

[Avesther]

No, its not necessary information...I learned something valuable about misinterpretations, I hope the lesson wasn't lost on anybody else either for that matter.

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]The similarities between apes and humans are considered supporting evidence for evolution instead of creationism for many reasons, including the fact that an interpretation in favour of evolution fits in fine with the theory of evolution, and is also consistant with the other data collected. Whereas it hasn't been shown how it would fit with a YEC view, and it being so would be inconsistant with all the other data collected.

And, to what data would you be refering to?

 

[Drelin]

None in particular. Pick some. Or some more.

I'm not sure where you're going with the fact v fact thing. Both those sentences seem the same to me. You couldn't simplify it any further for an unelightened buffoon such as me?

 

[Dark Virtue]

I think something needs to be further defined here.

Are you equating all evolutionists with Darwinists? Darwinists believe that humans evolved from single cell organims, that would be macroevolution. Evolutionists believe that changes can occur within a limited scope, this is microevolution. Not all people that believe in evolution believe in the Darwinian notion of macroevolution.

Personally I believe in microevolution, small changes within a species. There is ample evidence for this, look at finches. I do not, however, believe in macroevolution. There is no evidence to support one species evolving into another.

I just wanted to establish this guideline since us heathens are being lumped together and slapped with a singular label. It doesn't work that way. There are more than two sides here and you are doing yourself a disservice if you can't get past that fact.

 

[Avesther]

Actually, I think it would be even more interesting to see how you freethinkers define fact.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Can you at least acknowledge that there is a difference between Darwinists and Evolutionists in general and a huge difference between micro and macro evolution?

Scientific fact is defined as an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final). A fact is something that has actual existence ,an actual occurrence,a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

How's that?

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Sep. 07 2004,12:03)]Scientific fact is defined as an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).  A fact is something that has actual existence ,an actual occurrence,a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

*nods in agreement*

 

[Avesther]

I like this...this, I like. You want me to agree to a liberal definition of evolution, being different from Darwinism but you define "Scientific fact" very specificlly and tell me you use the term Fact very loosly.


I agree, without doubt that people and animals can adapt to their enviroment, if they have the genetic ability to do so. But at a cost, that is a loss of genetic information that is not required. Unless there is an addition back into the genetic information, that loss is permanent. For example, my Keeshond has been bread to have long hair to survive in the cold northern climate. My dog and all her offspring will always have long hair, regardless of where she or they live because the genetic coding for short hair has been bread out. If the climate of where they live all of a sudden becomes 90'f on average, that breed will die out without intervention. Thus, this gives no rise to any new species. And I also define species as a biological, taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 07 2004,3:42)]I like this...this, I like.  You want me to agree to a liberal definition of evolution, being different from Darwinism but you define "Scientific fact" very specificlly and tell me you use the term Fact very loosly.

The key is that scientific fact is accepted as true, but does not necessarily define truth. I personally use the word 'fact' loosely across the board because I know that humans are ignorant of so much, and thus I don't think we should be so bold as to state the be all end all of things. Certain topics, such as fundamental mathamatics, we can state with absolute confidence, but there are not many of these.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]I like this...this, I like. You want me to agree to a liberal definition of evolution, being different from Darwinism but you define "Scientific fact" very specificlly and tell me you use the term Fact very loosly.

The reason I asked was because the only word you were using was "evolution", which is not, I'm sorry to say, a simple term anymore. If you don't want to acknowledge accepted terms, then please inform the rest of us what you believe the term "evolution" to mean so there is no confusion>

 

[Drelin]

G_P, (I think) you're saying that mutation only takes away and refines, but never adds. Could you expand on this?

 

[Arkanjel]

Has anybody brought up the universal mathematics involved in all of creation? Like the "Golden Mean" which permeates the entire universe. From the spiral of a galaxy to the spiral of a nautilus' shell.

Chaos "theory" can only explain so much.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Nope, so here's your chance to lay it out for us

Keep in mind though, that the terms "theory" and "proofs" are there for a reason. They serve us until our knowledge makes them moot. Case in point: Newtonian Physics gave way to Quantum Physics. Quantum Physics will be "true" until we find something else. This is a model of growth.

Let me ask one question though.

Let's assume for a second that we have to perfect proofs in front of us.  One that shows the existence of Darwinian evolution and one that shows the universe began with a big bang.

What is to stop someone from postulating that God set the big bang in motion as well as set forth the guidelines for Darwinian evolution?  Can't the creationist always fall back and say that it is God's will that set the big bang in motion, or anything that anyone else comes up with?