Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
This is why I'm done with this discussion. You are either incapable of understanding legalese, or you are being deliberately obtuse.

No, I'm just trying to find out the truth in this matter, and I don't think it's right to swallow unsubstantiated claims. Why do you abuse me over this? I don't understand. You've made claims about things being law or opinion of Supreme Court justices, and when I ask for details, your claims peter out - they are only opinions of parties that support your side, not official rulings on homosexual marriage.

All you needed to do was to dig a little. Instead you decided it would be easier to say I was wrong or lying. That's another reason why I'm done.

Again, what is your problem here? If I made a claim that the Supremes said the sky is orange, wouldn't you ask me for a reference? It would be the logical thing to do, wouldn't it? I really don't understand your problem about my asking you to support a claim. Why should you have a problem with it?

In the decision handed down the justices state that the original position held by the court in Bowers v. Hardwick was “deficient� and that furthermore: ...

Please recall that the case involved PRIVATE conduct, not the legal definition of marriage ...

“Where a case’s foundations ...

OK, no reference to homosexual marriage ...

“The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.�

OK, no reference to homosexual marriage ...

“Bowers’ rationale ...

OK, no reference to homosexual marriage ...

If you do not understand that this is a major reversal from previous legal opinions, and that it is a major change in the way the court identifies homosexual people, then perhaps you should consider the Plaintiffs first statement:

My goodness, Blackheart, why do you do this? Of course I understand this! When have I denied those things? (that it's a major reversal, and that it's a major change in the way the court identifies homosexual people). When?? Never! My only claim is that the Supremes have not supported homosexual marriage! Are you trying to confuse the issue? Why do you change the topic?

“1. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions under the Texas “Homosexual Conduct� law—which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples—violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws?�

OK, no reference to homosexual marriage ...

(in) “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed ... "
You will note the reference to MARRIAGE in the above opinion.

Yes, and I found it pretty funny that you've suddenly stopped complaining about my using the term "marriage"! But still, no reference to homosexual marriage, is there? And further down, the ruling specifically says:

The present case ... does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.

The Supremes are ruling on PRIVATE, consensual conduct. Again, they are NOT ruling on the formal recognition of homosexual marriage!

If you want it any clearer than that, you’re going to have to ask someone else.

I don't need to; you've made it abundantly clear that there is no formal opinion by the Supreme Court that homosexual marriage should be allowed. And if you're honest, you'll admit that. There IS, however, a formal opinion that PRIVATE homosexual conduct should not be illegal. That's very clear.

But you really should do some research before you go arguing that someone is being purposefully misleading, and issuing fiats that such a thing doesn’t exist.

Again, the person making the claim is typically the one to back it up. Don't you agree?

If you want to read the entire opinion it is posted here:

Thanks, I printed it out

[Rían]

Blackheart, I really think it boils down to the fact that we, along with many others, have different opinions on this subject.

I will extend to you the courtesy of assuming that your defense of your opinion was based on a view that expanding the def'n of marriage to include homosexual marriages is the best thing for everyone involved.

I TELL you that MY defense of my opinion is based on a view that expanding the def'n of marriage to include homosexual marriages is the worst thing for everyone involved. And furthermore, that I have been truthful in everything that I've said, to the best of my knowledge. I hope you will believe me.

I think that you honestly realize that there IS NO FORMAL OPINION by the SUPREME COURT that homosexual marriage should be legalized. I think that you honestly realize that the only thing that was legalized in this ruling was PRIVATE, CONSENSUAL homosexual conduct. Is this true?

I also think that you were deliberately misleading in this issue about the Supremes having a formal opinion that homosexual marriage should be recognized, but I think that you were deliberately misleading for what you thought was a good reason - to support something that you think is right. Is this true?

However, when discussing issues, I think that it's wrong to be misleading, and that's why I asked you to back it up.

If a person can't support their side by being truthful, then what's the use of discussion?

[Rían]

It's now almost 6 hours since I wrote the above post, and I've been troubled about it all during that time. Again, I hate to make a charge that you were deliberately misleading, but the only other option that I can see is that you were just plain mistaken, and given your intelligence, that's hard to believe. Is there another option that I'm missing? I suppose a third option would be that you honestly still believe your original claim that the Supreme Court has stated an opinion that homosexual marriages should be legalized, in spite of there being nothing in that ruling to support it. (the ruling is on private homosexual behavior). Is that the way it is?

[Rían]

Well, I think it's time to close up here - best wishes to everyone, and remember, please stay aware of what is actually evidence and what is just theory/conjecture, no matter what side of the evolutionism/creationism model you favor.

[Valandil]

OK - back on topic:

I'm not a scientist (and don't really have time to surf & sift through all the scientific stuff out there - & likely not smart enough), and I AM a Christian - which makes for a dangerous combination in this kind of discussion ... but I do have a question (knowing just enough to be dangerous, perhaps):

How is the Theory of Evolution reconciled with the Principle of Entropy? How could life appear from nothing, then continually evolve to higher and higher forms - when the natural tendency of things is to break down into lower, simpler forms?

It seems to me that Entropy supports a Christian / Creationist viewpoint: ie, a product of the Fall of Man (whereby, as God's supreme creation, man takes the rest of creation down with him).

Not trying to start a fight - Heavens no! Had enough of that lately. Just wondering if modern science has taken that on yet. I acknowledge that an honest "no" or "I don't know" doesn't invalidate the Theory of Evolution.

[Rían]

Hi Val!

This issue has been discussed both in this thread and in the thread titled something like "Should evolution be taught in schools?" Just do a search on thermodynamics and/or entropy if you want to see what was discussed.

On the evolution side, you'll typically see several arguments - roughly, these: one is when the example of a crystal forming is brought forth and claimed as an example of a higher order coming from a lower. Another is that somehow entropy causes order - this one is usually accompanied by some dubious multisyllabic words in the explanation. A third is that in an open system, if there is an outside energy source, there can be increase in order. All of these have solid, common-sense arguments against them, IMO (and I have a physics background, BTW, so these terms are not new to me).

Personally, I think the common sense and obvious answer is that this particular law supports the creationism model quite strongly.

Try ICR.org for a good link to a creationist site, and you can search for thermodynamics or entropy there.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil
How is the Theory of Evolution reconciled with the Principle of Entropy? How could life appear from nothing, then continually evolve to higher and higher forms - when the natural tendency of things is to break down into lower, simpler forms?

It seems to me that Entropy supports a Christian / Creationist viewpoint

Nevermind for now the many very good scientific answers to this old old creationist argument which allows it to be easily explained. What I never understood is why this argument is still used when it actually is a very good argument AGAINST the existance of god. Forget how higher order man is how can something as complicated and powerful as god exist if all matter is prone to decay. Why do creationists shoot themselves in the foot with arguments like this Ill never know.

[Valandil]

Sorry - didn't realize it was an old, old argument.

I guess we Christians see it supporting creation because we view God as being apart FROM Creation, not a part OF Creation. Does that make sense, viewed from the Christian perspective?

Like I said though, I'm no scientist... had just wondered about that for some time.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Why do creationists shoot themselves in the foot with arguments like this Ill never know.

Bad aim?

Well, I’m in the process of reading of this thread between home and work, and to be honest, I’ve gotten to about page 11. However, I’m so confused by the meandering of this thread that I can’t keep straight who’s who. Is there anyone else out there, like myself, who is Christian and an evolutionist? I would also appreciate if an atheist could explain to me why evolution proves that there isn’t a God (if that’s what you think, of course), and if a theist could explain to me why evolution is opposed to a creative God (if that’s what you think, of course).

Thanks for your help... now back to page 12.

--Dave

[Valandil]

Hey Dave,

You always have such good, thought-provoking posts.

Maybe for the first part, if we turn it around, an atheist just about HAS TO believe in evolution (or deny reality... or something else I'm not thinking of)... so in terms of mindsets, it's a "which came first?" (joke half-way intended) thing. And the theory does have some gaps in it - because of the barrier of time, it may always have gaps - even if it is correct.

As far as Christians, I've known people all up and down the spectrum - some who believe in theistic (God-directed) evolution and others who are strict 6-day creationists. Honestly, many of my own Christian friends who are in the sciences adhere more toward the former (probably brain-washed by all our godless institutions of higher education - JOKING ONLY!!! Note the smilie!).

Personally, I could see it either way. Frankly, we can't know, so I'm more concerned with what the Bible says about what I'm to do in the present and what God will do in the future, than about what He did in the past (and I also have the luxury of believing that I can get the story straight from Him in Heaven someday! ).

In support of those who support a 6-day creation, I say that if God is Who He says He is, He COULD HAVE done it that way. Even with apparent inconsistencies about the ages of various items. If one goes so far as to accept the creation of man - we surmise he (Adam) had an apparent age (maybe 20, 25, 30, 40, whatever) - even seconds after he was created. I don't have a problem with God making everything with an apparent age different from its actual age.

However - I could also see God taking His time. Even if I want to accept the inspiration of the biblical account - I can question how it was inspired: Did God speak and the writer took dictation? If so, I'm more inclined to believe it was as written. But - what if God gave a vision - and the writer wrote down what he thought he was seeing. I'm open to that.

I guess there are other theological issues that enter in if one accepts mankind as part of the evolutionary process. If we believe that each member of mankind has a soul, but that animals don't - which generation of early humans was first granted the soul which their parents didn't get?

Anyway - not all would see them as mutually exclusive... but some on each side do. And me... I just don't know!

Now I gotta go get myself another pair of shoes. OUCH! I HATE when I do that!

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
I would also appreciate if an atheist could explain to me why evolution proves that there isn’t a God

It doesn't. It deals with the mechanism of change, and not so much with the origin of life.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil
Sorry - didn't realize it was an old, old argument.

I guess we Christians see it supporting creation because we view God as being apart FROM Creation, not a part OF Creation. Does that make sense, viewed from the Christian perspective?

well of course that makes sense. the "god just IS" argument. perfectly acceptable. its part of the christian logic. but also understand that when you use the argument of "oh according to science this cant be" and yet turn around and say "oh but those same laws of science dont apply to MY side" well can you see how it would come off as a bit disingenuous from the non-christian perspective?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal


Thanks for your help... now back to page 12.

ignore all the rambling black heart and rian had about the supreme court and marriage. thatll shorten it by 8 or 10 pages probably.

oh and great questions by the way.

[Rían]

Guillaume - good luck, I wonder if you'll manage to slog thru it

Just for your reference, I gave up trying to deal with little bits of subjects, and finally posted a multi-post, top-level summary of points that I thought were important. It starts here : multi-post statement if you're interested - I think it's about 11 posts or so. If we have the same page settings, it would be on page 23.

And I agree with Valandil's answer re entropy - we see God as apart from the universe (duh, since He MADE the universe!), and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is PART of the universe. *looks at feet* Nope, no bullet holes

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Hi Val!

Try ICR.org for a good link to a creationist site, and you can search for thermodynamics or entropy there.

And for the scientific argument against:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Check the FAQs


And, no, Evolution, or any other scientific theory, doesn't prove that there isn't a God- many evolutionists believe in God- it just provides a naturalistic explanation for the course of life on Earth.

Like Newton's Laws of Motion superseding the need for Aristotlean Forces- unless, of course, you're a Thomist

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Like Newton's Laws of Motion superseding the need for Aristotlean Forces- unless, of course, you're a Thomist [/B]

Hey, I resemble that remark!

Now, I’m a Thomist, and I don’t accept Aristotelian physics over Newton’s laws of physical motion, mainly because experience seems to bear them out (spoken like a true realist, ey!). On the other hand, I don’t accept Newton’s conclusions positing that the universe is a perpetual motion machine as opposed to subsistence. Newton’s physics does not logically disprove subsistence or necessarily indicate that the universe is self-sustained, just as subsistence does not disprove Newton’s laws of physical motion. Just because the Thomist and the physicist look at the same reality from two different perspectives doesn’t mean that the same reality is different for each, or that one of them is wrong. The trick is for each person to remain in their fields of expertise while at the same time using each other’s findings to enrich their own conclusions. In my humble opinion, most interpretations of Newton’s physics over step these boundaries (but the same thing can be said for many more Thomists in the not too distant past, so I forgive them).

Rian, I read your posts, and many of the counter posts. For the most part, they reminded me to remain within my field of expertise . I’m certainly not qualified to even ask questions about most of it, especially the paleontology stuff. However, I do admire your knowledge and research skills and your ability to pull together a coherent argument. I wish I was that organized and erudite!

--Dave

[Rían]

Thanks for the compliment, Guillaume , but as I said (IIRC) in one of my posts, please remember that MUCH of the information may be judged by common sense and logic w/o any special training.

GrayMouser's link is quite good, IMO, and I've enjoyed reading many of the articles, but please keep in mind while reading it what things are actually fact, and what are merely intelligent "guesses". I've also found problems with many of their arguments on that site - mostly when they either miss the main point of the creationists 'argument, or when they answer a creationist argument with theory, as opposed to fact - I about fell off my chair when I saw that one! roughly, "creationists may say this, but actually, a theory we have proves them to be wrong". Sheesh! Well, excuse me for not considering the creationists disproved, then, on that particular point!

And when you come across the computer model thing that tries to demonstrate you can go from randomness to order (typically either done with a garbled sentence going to Shakespeare, or with a simple eye going to a complex), please be sure to read the underlying assumptions, because IMO as a degree-holding Computer Scientist specializing in simulations, the underlying assumptions make the simulation worthless. For example, in one eye model, only "good" mutations were allowed, and when you look at their definition of "good", you'll see it is the complex eye! So of course, the model will end up as a complex eye

I see similar reasoning by evolutionists in many areas, for example, things like this: 1) why do humans have eyes like they do? 2) because it must have been advantageous 3) therefore they must have evolved that way! Well, 3) is certainly not a proper conclusion, IMO - IOW, it does not in any way prove evolution.

BTW, Guillaume, what is your background? It looks like you have at the very least a nodding acquaintance with physics. I don't even know what a Thomist is; can you fill me in?

(note to self - bring up amt. of info re purpose)

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Rian,

Oh, good Lord, no! The closest I’ve ever gotten to real physics was Stephen Hawkings A Brief History of Time (which I read only because it was vogue at the time), and maybe a synopses of modern science when I was studying philosophy as an undergrad. Other than that I avoid science, technology and programming the VCR like the plague.

A Thomist is someone who adheres to Thomism... That doesn’t explain much, does it? In a nutshell, Thomism relies on the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century philosopher and theologian, to approach an analysis of the world. As a philosophical system, Thomism resembles Aristotlianism, but with some very significant differences, especially in regards to philosophical anthropology. There are many different “kinds� of Thomists, each applying Aquinas’ constructs to different spheres such as natural science, history, theology, politics, social science, ethics, etc., and not always are all Thomists in agreement with one another when it comes to particulars.

In connection to the natural sciences, the Thomist, Cardinal Mercier (1851-1926) comes to mind. Basing his thought on Aquinas’ insistence that all knowledge starts with sense-perception and all philosophical reflection and theory is based on knowledge of the material, Mercier anticipated the modern era of science and technology by concluding that scientific knowledge must be incorporated into the conclusions of philosophy. Mercier was writing this at the same time the existentialists were claiming that the world was essentially unknowable. Not to toot my own horn, but Thomists have generally been more kind to the natural sciences, seeing philosophy not as a summation of all the sciences, but as a complement to the natural sciences, on equal footing, together providing a complete explanatory account of the empirical world. The vast majority of other modern philosophical systems are depressingly skeptical or merely etymological, and grossly arrogant.

--Dave

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Hey, I resemble that remark!


--Dave

Thought you might

[Rían]

And to finally deal with my earlier note to myself -

I wanted to make a short post (yeah, right! we'll see) on the general purpose of the Bible and how it relates to creationism.

There are several reasons stated in the Bible that deal with the purpose of the Bible. None of these are along the lines of "to refute evolutionism".

There ARE things along the lines of the purpose is to reveal truth, set people free from the slavery to sin, reveal aspects of God, teach, help us to help others, and things like that.

IOW, I do NOT think God ever made the following memo :

"Memo to Self - Start inspiring people to write the Bible today. Be sure to cover important information that will refute the theory of evolution that will be developed in a few thousand years - having been there, I know that the theory of evolution is false! If there is still room, cover topics that will lead to salvation of the world."

So I think creationism will never be as fully developed a theory as evolutionism for several reasons - 1) people must eat, and therefore have jobs, and the job market for scientists that support creationism isn't very good, to say the least (too bad scientists can't work without worrying about getting paid); and 2) the Bible's main concern was NOT to refute evolutionism, IMO, so what IS in creationism had to have been derived from thinking along the lines of "well, given the story in Genesis, what would one expect to see in the real world?" (and actually, this is predictive, which is a v. important part of the scientific method).

And I continue to think that the evidence that we actually see, as opposed to imaginary, extrapolated evidence, supports creationism better. Not perfectly, by any means, - but better.