Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[brownjenkins]

i agree that creationism can be used to explain how things came to be in our world, and is just as valid as any other theory... my point is that it is not a very productive theory

one of the things that makes a scientific theory useful is it's ability to predict the future... studying things like asteroids and dinosaurs helps us to forsee what may happen in this planet's future... just saying that these sort of things are "acts of god", implies that you might as well give up, because they can not be predicted

i assume you could look to the book of revelations... but it's a little to vague to make any real conclusions

at different points in history science hits walls and theorizes... then facts later prove them right or wrong... many things that were considered works of the divine 2000 years ago are pretty well understood these days, others are not... some choose to call this remaining unknown divine, some choose to keep pushing the envelope and see how much farther we can go... either approach is fine and they do not have to necessarily threaten one another

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Nariel
I have to point out that evolution is based on just as much faith and conjecture as creation. This is called evidentialism. You start out with a belief or bias (a bias is NOT a bad thing) and you view the evidence to see if it supports your particular belief. Yes, science can, to an extent, prove or disprove either theory, but there's a point where you have to stop proving and just start believing.

I do not agree with that statement. Evolution is based on much more fact than creation. IMO....It takes much less "faith" to follow evolution, and much more to follow creation. That is of course, if you are starting with a clean slate.
There are many posts to back this up, on this thread, and the other one.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Nariel
I was simply trying to show how creationism is not just a religious belief: that it can be used just as well as evolution in application to Science

Just one example would help. I can't think of any time this has ever happened.

As far as the distinction between religion and science goes, BJ, I have to point out that evolution is based on just as much faith and conjecture as creation...., but there's a point where you have to stop proving and just start believing.

Not if one is a good scientist. This is a difference between acknowledging probably theories based in fact and pure blind faith.

On that note I would like to address the absurd notion that creationism and the ToE are "both theories." The Theory of Evolution is a hypothesis that has been consistently supported by subsequent scientific findings and for which no verifiable disproving facts have been found. Creationism is a theory like, "The moon is made of green cheese" is a theory. I have searched the Internet and I've read every post here and in all the other related threads and there is not one indication that there are any facts supporting this "theory of creation" (it's really a poorly formed hypothesis, or group of hypotheses since there are contradictory versions of it).

Creationism, far from being a serious attempt to explain life in naturalistic terms, us really just a political movement designed to explain the bible in naturalistic terms to serve as a strategic attack on the teaching of evolution in science in public schools. In this too, it has failed; being confined to a minority of parochial schools and some home schoolers.

[Lizra]

Thank you Cirdan. I am tired of that assumption too. We need to get back to the facts here.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lizra
Thank you Cirdan. I am tired of that assumption too. We need to get back to the facts here.

I noticed you had similar thoughts at the same time I was posting.

Equivocation seems to be the rage in this debate. They are both theories or they are both just beliefs. A vain attemt to simplify the complex concepts involved (at least in trying to comprehend evolutionary science, since creationism just tends to be anti-evolution) that just muddy the waters.

[Nurvingiel]

RÃ*an, I'm reading your summary posts right now (the ones with the link from the first page). Obviously you put a lot of effort into them! Thanks, I'm sure everyone who read them appreciated them - I am.

I have a few questions/comments about the evidence parts:

from Evidence area 1 - Fossil Evidence (part 1)

In this particular area, the aspect of a theory’s ability to accurately predict is VERY relevant, IMO. Creationism, from the start, has predicted that in the fossil record, we will see (1) variations in complexity and (2) similarity to forms existing today. And this is exactly what we see.

What about fossils of trilobytes and other simple animals, and evidence of even simpler ocean-dwelling animals? ("Animal" just meaning they're in the kingdom Animalia.)

On the other hand, evolutionism, from the start, predicted that in the fossil record, we will see (1) many intermediate forms between types, (2) a progression from extremely simple to more complex, and (3) a move from a group of extremely similar types (remember, all life came from a single-celled organism, and the first branches off this organism must necessarily look similar) to groups of more diverse types. And we do NOT see strong evidence at all of any of these 3, IMO.

There are gaps in the fossil record. Not only would some obviously be destroyed over time, but also not in all situations would the death of an animal cause it to be fossilized.
However, I don't see how this disproves Evolutionism, rather, it fails to support it in some areas. There is other supporting evidence for evolutionary processes, such as Darwin's observations on birds in the Galapagos islands.
Conversely, I don't think flaws in the fossil record proves or supports Creationism, merely, it does not disprove the theory.

Also, I'm sure Evolutionists acknowledge the gaps in the fossil record as well. Therefore, just because it is not there does not mean it never existed according to their theory. There are probably many fossilized one-celled organisms, but I doubt we could easily find any.

from Evidence area 2 - The Nature of Change (part 1)

I’ve heard it said here that evolution is “all about change�. Well, change is also a part of creationism. What’s important is that we define the TYPE of changes that we expect to see. (I said once that if evolution is about change, then I predict that I will change into a Corvette in a few years. An evolutionist objected, and rightly so, IMO! And another one asked if I could park in her driveway when I felt the change coming on … ) Evolutionists can’t just make a vague claim to “change�, IOW, w/o defining what type of change they mean.

Corvette... But the type of changes are defined. "Adaptations to the environment" is not vague or incorrect.

So the created types in the beginning are the ancestors of the types we have here today – same types, but different varieties based on pre-existing genetic information. And horses came from horses, and sea urchins came from sea urchins, and so on.

It is incorrect to assume that because a pattern is observed in the present, that it must have been so in the past. (The old book's pages have been yellow for 10 years without change, but that doesn't mean that they didn't slowly become yellow over the first 60 years if its existence.)

In addition, evolutionism says that the information-increasing changes, which cause an advantage and are then naturally selected, come from beneficial mutations.

What do you mean by "information-increasing changes"?

In addition, evolutionism not only requires that type of change which has never been observed, but it requires MILLIONS of those changes! The chance of even ONE occurring is miniscule – but the chance of millions upon millions occurring is absolutely mind-boggling, and is even considered statistically impossible.

Statisticly improbable or unlikely, but it takes a lot of evidence to prove something is impossible. There is not enough evidence to suggest this.
In addition, random mutations occur all the time. I believe somebody already brought this up recently, but beneficial mutations could have been useless one generation ago, and now are extremely useful in the current generation. This gives all the creatures with this mutation an advantage over other members of its species, and it can procreate more often and/or succesfully, which increases the amount that this gene appears in the species. If the environment is such that this mutation is absolutely essential, everyone without it will die, and the species will have evolved to have the new gene.
Why is it mind-boggling to believe this? It's a perfectly reasonable theory.

Mutations go the wrong way for evolution! What leaps into your mind when you hear “mutation�? That’s right – something destructive.

A mutation is a deviation from the normal, and is not inherently negative. Of course I wouldn't stand in front of an X-ray unprotected, but X-ray's do not cause natural levels or types of mutations (as far as I know), and is therefore not a good example.

If evolutionists are going to claim accumulated beneficial mutations, then they can’t simply say the thousands-time-more harmful mutations that also accumulate somehow magically disappear.

Harmful mutations do occur (though not in the staggering amounts you suggest), but those creatures that are born with them either die quickly, or are outcompeted and do not get the chance to pass on their genes. This is how harmful mutations are quickly eliminated from a species.

(continued)

Edit: You can post after, I'm just saying I'll continue it later.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
We are in fact all part of the same mash.

Well, if all you're saying is that we are all in the same universe, and things are interconnected (my actions will affect you, if we are in communication), I would agree with that. But if you're saying that it's a mindless mush, and people have no power of choice but are driven by their genes, then I disagree with your opinion.

If you speed it up millions of times that’s JUST what it looks like.

So? And anyway, that makes it not real.

But not from our perspective. Everything is frozen in place and enormous from where we stand. Imagine being a million times smaller then the head of a pin and living in the intestine of a dog. 100 generations of your kind are born and die between heart beats of that dog. To you the WHOLE universe is that speck of tendril sticking up on the inside of that intestine. Because of your size you cant EVER know the intestine as a whole let alone the dog or the house the dog is in. forget it. But pull away and pull away and what do you know? Theres that dog. So what you have to do is close your eyes and think about the math involved.

Since I am NOT a million times smaller then the head of a pin, etc., but am instead made by God in His image and designed for relationship with Him and others, then really, that's a pretty useless analogy for me, IMO. Really, IRex, size has nothing to do with it, IMO Is there a line somewhere such that if you're less than that size, you can't understand things, and if you're greater than that size, you can? If God decides to make people in His image and able to have a meaningful conception of who He is, then I don't see how size matters; it's design that matters. I worked in radar for many years; receivers can be quite small. And I can close my eyes and think about lots of types of math; I minored in math in college, but math has nothing to do with the issue, IMO.

Then and only then can you see reality for what it truly is.

You have your opinion of what reality is, and I disagree with it And since, in your view, you're smaller than the head of a pin, etc., and have no concept of how things really are, and can't see the forest for the trees, then I don't think I'll believe what you think reality is - by your own statements, apparently you don't know!

And I wasn’t picking and choosing characteristics for “Him� (how ironic I have to use your humanistic approach to the divine to explain to you this concept that the divine isn’t at all human-like). I was leaving the door quite wide open.

No, you are NOT leaving it open - you keep saying that God (if He exists) has to be beyond meaningful comprehension. And that is a characteristic.

You are the one that has a check list of things any creative force must satisfy to be acceptable. For you it’s the Christian god of the bible. and theres simply no room for any deviation from there. That’s the given and everything else flows from there.

No, you have my opinion backwards. I look outside me at my environment, and inside me at my innermost feelings and thoughts, and conclude (along with the majority of people in the world) that it is a very rational thing to think that there might be a God that created things. Once that has been concluded, it's a matter of looking at various religious worldviews and seeing which one makes the most sense and meshes with the evidence the best. And I conclude that Christianity is the best fit to the evidence that I see all around me.

BUT what you SHOULD see from this is what I see as the possibility for a creative force can ecompass your god.

I don't understand how it can, if you continue to claim (as it seems that you are) that IYO, a creative force would be beyond meaningful comprehension. The Christian God (the one that's really out there) is NOT beyond people's meaningful comprehension.

BTW, you claimed at one point that I couldn't get outside my bubble, or something like that. You're quite wrong Let's look at the evidence - you claimed that a creator force would be beyond our comprehension. I asked if you meant "meaningful comprehension", and you seemed to be OK with that, IIRC. So then I took your statement, I assumed it was true (please note how I stepped outside my beliefs), I thought about it, and pondered what the logical implications would be, and I made 2 logical deductions from it, which I have yet to see disproved.

Now when I made a statement, what do you do? You just continue to repeat that I'm wrong, IYO. You never step outside of your beliefs, assume my statement is true, and analyze it, like I did with your statement. IMO, so far you have NOT stepped outside of your beliefs, and I have.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
If you speed it up millions of times that’s JUST what it looks like.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So? And anyway, that makes it not real.

You can do this by experimenting with bacteria or anything with a very short generation time.

What do you think of my comments RÃ*an? I should have read your post summary when I first joined the thread - it's great. I did read several posts about it though. I'm looking forward to your answer.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
[B]RÃ*an, I'm reading your summary posts right now (the ones with the link from the first page). Obviously you put a lot of effort into them! Thanks, I'm sure everyone who read them appreciated them - I am.

You're welcome, Nurvi! But I doubt if I'll have the energy to get into them in any detail before surgery Tuesday. I'll try a few quick responses, tho, and then you can ask me later if you're still interested.

What about fossils of trilobytes and other simple animals, and evidence of even simpler ocean-dwelling animals? ("Animal" just meaning they're in the kingdom Animalia.)

Small size does not necessarily mean something is simple. The eye structure of trilobytes is extremely complex. Also the existence of simple animals does NOT mean that there MUST have been a progression from simple to complex. It just means that there are simple animals and more complex animals in the world.

There are gaps in the fossil record. Not only would some obviously be destroyed over time, but also not in all situations would the death of an animal cause it to be fossilized.
However, I don't see how this disproves Evolutionism, rather, it fails to support it in some areas.

I agree that it does not disprove Ev.; IIRC, I didn't say it did. I just think that it does NOT STRONGLY SUPPORT evolutionism at all. The natural assumption would be that there would be many, many intermediate forms, and this was not the case, so because of the unscientific bias towards macroevolution, despite the evidence,, the punctuated equilibrium idea came about - basically, the unscientific bias was that macroevolution MUST have occurred, therefore, since we don't see much (if any) evidence for it, it must have occurred invisibly. To me, this is a huge indicator of unfair bias towards a hypothesis.

There is other supporting evidence for evolutionary processes, such as Darwin's observations on birds in the Galapagos islands.

How does this show macroevolution? The finches remained finches. This is NO problem to creationism, which assumed built-in genetic variation to assist in survival. And this is what we DO see - finches with THE PREEXISTING FEATURES ALREADY PRESENT specialize, due to environmental factors, down to a point where, IIRC, they are considered separate species and can't interbreed (not sure of this last part - it's been too long). But they are all still finches, and the features were ALREADY PRESENT in the gene pool. In fact, they are now LESS adaptable then their ancestors, because if you breed something out, it's gone forever.

Conversely, I don't think flaws in the fossil record proves or supports Creationism, merely, it does not disprove the theory.

I don't think it "proves", but the presence of so many well-defined species with clearly identifiable features certainly supports it, IMO.

Corvette... But the type of changes are defined. "Adaptations to the environment" is not vague or incorrect.

No, I mean the changes that are commonly called macroevolution.

It is incorrect to assume that because a pattern is observed in the present, that it must have been so in the past.

I entirely agree with you However, it is more sensible to assume that the book will remain a book, even a yellowed book, instead of assuming that it will change into a DVD player. That's a better analogy to how I see the differences between creationism and evolution. One is reasonable change, one is much more unreasonable and has never been seen. Still, it MIGHT happen *watches her book*, but again, it's more reasonable to assume it won't, IMO.

What do you mean by "information-increasing changes"?

Just that a human being is more complex, and contains more information, then the supposed one-cell ancestor of the human being.

Statisticly improbable or unlikely, but it takes a lot of evidence to prove something is impossible. There is not enough evidence to suggest this.

I agree that you can't prove a negative, but again, I'm thinking in terms of what is MOST likely. And I think creationism is.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
You can do this by experimenting with bacteria or anything with a very short generation time.

And do the bateria remain bacteria, or do they turn into tadpoles? Again, you can't say it CAN'T happen, it's just that it HASN'T happen, and the evidence indicates that it WON'T happen, IMO. Bacteria is a case of designed-in adaptability, NOT macroevolution.

I'm reading thru your comments, Nurvi, but won't be able to get into a lot of detail at this point in time Sorry!

[Nurvingiel]

We're on at the same time, I hope I don't cross posts with you. What does "IIRC" stand for? A lot of people use this abbreviation. Take as much time as you want to answer, I did ask a lot of things. I'll still be interested.
You make some very good points for a "slap-dash" response.

Anyway, I'll just comment on one thing. Edit: okay, two things.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Small size does not necessarily mean something is simple. The eye structure of trilobytes is extremely complex.

Granted, but there are fossils of simpler animals than trilobytes. One of my other points was that very simple fossils would be very difficult to find, and might have been destroyed. Also, the older a fossil is, the more likely it will be damaged or destroyed.

Also the existence of simple animals does NOT mean that there MUST have been a progression from simple to complex. It just means that there are simple animals and more complex animals in the world.

Good point. I still have to think about this one.
This does give rise to the question, according to Creationist theories, how exactly did the newer and sometimes more complex animals come to Earth?
If we take humans as an example, we have observed in a quite reasonable fossil and anthropological (tools, burials, etc.) records the evolution of a very basic, ape-like person to the humans of today.
40 000 years ago, a fairly socially complex human emerged from Africa and migrated to Europe and Asia, reaching North America 12 000 years ago, and South America 10 000 years ago. This is after having dwelt in Africa as users of tools for about 2 million years.
Is the Creationist theory exactly like Adam and Eve?

[Rían]

In addition, random mutations occur all the time. I believe somebody already brought this up recently, but beneficial mutations could have been useless one generation ago, and now are extremely useful in the current generation. This gives all the creatures with this mutation an advantage over other members of its species, and it can procreate more often and/or succesfully, which increases the amount that this gene appears in the species. If the environment is such that this mutation is absolutely essential, everyone without it will die, and the species will have evolved to have the new gene.
Why is it mind-boggling to believe this? It's a perfectly reasonable theory.

As Wayfarer pointed out, it's also that it must be a SERIES (and a HUGE number in the series) of RELATED beneficial mutations. Again, it's just a choice between what we see, and something that we don't see and is statistically highly improbable. And given the vast amounts of time involved, there would be a huge number of negative mutations accumulated, which makes it even more improbable that any species could survive the length of time REQUIRED by the beneficial mutation concept.

[quote]A mutation is a deviation from the normal, and is not inherently negative. Of course I wouldn't stand in front of an X-ray unprotected, but X-ray's do not cause natural levels or types of mutations (as far as I know), and is therefore not a good example. [/qutoe]X-rays can cause mutations. And of the mutations that are NOT neutral (i.e., the ones we notice), 99.9% are clearly negative, and the other .1% are debatable, as far as being called beneficial. Again, the evolutionists seem to argue from "well, it COULD have happened", instead of "this is what we see". ANd that seems extremely weak to me.

Harmful mutations do occur (though not in the staggering amounts you suggest), but those creatures that are born with them either die quickly, or are outcompeted and do not get the chance to pass on their genes. This is how harmful mutations are quickly eliminated from a species.

I didn't suggest they are in staggering amounts, just staggering in comparison with beneficial ones (if any have occurred). And the number of bad genetic mutations we carry around has increased, since we've been keeping track, and in the time REQUIRED to make the huge changes required by assuming macroevolution, would prob. be plenty to wipe us all out.

[Nurvingiel]

Negative mutations don't wipe out an entire species, becuase the individual who is carrying it usually doesn't get the chance to pass on its genes because
a) they die early - infant mortality, being eaten, or dying younger than natural
b) they are outcompeted for a mate

Therefore, negative mutations do not accumulate, they die out.

Beneficial mutations, do the exact opposite of what I listed above. This gives the animal an edge, and they are more likely to pass their genes on. The gene will also benefit their offspring, and so on, and this is how the benefit accumulates.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
What does "IIRC" stand for?

"If I recall correctly" - quite handy for old-timers like me with aging memory

One of my other points was that very simple fossils would be very difficult to find ....

It doesn't matter, anyway, because at some point, you would be fairly "complex" and still changing.

This does give rise to the question, according to Creationist theories, how exactly did the newer and sometimes more complex animals come to Earth?

Quickly, it's that God created all kinds of animals, and also a man and a woman, at a single point in time, and created them fully functional, and clearly defined and distinguishable, and with a great deal of built-in genetic adaptability (IOW, there might not have been a dachsund in the Garden of Eden, but the genetic capability for Adam and Eve's descendants to BREED a dachsund from a more general-type dog was there. And THIS is OBSERVABLE today - we can breed existing characteristics into a species, but that means that we have bred OUT other characteristics that were once there.)

If we take humans as an example, we have observed in a quite reasonable fossil and anthropological (tools, burials, etc.) records the evolution of a very basic, ape-like person to the humans of today.

Well, I strongly disagree with "quite reasonable" as far as ape-like to human. From what I can tell, it looks pretty human-ish to me, or just deformed human (rickets, for example). If you take some of those supposed ancestors and put them in a suit and on the streets of New York, they would probably not stand out very much (given that you taught them how to act like a modern person). But I can guarantee I can't get into this topic now, it will take too long!

40 000 years ago, a fairly socially complex human emerged from Africa and migrated to Europe and Asia, reaching North America 12 000 years ago, and South America 10 000 years ago. This is after having dwelt in Africa as users of tools for about 2 million years.

Again, I disagree with the timelines, but no time to get into it ...

Is the Creationist theory exactly like Adam and Eve?

The one I believe best supports the evidence is, but there are others around. I believe it is superior both in predictive capability and in actual evidence to evolutionism.

But I imagine a few people here would disagree

The problem with creationism is that if it is true, the implications are REALLY uncomfortable ... we are actually accountable to someone for our actions ... with evolutionism, you're not. But then again, creationism says that we're incredibly valuable and beautifully designed beings, while a logical deduction from evolutionism is that we're either of no worth, or of the same worth as, say, a worm And our souls say that this is not true. That's why we like books like LOTR.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[BThe problem with creationism is that if it is true, the implications are REALLY uncomfortable ... we are actually accountable to someone for our actions ... with evolutionism, you're not. But then again, creationism says that we're incredibly valuable and beautifully designed beings, while a logical deduction from evolutionism is that we're either of no worth, or of the same worth as, say, a worm And our souls say that this is not true. That's why we like books like LOTR. [/B]

I agree with what you say here about Creationism, but Darwinism does not imply that:
1) We are not special or of no worth. All creatures have value, we just don't perceive the value of a worm. Perhaps it is arrogant of us humans to feel that we are the most important.
2) We are not accountable for our actions. Why would you or I not be accountable for what we do, just because we evolved from "simpler" primates?

My whole Creator-Guided Evolutionism theory is very Darwinian, but it does incorportate the Creator, which is key to everything, IMO. (Thanks for your IIRC definition, BTW. )

Anyway, I'll stop posting in this thread until you have time. I don't really have any time either, I just have a poor sense of priorities, and difficult tasks to avoid.

PM me when you want to fully resume our discussion.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Well, if all you're saying is that we are all in the same universe, and things are interconnected (my actions will affect you, if we are in communication), I would agree with that. But if you're saying that it's a mindless mush, and people have no power of choice but are driven by their genes, then I disagree with your opinion.

yes Im saying the former. But I also agree that as far as life on earth genes are the top dogs. I just don’t word it in the way you do.

So? And anyway, that makes it not real.

speeding something real up suddenly makes it not real?

Since I am NOT a million times smaller then the head of a pin, etc., but am instead made by God in His image and designed for relationship with Him and others, then really, that's a pretty useless analogy for me, IMO.

oh my goodness another fantastic analogy wasted on you Rian.

Insidious: Allow me to give you an example of what I mean. Of course you aren’t supposed to take this LITERALLY but its meant to describe what Im saying in a language that is easier to picture.

Rian: well since your example isn’t me therefore its not true. *smiie * *smilie * And all that counts is that god says that god is god and therefore god made us to look just like him! *smilie * *smilie *

This is exactly why I was saying we cant really discuss this issue because you default to the “that’s outside Christian thinking therefore is wrong� mentality which is impenetrable closed circuit thinking.

Really, IRex, size has nothing to do with it, IMO

some girls would disagree with you

And I can close my eyes and think about lots of types of math; I minored in math in college, but math has nothing to do with the issue, IMO.

math has nothing to do with the universe and a possible creative force? Math is within the structure of all things my friend.

And since, in your view, you're smaller than the head of a pin, etc., and have no concept of how things really are, and can't see the forest for the trees, then I don't think I'll believe what you think reality is - by your own statements, apparently you don't know!

is it that we don’t understand what an analogy is or dare I say is the slight of hand beginning here?

No, you are NOT leaving it open - you keep saying that God (if He exists) has to be beyond meaningful comprehension. And that is a characteristic.

Actually that’s a characteristic of our brain. It says nothing about god. You are saying God must fit in this box right here! At this angle! Like this! If not hes NOT god! And im saying god doesn’t need a box. And its impossible to contain him IN one. God created the infrustructure how could he fit within the confines of a box he himself created. (Note I use the human pronoun language you like to make this more meaningful for you). My opinion is that the christian god is a human interface if you will to this creator force. It’s the best we can do (well Christians) to comprehend the incomprehensable.

And I conclude that Christianity is the best fit to the evidence that I see all around me.

And I conclude that it is actually science not religion. But at the same time I don’t bar the idea of a creative force like you bar the idea of ANY other concept beyond the extremely specific one laid out in the bible. And to be blunt I see that as biased at best and self delusional at worst.

The Christian God (the one that's really out there) is NOT beyond people's meaningful comprehension.

you see these are the kind of comments that just make me shrug and say well theres no point arguing with that. You are coming from this from the point of view you want to reach and there is no other alternatives in your universe. How can you argue with that? How can you argue with someone who believes they would be violating the rules of their religion by thinking beyond what their religion says?


BTW, you claimed at one point that I couldn't get outside my bubble, or something like that. You're quite wrong Let's look at the evidence - you claimed that a creator force would be beyond our comprehension. I asked if you meant "meaningful comprehension", and you seemed to be OK with that, IIRC. So then I took your statement, I assumed it was true (please note how I stepped outside my beliefs), I thought about it, and pondered what the logical implications would be, and I made 2 logical deductions from it, which I have yet to see disproved.[/b][/quote]

which I immediately responded to with a third much more plausible and more obvious deduction. Which is basically what we are talking about here. Which you replied to with nope! Not an option! Sorry! *fingers in ears *

Now when I made a statement, what do you do? You just continue to repeat that I'm wrong, IYO. You never step outside of your beliefs, assume my statement is true, and analyze it, like I did with your statement. IMO, so far you have NOT stepped outside of your beliefs, and I have.

ah and this is the part where we spin the table 180 degrees and accuse the other person of the very same thing we are doing? Clever. Your “analyses� are only to lead to one conclusion. Always. This is something I have clearly noticed in interacting with you and observing your arguments over the past year or so. Meanwhile what I stated in this particular argument is a perfectly open and perfectly reasonable way of thinking about a creative force. Lets see, if a creative force made things as they are now then that force is probably pretty difficult to really get our brains completely around. Is that such a ridiculous thing to say? That the thing that made the UNIVERSE (IF the universe was in fact made) did it in a way that would make our head spin in its complexity? That this force of creation which brought into being hundreds of billions of galaxies and an almost countless number of planets and the complex and unique web-ways of life on EACH of those worlds where life exists had US “in mind� all along when “he� made all this because we just happen to be spesh like that. And yet to you that’s just a ridiculous way of thinking because it goes outside the Christian model. And from your “analysis� of all the data you conclude that the right choice is that this was done by a big jolly magic guy who waved his hands and made stuff JUST like it is now and made US his true children which just so happens to be JUST what the bible says! what a coincidence!

[Lizra]

I agree, this topic has become a waste of time. Rian, you really aren't debating fairly, and I certainly haven't read any real "evidence" for Creationism either. Thanks to Blackheart for his efforts, and IR, your patience is impressive!

[Nurvingiel]

Though maybe some of the evidence is suspect, I think RÃ*an's posts are thoughtful and interesting. I did make comments on the parts I felt didn't quite hold up - what do you think about them (in my previous post) Lizra and IR?

When you're debating an important issue, you will bring out only those points which support your argument. Plus, since you believe this thing, of course your argument is biased. Everyone does this to varying degrees.

That being said RÃ*an, I think that sometimes you would benefit from thinking on your points from outside of a Christian perspective. Right now, from within a Christian perspective, you have logical, intelligent posts. I suggest looking at evidence for Creationism from just your logical, intelligent perspective, and leave your Christian one aside for a moment. I think this would strengthen your argument further.

I'm not intending to gang up on you, I think everyone would benefit from this. I am not completely sure what my perspective is, but I think I look at the world from outside it a lot.

I think everyone would benefit from this mind excercise. Give a supporting argument for the theory which you do not believe.

For myself, that would be Creationism. I think a good supporting argument, and one we should remember, is that there isn't anything that disproves it (as far as I know). A theory does not have to be completely scientific to be valid. Science cannot explain the origins of the Universe, that is where Creationism comes in. (That's the best part of Creationism IMO.)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
A theory does not have to be completely scientific to be valid. Science cannot explain the origins of the Universe, that is where Creationism comes in. (That's the best part of Creationism IMO.)

But remember creationism is about the spontanious creation in whole form of life on earth. Not so much about the universe other then to say "god made the universe". Creationism is a way of thinking that is designed to diametrically oppose evolution. I have no problem with the idea of a creator force "starting" everything or intwined in this somehow. But creationism is MUCH more specific and limited in its view point. It says god made cats. God made dogs. God made people. Thats all. And they never change.

[Wayfarer]

If that's what you believe, IR, then you have less concept of what creationism is than even I would have suspected.