Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
There are no "obvious species change[s]" that are observable on the macroevolution level, but we've already been thru that.

I'm curious: what were your feelings on these 'archaic' hominid finds again? Do you feel that God created them separately? What? (sorry, can't quite remember if you've mentioned hominids or not.)

Well, you just proved my point - it seems that you agree that things in the past cannot be tested, since you said "Two Theories that cannot be tested". And I agree that there is more historical credibility that Julius was an emperor, and it is reasonable for most people to believe that, even tho there is no scientific test, because it's in the past.

History IS a science. Not all science methodologies involve observation in a field per se. And wouldn't evolution be more akin to Julius Caesar? - since you can draw parallels between textual references to the Caesar, and fossil evidence. There is NO evidence of Donald Duck being an Emperor of Rome contemporaneous to that time period. There is however, a trend towards change in the hominid species. You may not believe/interpret that to be evolution, but you can't say that the evidence is non-existent either. You personally just choose to 'buy into' creationism over the Theory of Evolution.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
There are no "obvious species change[s]" that are observable on the macroevolution level, but we've already been thru that. ...

Well, we gave examples of species like the whale that show a progression through the fossil record of a land mammal with a very unique bone structure that exists through several transitional species until it was completely adapted to a marine envoronment. Fossils are observable. This cannot be explained by any aspect of creationism.

Where in the world is the faulty logic?

The faulty logic is that it is possible to prove something "might" happen. Einstein proved mathematically that gravity deforms space, but the effect was not actually "observed" as starlight bending around the sun.

Really, Cirdan, I've never seen anyone, IMO, as terrified as you are that evolutionism might not be true. What is there about the possibility of eternity and the consequences of our moral choices that scares you so much?

You've never seen me at all. It seems you are projecting your own fears about a world where all the answers are for in one book' where the simple confort of simple ideas can be replaced by immense complexity and unresolved issues. Of course we could spend days on ad hominem attacks and accomplish nothing.

Well, you just proved my point - .... And in my considered opinion, evolutionism's claims about the past fall into the Donald Duck category. Your opinion is different, obviously.

When one goes to the Smithsonian Museum the displays of roman historical objects are not far from the displays of homid fossils, early tools, etc. Creationism has as many of these pieces of evidence as the Donald Duck theory. You sought to equivocate based on "observable" but you turn your back on the overwhelming physical evidence. Have you found a way to fix that whole increasing complexity, geologic age, no human fossils in all but the top most sedimentary layers? Were the humans better swimmers than the marine dinosaurs? The physical evidence is "observable" and you are feel to try to give some credible alternative to ToE to explain it, but so far you have not done so, and yes, I've read ALL your posts.

It points out a common fallacy - that mere time removes difficulties. His point is: don't get mesmerized by people saying it took billions and billions of years

I can show it takes millions of years for mountains to erode and that it can't happen overnight. I can prove that the chalk cliffs of Dover, made up of calcareous plankton skeletal material, only accumulate to such depths over extremely long periods of time - by observable processes to boot! He's dead wrong. Some processes require long periods of time.

we don't think a swallow is a vehicle that can make it to Mars.

.or that a man can be made from clay... Just say you think it is impossible. The analogy proves and explains nothing. "It like a brick singing the National Anthem" Ummm... great, so were are the facts.

I don't get what you're saying here. Jonah inside the fish can't be proven scientifically; so what?

It can be scientifically proven that a man can't survive in the belly of a whale. "How do I taste, Moby? Do I taste good?"

BoP's post is quite to the point without being as verbose as mine.

Just show me some facts.

[Lizra]

Oh Rian! I think it's silly to call Cirdan "afraid"! Come on....I have not seen anything in his posts that would resemble "fear". IMO, he has shown incredible patience as he politely repeats evolution's winning, (in this debate ) logical, backed by observable scientific data facts, over and over.... when the creation faction repeats the same tired arguments, about every 6th page in this thread. What have evolution people to fear anyway? Not dying, that's for sure! ...There's just NO WAY an evil devil/satan man is going to burn me and poke me with his pointy pitchfork (along with several billion others) in a mysterious invisible void place for eternity! No, not "afraid" of that...if that's what you mean? I think the creation people are the ones with the fear...that when they die...that will be it! No "reward".

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
You personally just choose to 'buy into' creationism over the Theory of Evolution.

*sigh* I've said these 3 things so many times, but here they are again:

1. I, personally, have thought about it a lot, and I think creationism is better supported by the existing evidence.

2. If new evidence shows up that supports evolutionism more, IMO, then I will say that I think the evidence supports evolution more than creationism, because I am a truthful person.

3. My faith in God does not depend upon which theory has more evidence, it depends upon other things; therefore I have no vested interest in creationism and no fear of evolutionism.

Please listen to what I say; it's true.

I'm curious: what were your feelings on these 'archaic' hominid finds again? Do you feel that God created them separately?

Y'know, BoP, for me, I see human skulls and ape skulls, and I see parts of skulls that look like human or ape skulls. I also see lines drawn between them that are wholly conjectural. Just because a line is drawn on a chart doesn't mean it's true. Frankly, I concur with the Mooter who saw your link on hominid fossils, and the scarcity and incompleteness of them, and said that it seems to support creationism more than evolutionism! A common sense opinion, IMO. So there are different shaped skulls, or skulls have changed shape slightly over time? So what? It certainly doesn't support macroevolution, IMO. They're still humans or apes.

That's my honest opinion, BoP, looking at the data without preconceived notions. I hope you can believe me. Call me stupid, call me deceived, call me wrong; but I hope at least you call me honest.

Another quote from Chesterton that I think is appropos (and please read this with an open mind, and NOT with an eye to immediately pick it apart. One should always approach something with an open mind, IMO, THEN with an open mind and no preconceived notions see if you find any flaws) :

from G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man
Anyhow, those bones are far too few and fragmentary and dubious to fill up the whole of the vast void that does in reason and in reality lie between man and his bestial ancestors, if they were his ancestors. On the assumption of that evolutionary connection (a connection which I am not in the least concerned to deny), the really arresting and remarkable fact is the comparative absense of any such remains recording that connection at that point. The sincerity of Darwin really admitted this; and that is how we came to use such a term as the Missing Link. But the dogmatism of Darwinians has been too strong for the agnosticism of Darwin; and men have insensibly fallen in to turning this entirely negative term into a postive image. They talk of searching for the habits and habitat of the Missing Link; as if one were to talk of being on friendly terms with a gap in the narrative or the hole in an argument, of taking a walk with a non-sequitur or dining with an undistributed middle.

History IS a science.

Yes, everything is a science or an engineering field nowdays *sigh* . Before kids, I was a computer scientist (my degree on the wall says I have the degree of "Bachelor of Science in Computer Science") and an engineer that worked in military radar; now I suppose I'm a domestic engineer or whatever the PC term is. The term "science" has been twisted and watered down to mean anything that is studied.

I don't mean to disparage science or history at ALL - just to point out that things in the past are non-observable. I think it is VERY reasonable to assume that Julius, and not Donald Duck, was an emperor of Rome; that is comparatively recent and there are written documents from people that OBSERVED it. My objection is when people try to go back millions and billions of years and say with such certainty that macroevolution happened, when NO ONE has observed it, and the evidence is not conclusive at all, unless one has a pre-conceived bias towards macroevolution, IMO.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Oh Rian! I think it's silly to call Cirdan "afraid"!

Oh Lizra, why do you not defend ME when people claim that I believe things because I'm afraid? Why, Lizra?

I assume it's that you must agree with them, and you have a right to your opinion (altho you're wrong ) But IMO, Cirdan is unscientifically motivated, at some level, by fear that evolution may not be true; why else would he take issue with a statement that I made that merely said that just because someone says something CAN happen doesn't mean it DID happen? IMO, if an evolutionist said that, he'd agree; since I said it, he felt that he had to disagree at some level. And to me, that points to a motivation of fear that his belief in evolutionism may not be true. That's my opinion, and I feel that I needed to say that; my motive to say anything is love and respect for people (except when I lose my temper sometimes - I'm not perfect by any means!)

BTW, here's some words that Cirdan used about creationists/creationism: blind faith, political movement, terrible flaws, armchair fantasy, ignorance, intellectually bankrupt, twisted, outright fabrications, distortions, misconceptions, fears. These may be found in posts 320344, 282521, 275238, and 268206.

Why didn't you come to my defense when these words were used against my beliefs, Lizra? Probably because you thought them to be true. Again, that's your right. And it's my right to think that Cirdan is motivated by fear in this case. And it's pretty hypocritical, IMO, for anyone to deny me my opinion, when it's stated respectfully, and to let others bring charges of fear against me without any rebuke.

Now your denial of my charge that Cirdan was afraid was a good one - you didn't believe it based on the evidence you saw. But it mystifies me why you wouldn't spring to my defense in the same way - MY defense, not creationists in general - when claims of fear were brought against me. How do you see fear in me, when I've said over and over that if I come to think that evolutionism is more supported by the evidence, that it has no effect on my faith in God?

What have evolution people to fear anyway? Not dying, that's for sure! ...There's just NO WAY an evil devil/satan man is going to burn me and poke me with his pointy pitchfork (along with several billion others) in a mysterious invisible void place for eternity!

If things DO exist the way the Bible describes, then hell is a very real place, and the people that go there OUT OF THEIR OWN CHOICE have something very real to fear. If God exists, your denying that He exists doesn't make Him go away.

I think the creation people are the ones with the fear...that when they die...that will be it! No "reward".

If I die and that's it - what is there to be afraid of? Nothing. I don't see how creationists have anything to fear, could you please explain? I don't understand.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
If things DO exist the way the Bible describes, then hell is a very real place, and the people that go there OUT OF THEIR OWN CHOICE have something very real to fear. If God exists, your denying that He exists doesn't make Him go away.

did the 'creator' create hell from the pov of creationists?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

If I die and that's it - what is there to be afraid of? Nothing. I don't see how creationists have anything to fear, could you please explain? I don't understand.

Just commenting on this alone: I have found quite abundant examples of christians being afraid of losing their core basic belief system. Basically having their fundamental foundations on reality crumble. Its true for anyone. What could possibly be more scary then that? The thing is if god created things then scientists dont suddenly become irrelevant. They just take in the new information and work with it. But when evolution pops the creationists bubble it changes a lot of things for a lot of hard core christians.

[Lizra]

The reason I said it was silly to call Cirdan "afraid" is because I have never read anything in any of his posts that sounds "fearful". Period. All this "you think that I think that you think" stuff is making me dizzy. I don't read fear in Cirdan's posts.
A post where someone said that you were afraid doesn't stick out in my mind!? It certainly could be there, and I would always come to your defense in general, as a friend, but in the context of this *debate*, I usually don't come to your defense because I don't believe in god! Personally...actually....I would feel a teensy, weensy, nagging little bit hypocritaical saying you have every right to believe whatever you want (and of course that IS true... ) because I truely think that believing in the Christian god is ....searching for polite word... ...not smart. Not meaning to belittle you...just being honest.

[Rían]

Well I guess we just disagree on the fearful part, so 'nuff said there

And I appreciate your honesty and your search for a "polite" word , because that shows compassion and care for me. And you have come to my defense in other areas, which I appreciate.

I think perhaps the Christians you've come across in "real life" unfortunately gave you the impression that it's not smart to believe in God - it sounds like they haven't thought things thru, but have instead taken up beliefs that they haven't thought thru. I'd just caution you to not be prejudiced against ALL Christians because of them. Personally, I've found atheists/agnostics to be stupid, smart, thoughtful, lights-on-but-no-one-home, logical, illogical, and everything in between,and I think Christians are the same way. By the world's standards, not to brag, but I'm quite smart (I was invited to join MENSA, that society for people with high IQs - I didn't apply, I just got a letter saying that I qualified and please join! I declined.) Also I think I've thought things thru well. Maybe you disagree with both these points but as I said, I'd rather be thought stupid than dishonest, and I'm glad to be your friend.

[Lizra]

Ah, Rian...you sweet thing.... you make me out to be noble...and I'm not! I only say "not smart" because I honestly can't understand how someone could consider all things, and still allow themselves to go the god way. That just doesn't seem really and truely *smart * to me. Of course, being smart isn't all it's cracked up to be but I can't deny what I percieve as reality.

(You know...those really aren't just ape skulls! The early hominid skulls are noticebly different, otherwise scientists would just come out and say that they were various versions of ape skulls. There is more going on there than common apes, and homo sapiens.)

I've thought carefully, and considered all things too, and I went through a period where I really wanted/needed to believe things wern't just what they seemed, (meaning.... there was some cool purpose and meaning to this life of mine) but after a brief period of highness (believing in god did make me feel high...it was giddy, and exciting) I had to laugh at myself for my foolishness. And so, and so.....

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
did the 'creator' create hell from the pov of creationists?

I'll try to get to this better tomorrow, but in the meantime, since you'll prob. be on the Moot while I'm still sleeping in the morning (given your east-coastness), let me just say: God's giving people free-will logically necessitated the possibility of hell, altho not the necessity of anyone's being in there. What do you think of that? Do you see what I'm saying?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Ah, Rian...you sweet thing.... you make me out to be noble...and I'm not!

Oh, you are, too, you lovely long-eyelashed person! You could have used very mean words, but as you said, you didn't want to belittle me - and that's noble, whether you like it or not



Not that I think you're perfect or anything .... I imagine you have at least one or two faults but I think you're quite nice.

[Blackheart]

On the other hand....

It's quite possible to posit an ongoing creation myth, one that is in progess currently.

I always founf the idea that "creation" was over and done with sort of absurd actually...

Oh by the way. I'm going to eat you all for dinner.

[BeardofPants]

Whoah, whoah, the kraken rises from the deep.

Hi Blackheart. Are you still playing at being a nefarious sod?

[Blackheart]

Sodder.

Nefarious Sodder.

Not a Sod.

Those are from planet Sodom, I think.

I'm from that other planet. Gomorra. The one with the odd shaped towers.

We've been guiding your evolution here on earth for quite some time now. Trying to breed the ultimate snack food you know.

I must say, you look delicious my dear....

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
did the 'creator' create hell from the pov of creationists?

OK, time for a bit longer answer, tho I"ll keep it short because it's semi-OT (except you DID phrase it as a creation issue! )

I'll repeat my short answer: God's giving people free-will logically necessitated the possibility of hell, altho not the necessity of anyone's being in there. What do you think of that? Do you see what I'm saying?

So yes, if it's there, God would have had to create it, I suppose, altho I'm sure with a great deal of grief, given what I know of His great heart. But if you look at it in terms of a practical reality, as opposed to the goofy idea of God being some type of genii that we control and make Him give us various silly paradises, it makes a lot of sense. The Bible shows God as loving, holy, passionate, righteous, compassionate, merciful, just, and fair, just to name a few off the top of my head. And as I've said before, no one, including God, wants compelled love - so God created us with free will. And we have the ultimate compliment to our free will from God - He who made us and loves us and woos us and died for us ... will not force us to love Him. And any place apart from God is Hell.

[Blackheart]

All god [supreme being, azathoth, what have you] ever created was possibility.

Everything else is yang.

You did it to yourselves...

[Cirdan]

Now I understand the "afraid" comment. I thought you were accusing me of loving the ToE so much I was personal for me which I found humorous. Now I find That you think I fear that the alternative is eternal damnation of some sort. I think this explains why we offend one another, intentionally or not. Despite you protestations to the contrary, you view the ToE as disproval of god, and reflexively, that creationism (which seems to amount to nothing more than an attempted refutation of ToE) affirms the god centered universe. I do not operate under the same paradigm.

I view the existence of god and the proof of the ToE to be comepletely independent of one another. I've never ruled out the possible existence of god. I've never ruled out the possibility that the ToE could be proven wrong. No one has provided sufficient evidence that there is a more logical conclusion, however. So when I disparage the ToC you seem to take it as an offense to your religious beliefs, which is not my intent. It is merely my less than sensitive evaluation of the unscientific nature of it.

I have no fear of hell because I don't hold those beliefs about the nature of god. The bible, to me, is a kind of spiritual primer which helps initiates experience the metaphysical concept. I actually attend church occasionally, as a member, becasue there some very effective techniques in the ritual for experiencing an altered consciousness. For me the bible, apart for it's historcal content, is the literary expression of spiritual minds. The "word of God" as told to.... if you will. I don't think it is to be interpeted literally.

There are things I find more laughable than creation science in its current form. Satanic cults are just hilarious; believing in God, and then doing the opposite just to be contrary. These two are similar in that they take part of an existing disipline, science in the case of creationism, and turn it on its head as a form of personal protest against that very discipline.

Every step away from the inspired source of creationism, the literal interpretation of the genesis story and noah's tale, than makes it more compatible with the physical evidence (e.g. Young Earth Creationist to Old Earth Creationist) belies a step toward the rational and away from the dogmatic.

A scenario in which god creates the world via magic powers to look very old and as if species changed "type" through time so that a cabal of the best minds in the world can conspire to prove god doesn't exist seems a bit paranoid.

I stand by my position that god may well exist and that has nothing to do with ToE, which describes a mechanism for change.

Lizra, if you made it this far then thanks for the props. You're a sweetie!

.and Blackheart, it's good to here from you, I miss your mangy, old, peltless skull.

[Lady Magpie]

Just to jump in, rather late. . .(and I really ought to read the whole thing through, but don't have time now so I'll stick with throwing in my opinion for now. . .)

I don't think creation is very likely. As in, I don't really believe that. However, I think more to the point is the fact that we will never know, and are rather incapable of knowing, or finding out. Given that, as fun as these discussions are, what does it matter what each individual believes?

[Blackheart]

You left out slimy. With lots of tentacles.


If, just to stand everything on it's head for a minute, a supreme being created a universe consisting only of possibility, where does the certainty come from? Is there such a thing as "certainty"? If everything is possibility, how can there be certainty?

Or would reality be, as someone once put it, averaged reality?

I think you should all run out and study quantum physics this instant.