Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Options
1…146147149151152…232

Comments

  • Options
    #4442
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Right, I know that. I don't know of any evidence for creationism and you are strangely reluctant to tell me what you know.
    OK I'll crack on with one comparison between the Creation and Evolution scientific models - with liberal quotation from page 10 of 'What is creation Science?' :-

    "1. Complex Arrays of Living Systems
    In the Creation Model we would expect to see a great array of complex functioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose.
    Different organisms would exhibit an array of similarities and difference - similar structures for similar functions, different structures for different functions.

    This, of course, is exactly what we see ...
    Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at a microscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handiwork of their Creator.

    The Evolution Model ... could never predict even the simplest living thing, since there is no known process that can generate organised (specified) complexity. All real processes tend to go in the opposite direction, from organisation to disorganisation, from complexity to simplicity, from life to death. To believe that chance processes could somehow produce life from non-life requires a high degree of credulity. Leading British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle said in 1981 that "The notion that ... the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on Earth is evidently nonesense of a high order." New Scientist 19 November 1981.


  • Options
    #4443
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users Posts: 11,334 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    J C wrote: »
    OK I'll crack on with one comparison between the Creation and Evolution scientific models - with liberal quotation from page 10 of 'What is creation Science?' :-

    "1. Complex Arrays of Living Systems
    In the Creation Model we would expect to see a great array of complex functioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose.
    Different organisms would exhibit an array of similarities and difference - similar structures for similar functions, different structures for different functions.

    This, of course, is exactly what we see ...
    Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at a microscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handiwork of their Creator.

    The Evolution Model ... could never predict even the simplest living thing, since there is no known process that can generate organised (specified) complexity. All real processes tend to go in the opposite direction, from organisation to disorganisation, from complexity to simplicity, from life to death. To believe that chance processes could somehow produce life from non-life requires a high degree of credulity. Leading British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle said in 1981 that "The notion that ... the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on Earth is evidently nonesense of a high order." New Scientist 19 November 1981.

    This...this is meant to be evidence?


  • Options
    #4444
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,233 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    So why does this marvel of creative design have an appendix? Why create the potential for choking by using the same orifice for breathing and eating? Why are there genetic disorders? Why mess about with multiple blood groups? Why make human skin so fragile, considering how tough animal skins generally are? I'm sure if I were a biologist I could come up with masses more samples of incompetence in design, but these will do for now.


  • Options
    #4445
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    OK I'll crack on with one comparison between the Creation and Evolution scientific models - with liberal quotation from page 10 of 'What is creation Science?' :-

    "1. Complex Arrays of Living Systems
    In the Creation Model we would expect to see a great array of complex functioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose.
    Different organisms would exhibit an array of similarities and difference - similar structures for similar functions, different structures for different functions.

    This, of course, is exactly what we see ...
    Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at a microscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handiwork of their Creator.

    The Evolution Model ... could never predict even the simplest living thing, since there is no known process that can generate organised (specified) complexity. All real processes tend to go in the opposite direction, from organisation to disorganisation, from complexity to simplicity, from life to death. To believe that chance processes could somehow produce life from non-life requires a high degree of credulity. Leading British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle said in 1981 that "The notion that ... the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on Earth is evidently nonesense of a high order." New Scientist 19 November 1981.
    JC, this comparison is just that. It is a comparison for what someone expects to see in his creation model. It in no way even comes close to "evidence" for creation. But I am not at all surprised, because there is no evidence, anywhere, for creationism. You had a chance to try to convince me but I have to say, you failed, sorry!


  • Options
    #4446
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    JC, this comparison is just that. It is a comparison for what someone expects to see in his creation model. It in no way even comes close to "evidence" for creation. But I am not at all surprised, because there is no evidence, anywhere, for creationism. You had a chance to try to convince me but I have to say, you failed, sorry!
    I see ... yet another hand-waving generalisation ... that fails to address any specific point that I made.

    Anyway, let's crack on with one more comparison between the Creation and Evolution Scientific Models - with liberal quotation from pages 10-11 of 'What is Creation Science?' :-

    "Stability of the Basic Types of Organisms
    An obvious implication of the Creation Model is that organisms will reproduce only after their own types. The Creationist expects to see many 'horizontal changes', at the same level of complexity, within each type, but no 'vertical changes' from one type to a higher type. Evolution, of course, requires belief in the transmutation even of basic types.
    This prediction from the Creation Model is explicitly confirmed in nature. New varieties are easily developed. The Peppered Moth changes colour, insect popuations become resistant to DDT, and Fruit Flies experience many mutations. But the moth is still the same species of moth and so are the fruit flies. No one has ever documented the development of a more complex species, let alone a new genus or family!!
    Harvard's top evolutionist, Prof Stephen j Goukd, has admited that:
    Quote:-
    "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

    Science involves observation - what we see and know!!
    No one in all recorded history has ever seen an instance of real evolution, from one type into a more complex type. What we see is always horizontal change (and stasis) within types, exactly as predicted by the Creation Model.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4447
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    J C wrote: »
    I see ... yet another hand-waving generalisation ... that fails to address any specific point that I made.

    Anyway, let's crack on with one more comparison between the Creation and Evolution Scientific Models - with liberal quotation from pages 10-11 of 'What is Creation Science?' :-

    how long has their been life and human beings on Earth?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #4448
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    J C wrote: »
    OK I'll crack on with one comparison between the Creation and Evolution scientific models - with liberal quotation from page 10 of 'What is creation Science?' :-

    "1. Complex Arrays of Living Systems
    In the Creation Model we would expect to see a great array of complex functioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose.
    Different organisms would exhibit an array of similarities and difference - similar structures for similar functions, different structures for different functions.

    This, of course, is exactly what we see ...
    Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at a microscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handiwork of their Creator.

    The Evolution Model ... could never predict even the simplest living thing, since there is no known process that can generate organised (specified) complexity. All real processes tend to go in the opposite direction, from organisation to disorganisation, from complexity to simplicity, from life to death. To believe that chance processes could somehow produce life from non-life requires a high degree of credulity. Leading British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle said in 1981 that "The notion that ... the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on Earth is evidently nonesense of a high order." New Scientist 19 November 1981.

    J C wrote: »
    Science involves observation - what we see and know!!
    No one in all recorded history has ever seen an instance of real evolution, from one type into a more complex type. What we see is always horizontal change (and stasis) within types, exactly as predicted by the Creation Model.


    OK, I think I see the problems here.

    You still insist on "comparing" the Evolution Model with the Creation Model. As if by disproving the Evolution Model you can somehow make the case for Creation stronger. The idea that these 2 models would be the only options on the table is a false assumption. It doesn't matter how many quotes you can pull out that some guy says "these are the only 2 possibilities" the fact of the matter is that the Evolution Model has a massive body of evidence and is accepted by virtually everyone as fact based on this body of evidence.

    Any competing theory must be able to stand on its own. Saying "I can disprove your model" (which you have not done) and trying to logically follow that with "so my model is correct" is not going to convince anyone if your model has no supporting evidence.

    It really seems to me like you Creation guys have watched a few BBC or Discovery Channel documentaries about science (probably presented by astrophysicists) and heard the "Evolutionists" talking about how science makes observations and predictions and then you've thought "OK, how can we twist that to make Creation sound more scientific". You are trying to shoehorn the fact that scientific theories can make predictions about reality in to your argument and it is not fooling anyone here.

    As far as I can tell the Creation Model says that "God Created Everything so we would expect to see things everywhere". Wow, look at this! THINGS! Things everywhere! Just as predicted!

    The complexity of something does not prove that the something was created by a higher intelligence. Natural processes can "create" complex structures and complex systems can arise in nature.

    Take the eye, for example, if anyone was interested they could search "The Evolution of the Eye" online and find a ton of information.

    Like this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrKZBh8BL_U

    So what does Creation say about the Eye? Where did it come from? How did it develop?

    Are you simply saying "it's very complex so it must have been created?"

    Our current understanding is that the first fossils of eyes are dated to around 540 million years ago. How old is the eye according to the creation model? How did you get that figure?

    I am not asking for a "debunking" of Evolution here, I am asking for specific information about the Creation Model.

    What does the Creation Model show us about the age and development of the eye? What can we learn from that?

    If eyes were crafted by a higher intelligence then how come they break down so easily? Why are there so many defective eyes?

    Answers J C! That's what we want!

    You keep banging on and on that the Evolution Model can't do this and doesn't do that but a simple Google search shows that there is a massive body of evidence supporting Evolution.

    As said previously, and I am sure you have heard this many times before, you need to provide evidence for Creation or you are never going to have anything more than your own sense of having superior knowledge to us "Evolutionists".

    Your model isn't accepted by anyone with any respectability and it won't be until you can provide proof.

    "Complex things exist" is not proof that they were created by a higher intelligence.

    "Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at a microscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handiwork of their Creator."

    This is not proof. It is not evidence. You are just praising "The Creator". Nothing more.

    No more lame attempts to "debunk" evolution please, just give us the answers we need to make an informed decision.


  • Options
    #4449
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    orubiru wrote: »


    OK, I think I see the problems here.

    You still insist on "comparing" the Evolution Model with the Creation Model. As if by disproving the Evolution Model you can somehow make the case for Creation stronger. The idea that these 2 models would be the only options on the table is a false assumption. It doesn't matter how many quotes you can pull out that some guy says "these are the only 2 possibilities" the fact of the matter is that the Evolution Model has a massive body of evidence and is accepted by virtually everyone as fact based on this body of evidence.

    Any competing theory must be able to stand on its own. Saying "I can disprove your model" (which you have not done) and trying to logically follow that with "so my model is correct" is not going to convince anyone if your model has no supporting evidence.
    There are only two basic possibilities ... either God did it ... or it did itself!!!
    ... and the Creation Model is supported in all its aspects by both logic and the physical evidence in all of nature ... while Evolution languishes in 'the last hope saloon' ... of wishful thinking.
    orubiru wrote: »
    It really seems to me like you Creation guys have watched a few BBC or Discovery Channel documentaries about science (probably presented by astrophysicists) and heard the "Evolutionists" talking about how science makes observations and predictions and then you've thought "OK, how can we twist that to make Creation sound more scientific". You are trying to shoehorn the fact that scientific theories can make predictions about reality in to your argument and it is not fooling anyone here.
    We are all conventional scientists. Some of us are even Evolutionary Biologists!!!
    orubiru wrote: »
    As far as I can tell the Creation Model says that "God Created Everything so we would expect to see things everywhere". Wow, look at this! THINGS! Things everywhere! Just as predicted!

    The complexity of something does not prove that the something was created by a higher intelligence. Natural processes can "create" complex structures and complex systems can arise in nature.
    Complex structures can arise spontaneously allright ... but complex specified strutures and systems require the appliance of intelligence.
    orubiru wrote: »
    Take the eye, for example, if anyone was interested they could search "The Evolution of the Eye" online and find a ton of information.

    Like this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrKZBh8BL_U
    'Just so' stories and wishful thinking ... without any evidence that any of it could ever happen spontaneously.
    orubiru wrote: »
    So what does Creation say about the Eye? Where did it come from? How did it develop?

    Are you simply saying "it's very complex so it must have been created?"
    The fact that it is complex specified and functional proves that it was created.
    orubiru wrote: »
    Our current understanding is that the first fossils of eyes are dated to around 540 million years ago. How old is the eye according to the creation model? How did you get that figure?
    More 'just so' exclamations accompanied by the logical fallacy that large quantities of time will somehow spontaneously generate specified functional complexity ... when out experience is that time causes degeneration ... rather than generation.
    orubiru wrote: »
    I am not asking for a "debunking" of Evolution here, I am asking for specific information about the Creation Model.

    What does the Creation Model show us about the age and development of the eye? What can we learn from that?

    If eyes were crafted by a higher intelligence then how come they break down so easily? Why are there so many defective eyes?
    There are so many defects due to increasing entropy due to the laws of thermodynamics.
    orubiru wrote: »
    Answers J C! That's what we want!

    You keep banging on and on that the Evolution Model can't do this and doesn't do that but a simple Google search shows that there is a massive body of evidence supporting Evolution.

    As said previously, and I am sure you have heard this many times before, you need to provide evidence for Creation or you are never going to have anything more than your own sense of having superior knowledge to us "Evolutionists".

    Your model isn't accepted by anyone with any respectability and it won't be until you can provide proof.
    Who are these 'respectable' people you talk of ... are they some kind of Atheist 'pope' ... or Agnostic 'priest'???:)
    orubiru wrote: »
    "Complex things exist" is not proof that they were created by a higher intelligence.

    "Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at a microscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handiwork of their Creator."

    This is not proof. It is not evidence. You are just praising "The Creator". Nothing more.

    No more lame attempts to "debunk" evolution please, just give us the answers we need to make an informed decision.
    You are correct that just because "Complex things exist" it is not proof that they were created by a higher intelligence.
    However the existence of 'complex functional specified things' is proof of their creation.


  • Options
    #4450
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    silverharp wrote: »
    how long has their been life and human beings on Earth?
    Please tell me ... with objective evidence for your answer.


  • Options
    #4451
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    If someone can only be created or it evolves and we have "proven" evolution to be false then what created the creator? If the creator wasn't created then wouldnt that mean there's another option other than created or evolved?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4452
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    J C wrote: »
    Please tell me ... with objective evidence for your answer.

    I asked you , just trying to rule out that you dont "believe" the earth is less than 10,000 years old? or that Noah's flood and the like actually happened. To date I havnt seen any Ken Ham type posters on this board.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #4453
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    If someone can only be created or it evolves and we have "proven" evolution to be false then what created the creator? If the creator wasn't created then wouldnt that mean there's another option other than created or evolved?
    You are now talking about an 'ultimate cause'.
    Natural spontaneous processes cannot logically have an ultimate cause that is itself a natural spontaneous process ... any ultimate cause must be equal to or of greater capacity than that which it causes ... and it must be transcendent of all that it has ultimately caused ... we are talking about the entire universe here ... so only a transcendent omnipotent God-like being fits this requirement ... and this is yet another fascet of our existence that is consistent with the Creation Model ... but which is inconsistent with the Evolution Model.


  • Options
    #4454
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    You are now talking about an 'ultimate cause'.
    Natural spontaneous processes cannot logically have an ultimate cause that is itself a natural spontaneous process ... any ultimate cause must be equal to or of greater capacity than that which it causes ... and it must be transcendent of all that it has ultimately caused ... we aere talking about the entire universe here ... so only a transcendent omnipotent God-like being fits this requirement ... and this is yet another fascet of our existence that is consistent with the Creation Model ... but which is inconsistent with the Evolution Model.

    But you said if it hasnt evolved then it must have been created as there are only 2 options. Now you are creating a third option.


  • Options
    #4455
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    But you said if it hasnt evolved then it must have been created as there are only 2 options. Now you are creating a third option.
    This isn't a third option for the origin all life on Earth ... that's why there are only two basic options for Evolution and Creation.


  • Options
    #4456
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    J C wrote: »
    This isn't a third option for the origin all life on Earth ... that's what there are only two basic options for Evolution and Creation.

    Ah right. So we have disproven the third option on earth but have proven it can exist elsewhere. Any studies on this?


  • Options
    #4457
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Ah right. So we have disproven the third option on earth but have proven it can exist elsewhere. Any studies on this?
    We are in the realm of philosophy and logical argumentation here ... and therefore beyond the scientific realm ... where the Creation and Evolution hypotheses reside ... and where Creation has been validated.


  • Options
    #4458
    GuitarMusic
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 98 ✭✭GuitarMusic


    I am trying to understand the Evolution and Creation side of things in lay terms.

    Basically as I understand it Creationism is that God created life. The first human was Adam whom god made out of dust (according to the book of genesis). The second was Eve whom was made, by god, from Adam's rib.

    Evolution is the belief that life started in water, moved upon land and evolved into many different species with each generation becoming marginally superior than the generation before.

    If these simplistic points are correct then I am certainly in the evolutionary camp. In my opinion, which many no doubt will disagree with, sports is a perfect example of evolution.

    Every few years world records are broken in sports. Sure some of those records are due to technical advancements such as smoother roads or better wetsuits etc. However over time record times (pick your sport) are falling. In my opinion this shows that each generation is superior than the generation before.

    The above is simplistic but I am only just delving into this.


  • Options
    #4459
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    silverharp wrote: »
    I asked you , just trying to rule out that you dont "believe" the earth is less than 10,000 years old? or that Noah's flood and the like actually happened. To date I havnt seen any Ken Ham type posters on this board.

    Uh, Oh! You are obviously not that familiar with JC's declarations. He believes the Earth is about 10,000 years old and he fervently belives the story of Noah, (who lived for over 900 years). We have had all those arguments before, great fun altogether.


  • Options
    #4460
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Science involves observation - what we see and know!!
    No one in all recorded history has ever seen an instance of real evolution, from one type into a more complex type. What we see is always horizontal change (and stasis) within types, exactly as predicted by the Creation Model.
    [/I]
    Evolution takes thousands, even millions of years, so of course no-one has ever seen it. If you believe that the Universe is only a few thousand years old, then naturally you would never believe in evolution, or understand it. However, if you understand and believe that the Universe is billions of years old then you are on the first rung of the acceptance ladder. You have to take that first step. If you can't, then the whole thing goes whoosh... over you head.


  • Options
    #4461
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Safehands wrote: »
    Uh, Oh! You are obviously not that familiar with JC's declarations. He believes the Earth is about 10,000 years old and he fervently belives the story of Noah, (who lived for over 900 years). We have had all those arguments before, great fun altogether.

    thought so , sounds like a bit of a time sink then. I had fun running through all the arguments with my 10 year old so he could have a bit of fun in school but otherwise it would be like playing chess with a chimp

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4462
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    J C wrote: »
    There are only two basic possibilities ... either God did it ... or it did itself!!!
    ... and the Creation Model is supported in all its aspects by both logic and the physical evidence in all of nature ... while Evolution languishes in 'the last hope saloon' ... of wishful thinking.

    We are all conventional scientists. Some of us are even Evolutionary Biologists!!!

    Complex structures can arise spontaneously allright ... but complex specified strutures and systems require the appliance of intelligence.

    'Just so' stories and wishful thinking ... without any evidence that any of it could ever happen spontaneously.

    The fact that it is complex specified and functional proves that it was created.

    More 'just so' exclamations accompanied by the logical fallacy that large quantities of time will somehow spontaneously generate specified functional complexity ... when out experience is that time causes degeneration ... rather than generation.

    There are so many defects due to increasing entropy due to the laws of thermodynamics.

    Who are these 'respectable' people you talk of ... are they some kind of Atheist 'pope' ... or Agnostic 'priest'???:)

    You are correct that just because "Complex things exist" it is not proof that they were created by a higher intelligence.
    However the existence of 'complex functional specified things' is proof of their creation.

    First off, you didn't answer any of my questions. Lets try again.

    So what does Creation say about the Eye?
    Where did it come from?
    How did it develop?
    How old is the eye according to the creation model?
    How did you get that figure?

    I was reluctant to respond to your post as I now think that engaging with you gives credence to your point of view.

    In short, you do not know what you are talking about.

    Nobody is saying that large quantities of time will produce "specified functional complexity". If you think that then you do not understand the Theory of Evolution and I would recommend that you educate yourself fully before dismissung is as "languishing in in 'the last hope saloon' of wishful thinking".

    You could even start by just focusing on the eye and studying up on that. Or continue to spout your Creation garbage. Whatever.

    Complex structures arise as a result of natural processes. There is no specification and functionality is not determined beforehand. Light sensitive cells evolve and become functional as they evolve. They do not come into existence because that kind of thing would be functional.

    A very simplistic view would be that an organism develops a patch of light sensitive cells and uses that to "see". Over time this develops further, becoming the eye.

    What you are proposing is that some supreme being says "I have this plan for all these creatures I need to make and they need to do this thing called seeing so I'd better design these things called eyes". Then decides "sure, I'll have them eat and breathe through the same hole."

    Neil deGrasse Tyson explains "Stupid Design" here.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc

    I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. Since everything is so gloriously specified and wonderfully functional.

    So why do I care about this?

    Well, here's the thing. People like J C have demonstrated that they will not listen to reason, they will not analyze evidence, they will not educate themselves and they will not answer questions.

    Now, lets say these people have children. Little J C goes off to school and learns about Evolution. "Oh no, my boy, that's not how it happened at all don't be fooled by all that Evolution talk. Everything was created. Keep an open mind and consider all possibilities. It was God."

    So Little J C goes off and "keeps an open mind". He studies up and he decides that Evolution still looks like the best possible explanation. Little J C says "I studied up and all the evidence point to evolution being true".

    At this point is it right to tell the kid "no you are STILL wrong. I dont care what evidence you have or how deeply you understand the subject. I don't care how long you've studied. I don't care about DNA Comparisons or Fossil Records or Comparative Anatomy or Embryology or Species Distribution or any of that stuff. You are just wrong. God created all the species. Why can't you just keep an open mind? Why can't you just consider other possibilities?"

    By the way the Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems.

    Yes, the overall entropy of the universe is increasing BUT the energy that exists can be transferred in to other things in the process of becoming more entropic.

    Biological systems absorb energy and then use that energy to grow. The Sun gives us energy and we use that energy to grow and WE then cause that energy to become more entropic.

    Trees, for example, take the energy from the Sun and use it to grow. If we burn the trees? NOW the energy is more entropic.

    Read it until you understand it then don't bring it up again because people might assume that you know what you are talking about when you, painfully, obviously do not. That's so dishonest and not very Christian at all.


  • Options
    #4463
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    ... and the Creation Model is supported in all its aspects by both logic and the physical evidence in all of nature ... while Evolution languishes in 'the last hope saloon' ... of wishful thinking.

    There is nothing logical about creationism, especially when it is inspired by the old testament.
    Evolution is not languishing anywhere. It is real.
    The Earth is billions of years old. That is a fact, not a theory.
    The last hope saloon fits the ideas outlined by the people who believe in creation rather than reality.


  • Options
    #4464
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    J C , what's your view on kangaroos? How did a species without opposable thumbs make it from the ark to australia without leaving a trace along the way?

    I won't accept floating on logs, an imaginary land bridge , magic

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #4465
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,335 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Lets do a thought experiment
    Creationists accept 'micro evolution' and adaption within a species, but they say that 'kinds' are fixed.

    Lets play out a scenario as a thought experiment

    A ship sinks and a container full of domestic cats washes onto a desert island in the middle of the pacific ocean. The island has very few trees and there isn't very much to eat except that there is a coral reef and there are loads and loads of fish

    Out of the 2 dozen cats in the container, some are afraid of water so they die of starvation
    Others are driven by hunger to pluck food out of shoreside rock pools and others are much braver and are prepared to swim amongst the reef to find food.

    Over a few generations, none of the cats that don't like water will have survived, all of the kittens are offspring of cats that are either swimmers or pool fishers.

    The low hanging fruit near rock pools starts to become scarce, so the majority of cats are now prepared to swim amongst the reefs. Not all cats are very good swimmers, they get injured on the sharp corals and die young, but some cats are better than others, so the best swimmers can find more food and have more kittens, and these kittens are genetically better suited at swimming because all the least swim friendly characteristics have been lost from the gene pool as these cats died young and kittenless. Despite the fact that they are surviving and reproducing, these cats aren't thriving, they could do a lot better if they became better swimmers and better hunters in the water

    Creationists, Are you with me so far?

    What happens to these cats next?


  • Options
    #4466
    Lantus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,027 ✭✭✭Lantus


    eyes are not 'that great'. Not sure why people bang on about them so much. The visible light spectrum is tiny compared the total light spectrum so the eye can only see a fraction of what is actually potentially visible.

    Eyes (like mine) don't work properly and need optical correction so I can even see the person next to me.

    They are highly susceptible to whole variety of diseases and other infections which can damage and harm them. (I have been unlucky to have several)

    Humans only have eyes facing front so our range of vision is pretty limited compared to say birds or having eyes located all around so we could have vision in all directions.

    Sight, like touch and smell is a sensor which can provide an advantage to any living organism over time in being able to interpret and understand and ultimately benefit from its environment.


  • Options
    #4467
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    The human body isn't that great. Air duct and food duct in the same place , bad engineering and a choking hazard right there. A dolphin is better engineered it has a sepeate hole for breathing and eating.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #4468
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Lets do a thought experiment
    Creationists accept 'micro evolution' and adaption within a species, but they say that 'kinds' are fixed.

    Lets play out a scenario as a thought experiment

    A ship sinks and a container full of domestic cats washes onto a desert island in the middle of the pacific ocean. The island has very few trees and there isn't very much to eat except that there is a coral reef and there are loads and loads of fish

    Out of the 2 dozen cats in the container, some are afraid of water so they die of starvation
    Others are driven by hunger to pluck food out of shoreside rock pools and others are much braver and are prepared to swim amongst the reef to find food.

    Over a few generations, none of the cats that don't like water will have survived, all of the kittens are offspring of cats that are either swimmers or pool fishers.

    The low hanging fruit near rock pools starts to become scarce, so the majority of cats are now prepared to swim amongst the reefs. Not all cats are very good swimmers, they get injured on the sharp corals and die young, but some cats are better than others, so the best swimmers can find more food and have more kittens, and these kittens are genetically better suited at swimming because all the least swim friendly characteristics have been lost from the gene pool as these cats died young and kittenless. Despite the fact that they are surviving and reproducing, these cats aren't thriving, they could do a lot better if they became better swimmers and better hunters in the water

    Creationists, Are you with me so far?

    What happens to these cats next?
    God places an otter on the Island. The cats love the otter and the offspring become great swimmers, able to catch fish, because God intervened, just once. Evolutionists think that the cats evolved into a fast swimming cat-like creature because they don't know that God has intervened. Darwinian types find the island a hundred years later, see the "Catter" and declare it a new example of evolution at work. They have no way of knowing that it was all God's doing. They are fooled, once again by the mysterious ways that God works. Of course, no-one can
    prove that this didn't happen.

    Along come a boatload of enlightened creationists who figure out straight away that this is all God's work, but try and tell that to the skeptical pondkind to catkind evolutionists, Ha!
    But the creationists are not really that smart. One of them had a secret chat, during the night, with a talking snake and he told him the whole story.
    He said to the snake, after hearing the truth "Are you decended from....." "Yesssss! Do you fancy a bite of this lovely apple?"


  • Options
    #4469
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,335 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Safehands wrote: »
    God places an otter on the Island. The cats love the otter and the offspring become great swimmers, able to catch fish, because God intervened, just once. Evolutionists think that the cats evolved into a fast swimming cat-like creature because they don't know that God has intervened. Darwinian types find the island a hundred years later, see the "Catter" and declare it a new example of evolution at work. They have no way of knowing that it was all God's doing. They are fooled, once again by the mysterious ways that God works. Of course, no-one can
    prove that this didn't happen.

    Along come a boatload of enlightened creationists who figure out straight away that this is all God's work, but try and tell that to the skeptical pondkind to catkind evolutionists, Ha!
    But the creationists are not really that smart. One of them had a secret chat, during the night, with a talking snake and he told him the whole story.
    He said to the snake, after hearing the truth "Are you decended from....." "Yesssss! Do you fancy a bite of this lovely apple?"
    I think the thought experiment is worthwhile, because a creationist can always argue about what happened in the past, but the pathway of evolution is pretty straightforward in this case.

    The cats will either all die out, or they will adapt to their totally new environment and in the process of adapting, they will gradually change from land based animals (cats) to aquatic based animals (cotters)

    Under a creationist definition of 'kind' is a Cat the same 'Kind' as an otter?


  • Options
    #4470
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    GuitarMusic wrote: »
    I am trying to understand the Evolution and Creation side of things in lay terms.

    Basically as I understand it Creationism is that God created life. The first human was Adam whom god made out of dust (according to the book of genesis). The second was Eve whom was made, by god, from Adam's rib.

    Evolution is the belief that life started in water, moved upon land and evolved into many different species with each generation becoming marginally superior than the generation before.

    If these simplistic points are correct then I am certainly in the evolutionary camp. In my opinion, which many no doubt will disagree with, sports is a perfect example of evolution.

    Every few years world records are broken in sports. Sure some of those records are due to technical advancements such as smoother roads or better wetsuits etc. However over time record times (pick your sport) are falling. In my opinion this shows that each generation is superior than the generation before.

    The above is simplistic but I am only just delving into this.

    Ok, some clarifications about evolution. The theory of evolution is NOT abiogenesis or includes abiogenesis (i.e. how life started via natural causes). That is a separate theory or series of competing hypotheses, to be more precise.
    No matter how life started, life evolved after that point. I mention this as you seem to be merging the two a bit, perhaps unintentionally.
    The theory of evolution just deals with the diversity of species. There are many good books on the topic if you really want to grasp just how intricate such developments are. Jerry Coyne "why evolution is true" is a good one, even if you already accept the idea in principle. It never does any harm in having a more informed view on a topic in science.

    Second point and perhaps key to the whole appreciation of just how outstanding yet impersonal the development of life's diversity is, is that it is not a ladder of superiority. There is no goal, at all, except what we retrospectively impose on it from our own biased opinions.

    Life does generally get more complex over time, but since 99.999...% of all species that ever lived are extinct, its not a goal but a consequence of just not dying out yet.

    Mutations are a key element, relatively randomly generated within natural limits. The selection process does the actual evolution, but without the massive 'white noise' of mutations, often accumulative over generations, it would have nothing to select. Both work in tandem for change to occur.

    There are other genetic factors than mutations that play smaller parts in evolutionary genetics too that are still under scrutiny in regard to their effects on evolution.

    While some people do believe in evolution, others just understand it and accept it as the best explanation available scientifically currently available. This acceptance is not belief, at least not in the same sense as religious belief and it would be fallacious to mix the two. It would be like comparing a belief in the tooth fairy to belief in the current model of the atomic theory.

    The sports analogy is both right in some ways and wrong in others. You might be drifting into an older theory of evolution (Lamarkianism) which involved an animal inheriting traits developed by activity in life.
    So a runner has a child that is faster because his parent or parents ran a lot. This was before genetics and so it misunderstood inheritable genes. Lamarkian evolution was debunked 100+ years ago.
    Your analogy is right in a way that humans are still evolving, albet very slowly, even today. There are mutations that have given some humans almost complete immunity to HIV, others the ability to see ultraviolet, others with double bone density and increased muscle, yet others with the ability to breath in climates with far less oxygen than normally tolerable.

    A lot of the faster sports times have to do with training, diet, better understanding of physics, equipment and in the case of more competitive countries, even selective breeding (parents have favourable genes that may pass on to the child). So while evolution is involved, it might not be the best example of it as the results are contaminated by other factors.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4471
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    We know for a fact that the Genesis account of creation is wrong and that is the starting point for the whole OT account. It is reasonable therefore, to assume that if the initial few pages are so factually incorrect, the rest of the book cannot be relied on. So describing it as outdated is accurate. So there y'are JC, I know you don't really accept it but so be it!


Advertisement