How to choose between creation and evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

And left the others untouched.

Will you accept the same sort of argumentation, i.e., proving one thing in the bible wrong negates thew whole thing? I'm betting no.

I covered several.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are unaware that they DO post big problems in MANY humans?

My wife had hers pulled a few years ago, after a few sleepless nights of extreme pains.

'Many' sure, 'most' not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, but it shows that you don't actually care about the information at any rate. Even if the article clearly and tacitly says "This is all due to evolution", you'll still proclaim that it's evidence of design, even though the article goes completely against your viewpoint.

If my eye doctor explains everything about how my eyes function I believe him, right up to the point where he tells me it's all due to evolution. I screen out the 'evolution' in the articles I post that otherwise support my positions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If my eye doctor explains everything about how my eyes function I believe him, right up to the point where he tells me it's all due to evolution.

And that's just being dumb.

 

[pitabread]

Because if they did they would have to ask the question on who the creator is. And as it's been so neatly pointed out the creator cannot be discovered using scientific experiments.

If you admitted that all things were created, you would have to ask "by what or by whom".

That doesn't answer the question for two reasons:

1) First, you're assuming the "creator" in this instance is inherently supernatural. But that need not be the case. We as humans have developed technology to point where we can genetically manipulate life and send spacecraft to other planets. It's perfectly conceivable that a technologically advanced entity could engineer lifeforms and seed other planets with them. Thus, the answer of how life on Earth arose and diversified could certainly have a scientific explanation.

2) If life really had the appearance of being artificially designed and was done so supernaturally, you're right that science wouldn't be able to really tell us anything about the creator or how it was done. Supernatural explanations are inherently unbounded and therefore cannot be tested via science. But science would still be able to at least point us to that up to the limit of what it can discover.

So taking that into context, I'm asking the question again:

Why is evolutionary biology the scientific explanation for the diversity of species on Earth? Why didn't the world's collective biologists come up with a scientific theory of creation instead?

The question of who or what the creator is doesn't preclude the latter.

 

[pitabread]

If atheistic scientists didn't come up with an alternate 'explanation' they would be in a real pickle.

It's got nothing to do with atheism. It's about what is the best explanation for biodiversity of life on Earth. Atheism vs theism is irrelevant.

Science invented evolution out of thin air, then fortifies it with important sounding terms and processes that they hope will give it credibility, and when something doesn't fit the pattern it's given yet another term to explain it.

The uninitiated are lectured to study it so as not to be 'ignorant'. But even a cursory look reveals that it is a hoax, and not a very clever one at that.

This is just silly conspiratorial nonsense.

When you actually look into real-world biology (not the creationist conspiracy theory version), you realize there are a lot of vested interests in understanding how it works and how species arose. We depend a LOT on biology; everything from medicine, agriculture, forestry, conservation biology... all of these have an impact on our well-being.

The idea that biologists just came with the theory of evolution as a massive hoax because reasons and ignoring the dependence of biology-related industries is utterly retarded. It's in our collective best interests to have the best explanations for biological life on our planet.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's easy:

"Speedwell's argument is no good because it is illogical." is a criticism, not an ad hominem.

"Speedwell's argument is no good because it is illogical and he is a Bible-hating commie." is a criticism followed by an insult, not an ad hominem.

"Speedwell's argument is no good because he is a Bible-hating commie." is an ad hominem

These guys have added a twist. My argument is no good because it is presented by a creationist, even though the evidence cited was written by an evolutionist. Strange.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's got nothing to do with atheism. It's about what is the best explanation for biodiversity of life on Earth. Atheism vs theism is irrelevant.

The best evidence is the creatures themselves, not a fabricated history dating back millions of years. My doctor considers my present physiology when examining me, not that of my theoretical ancestors. That's pretty good evidence for creation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

These guys have added a twist. My argument is no good because it is presented by a creationist, even though the evidence cited was written by an evolutionist. Strange.

No, it's because you don't even understand what you are citing!

 

[pitabread]

The best evidence is the creatures themselves, not a fabricated history dating back millions of years. My doctor considers my present physiology when examining me, not that of my theoretical ancestors. That's pretty good evidence for creation.

I expanded my prior response. Given the collective dependence we have on biology in various fields, it behooves use to have the best possible understanding of it. There are real industries that depend on biology (pharmacology, agriculture, etc) and a lot of vested interests in that understanding.

Arguing that everything related to evolution is deliberately fabricated is just conspiratorial nonsense.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, it's because you don't even understand what you are citing!

I usually depend on the source to understand it, and those I'm directing it to as well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I expanded my prior response. Given the collective dependence we have on biology in various fields, it behooves use to have the best possible understanding of it. There are real industries that depend on biology (pharmacology, agriculture, etc) and a lot of vested interests in that understanding.

Arguing that everything related to evolution is deliberately fabricated is just conspiratorial nonsense.

To a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

 

[pitabread]

To a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

...

This isn't an answer.

Look, you have real-world industries that stand to benefit from having the best understanding of biology possible. For example, do you really think those in the multi-trillion dollar agricultural industry would be willing to go along with some conspiratorial hoax? For what reason? What do those in pharmacology or forestry or agriculture get out of it?

We're dealing with for-profit companies here. Biology isn't just something that happens in university labs. There are businesses at stake here. If evolution really was a hoax and there was a better scientific underpinning for all of the world's biology available, why wouldn't they be exploring and exploiting that for competitive advantage?

Would they all be working together to create a conspiracy? Every biological-related field, every single working biologist from around the world for the last hundred+ years?

Makes no sense.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I usually depend on the source to understand it, and those I'm direct it to as well.

But you can't use a source that clearly says that something evolved to use as proof of design. It's just intellectually dishonest AND outright idiotic.

 

[Ophiolite]

The best evidence is the creatures themselves, not a fabricated history dating back millions of years. My doctor considers my present physiology when examining me, not that of my theoretical ancestors. That's pretty good evidence for creation.

You probably need a new doctor. All of mine are very interested in the health history of my immediate ancestors and of my more distant ones through genetic analysis. Those ancestors, who have kindly gifted me their genes are not at all theoretical.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you can't use a source that clearly says that something evolved to use as proof of design. It's just intellectually dishonest AND outright idiotic.

I wasn't making that point. In the case of wisdom teeth I cited nutrition, which was supported by the link I posted. If you carefully read all of my supporting posts you will find this as well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

...

This isn't an answer.

Look, you have real-world industries that stand to benefit from having the best understanding of biology possible. For example, do you really think those in the multi-trillion dollar agricultural industry would be willing to go along with some conspiratorial hoax? For what reason? What do those in pharmacology or forestry or agriculture get out of it?

We're dealing with for-profit companies here. Biology isn't just something that happens in university labs. There are businesses at stake here. If evolution really was a hoax and there was a better scientific underpinning for all of the world's biology available, why wouldn't they be exploring and exploiting that for competitive advantage?

Would they all be working together to create a conspiracy? Every biological-related field, every single working biologist from around the world for the last hundred+ years?

Makes no sense.

What I meant was that to an evolutionist everything under the sun evolved, even thoughts. There's no end to it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You probably need a new doctor. All of mine are very interested in the health history of my immediate ancestors and of my more distant ones through genetic analysis. Those ancestors, who have kindly gifted me their genes are not at all theoretical.

I have no problem with traits inherited from my ancestors (humankind). It's evolution's claim that I inherited traits from creatures that don't look like me that I reject.

 

[Speedwell]

I have no problem with traits inherited from my ancestors (humankind). It's evolution's claim that I inherited traits from creatures that don't look like me that I reject.

Like skeleton with a backbone, four limbs, two eyes, things like that you reject?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Like skeleton with a backbone, four limbs, two eyes, things like that you reject?

How far back do you think doctors go. I just finished a health questionnaire from my doctor and the ancestry questions only go back a few generations. I was unable to provide much useful information as I don't know much about the medical history of my ancestors, with exception of my parents and siblings. In view of this scanty history my doctor was still able to treat me.

As well, my health problems are unique to me in my family, so far. I haven't had the cataract problems that so many men in my family have 'inherited' (knock on wood). Alcoholism runs in my mother's family and affected my brother and sister. I have no drinking problems. My brother and sister also suffered from severe osteoporosis, yet my bones are strong. So my family's genetics aren't of much use to my doctor in treating me, so far.

Of course what I take from this is that a healthy lifestyle can trump genetic (evolutionary) weaknesses (such as narrow jaws, crowded wisdom teeth), when diligently applied.