Question for Creationists

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader
Are there any other takers on this question? Npetreley, you seem rather loudly silent on the issue. =)

Sure, I'd accept it. I'll make it easy and assume you don't want abiogenesis to be a factor. So all you have to do is find some planet, toss some bacteria on it and watch the bacteria evolve into kangaroos over a period of millions or billions of years while leaving no trace of the transitionals in the fossil record. Then repeat several times (has to be both observed AND repeatable, you know).

Give me a buzz when you're done.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


Sure, I'd accept it. I'll make it easy and assume you don't want abiogenesis to be a factor. So all you have to do is find some planet, toss some bacteria on it and watch the bacteria evolve into kangaroos over a period of millions or billions of years while leaving no trace of the transitionals in the fossil record. Then repeat several times (has to be both observed AND repeatable, you know).

Give me a buzz when you're done.

Wow. Now I understand why you're a Creationist. Evolution can never hope to top the Creationism evidence you've obviously seen. Tell me, did you remember videotape when you were watching God create us and all the other animals from mud? Oh and did you ask God to "do it again" so it could be "repeatable?" So where were you standing when you were watching God create the earth? Did you have a rubber tire to hang on to when God flooded the earth? (Maybe you were grabbing on to the Ark?) And how was the air in the Garden of Eden?

I believe I mentioned something about hypocrisy in my original question.

 

[seebs]

I think, if I understand his position correctly, Nick's argument is that creationism, as he believes in it, is not *intended* as science; it's pure theology. Thus, he doesn't look for scientific evidence for it, but he would expect any "scientific" theory to adhere to various standards.

I happen to disagree, because I feel that claims about how life came to be *ARE* properly scientific claims, and should be given the best answers we can give them *using science*.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by seebs
I think, if I understand his position correctly, Nick's argument is that creationism, as he believes in it, is not *intended* as science; it's pure theology. Thus, he doesn't look for scientific evidence for it, but he would expect any "scientific" theory to adhere to various standards.

I happen to disagree, because I feel that claims about how life came to be *ARE* properly scientific claims, and should be given the best answers we can give them *using science*.

I understand the distinction... and I suppose he has a point, if what you say is true. However, there's no lacking of Creationists posing as scientists who try to "prove" Creation using science. And bad science at that, since every single one of their arguments consists of attacking evolution, rather than lending credence to their own theory. I'd understand it if you are a Creationist on purely religious grounds, but to be a Creationist and say it's only because "there's more evidence for creationism than for evolution," is to me hypocritical and deceitful for the same reasons as I outlined in my original question.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader

Wow. Now I understand why you're a Creationist. Evolution can never hope to top of the evidence you've obviously seen. Tell me, did you remember videotape when you were watching God create us and all the other animals from mud? Oh and did you ask God to "do it again" so it could be "repeatable?" So where were you standing when you were watching God create the earth? Did you have a rubber tire to hang on to when God flooded the earth? (Maybe you were grabbing on to the Ark?) And how was the air in the Garden of Eden?

I believe I mentioned something about hypocrisy in my original question.

What hypocrisy are you talking about? You asked me if I would accept a scientific theory, and I said I would if you could provide scientific evidence. If you had posed the same question with respect to creation, I would have answered it the same way. Here, I'll show you:

If there were equal observable evidence for creation as described in the Bible as for newton's laws of gravity, would you accept this evidence, or would you dismiss it on grounds that it does not agree with a non-creation view?

If I needed scientific proof of creation, and someone could reproduce (or somehow convince G~d to repeat for the benefit of our observation) the creation as described in Genesis, then yes, I'd accept it.

Your mistake is in thinking science is the only good reason to accept anything. That's understandable, because from your perspective there is only the material, and therefore you have no other way of discerning truth.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley


What hypocrisy are you talking about? You asked me if I would accept a scientific theory, and I said I would if you could provide scientific evidence. If you had posed the same question with respect to creation, I would have answered it the same way. Here, I'll show you:



If I needed scientific proof of creation, and someone could reproduce (or somehow convince G~d to repeat for the benefit of our observation) the creation as described in Genesis, then yes, I'd accept it.

Point well taken.

Your mistake is in thinking science is the only good reason to accept anything. That's understandable, because from your perspective there is only the material, and therefore you have no other way of discerning truth.

The material is the only way to discern the truth. The "immaterial" way consists of talking to ones self and thinking that the voice in your head is God and therefore must be truth. Or something.

 

[seebs]

The main problem we always run into is that you can never have scientific "proof" of *ANYTHING* about how the world came to be, to the standards Nick wants... The reason for the charges of hypocrisy is simply that, for any aspect of this process that *isn't* evolution, most creationists will happily accept "we can observe things happening that could plausibly produce these results", but for evolution in particular, they want proof that no other process could have produced these results - a laughable claim.

Even with things we can reproduce and observe in labs, it's quite possible to argue that they're the result of extraspatial gremlins who wish us to believe certain things... we have to, at some point, assert that we believe the world is roughly as it appears, and exists outside of our senses of it, and that it generally follows consistent physical laws... and if we accept that, we find that evolution of some sort is the only game in town, until someone comes up with a plausible alternative.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
The main problem we always run into is that you can never have scientific "proof" of *ANYTHING* about how the world came to be, to the standards Nick wants...

I've covered this in depth elsewhere. It all comes down to who and what you trust. If the Bible clearly stated that life evolved, and the world looked exactly as it does today (no evidence for evolution), I would still believe the Bible that life evolved because G~d's word is more reliable than my own personal senses and reason.

You don't agree, and choose to believe your own senses and reason over what G~d said. Fine. Whatever floats your boat.

(Ironically, as I've demonstrated in my challenge thread, nobody can produce even the flimsiest evidence of evolution from 99.9% of the fossil record, yet you still believe in evolultion over what G~d said. IMO that apparent contradiction demonstrates the fall.)

Blader: I don't recall which thread it was, but I went into much more detail about this in another thread. If you read that, this explanation probably wouldn't sound quite as bizarre as it sounds out of that context -- well, maybe it would, so forget it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Ironically, as I've demonstrated in my challenge thread, nobody can produce even the flimsiest evidence of evolution from 99.9% of the fossil record

Ironically, your challenge thread demonstrated merely that no one could (or would) spoon feed you a fine grained transitional series that bridges a major taxonimical gap with photographs of all of the relavant fossils on the internet. So when you say "Ironically, as I've demonstrated in my challenge thread, nobody can produce even the flimsiest evidence of evolution from 99.9% of the fossil record" you are LYING. I know that isn't a problem for you, but just in case you eventually do start caring I thought it would be nice to point that out.

For others who are new to the board or not familiar with this discussion, please forgive the strong words. If you thinnk I'm being too harsh, just read back through a few of the various discussions this individual has been involved in on this thread, and you will understand that I am actually being too gentle.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

I agree, Jerry.  It's rather disgusting to watch Nick's little challenge grow (and evolve!) until suddenly it becomes "no evidence for evolution in 99.9% of the fossil record."  As if the general progression of primitive forms to more modern forms didn't count for anything!

Of course we all predicted this would happen. 

 

[seebs]

It's really depressing, because if the standard is just "flimsy" evidence for evolution, I can do it in two words: "canine teeth".

Now, do I mean the teeth that are big in dogs, or the same teeth in us?

Flimsy, yes, but undeniably evidence of common descent. (And you can't attack it as weak, because I *SAID* it was flimsy. But it's still a non-zero-sum argument.)

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I agree, Jerry.  It's rather disgusting to watch Nick's little challenge grow (and evolve!) until suddenly it becomes "no evidence for evolution in 99.9% of the fossil record."  As if the general progression of primitive forms to more modern forms didn't count for anything!

Of course we all predicted this would happen. 

:lol: Evolution at work!

 

[tellmewhy]

Why do creationists complain about evolutionists who brainwash children when that is exactly what sunday schools do for the creationist THEORY. As much as christians want to believe the creationist THEORY is fact, the truth is faith and imagination plays a role in both theories. I think the problem with any debate on these topics is useless when either one side of the debate refuses to see that they are dealing with TWO theories.

 

[Jerry Smith]

tellme,

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree with you. The creationist stories are usually never codified into a scientific theory.

Faith has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and while "imagination" plays a role from time to time, it is never the final word in science.

Welcome to the C Forums, by the way!

 

[tellmewhy]

Ok, I guess I'll have to agree to disagree with you. Because any sunday school child can quote the scientific theory of how the world came to be according to the creationists. And, faith has everything to do with evolution! Why do you think extremely intelligent individuals are still holding on to their belief in evolution? They know that their is no proven fact, but they have (just like their creationist counterparts) confused faith with fact. Just because you believe it is the best explanation does not make it the only one.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Why do you think extremely intelligent individuals are still holding on to their belief in evolution? They know that their is no proven fact, but they have (just like their creationist counterparts) confused faith with fact.

The answer to your question is that it is not faith that brings people to an acceptance of the theory of evolution, nor that keeps them there.

Science doesn't deal with "proven facts" unless you mean facts so well supported that it isn't reasonable to think they are untrue. It deals with theories and data. If the evidence all points unerringly to a theory, then it is considered a very good theory, and we can say with great confidence that it corresponds closely with reality. This is true for any well-accepted theory, not just evolution. There are no "proven facts" in science: you cannot scientifically prove even that you exist.

If you have never been exposed to the evidence for evolution, talkorgins.org is a great place to start.

 

[tellmewhy]

I'm sorry, but I cannot take you seriously at this point. Science deals with facts all the time. The Law of Gravity would not be a Law if it was not proven. The only proof that exists is the eye-witness account. Whether it is a fossil, a picture, or a testimony from an unquestionable source, facts are fact because we witness them. Until microscopes were strong enough to view them, atoms only existed in theory. The fact is that there is no full account of either evolution or creationism, therefore, the "missing links" in both theories are the peices that have no eye-witness account and only exist in theory (or in imagination, as I put it before).
By the way, thanks for taking me on

 

[chickenman]

"The only proof that exists is the eye-witness account."

-you don't understand science

 

[seebs]

tellmewhy: Newton's Laws of Motion were "proven", but turned out to be wrong in relativistic cases. We still *use* them, because they work so well *MOST* of the time - but we have to correct for that when we start talking about substantial fractions of light speed.

Evolution, in the general sense, is pretty solidly established. Could there be surprises? Of course! However, the fact is, natural selection changes the quality of a species over time, and you can even split one species into two fairly similar ones with it... and, eventually, they can start being pretty different.

For all we know, a million years from now, people will be talking about the "early" humans, and how they appear to have been transitional between hominids and something else entirely.

 

[Patty]

Seebs,

Which canines do men have?

Beagle or chihuahua?


Patty