Why won’t creationists participate in open and honest debate?

[AV1611VET]

Faith in action ^

[bible]Mark 11:22[/bible]

 

[Chalnoth]

Yet, when we discuss the lack of actual proof for the transition from one species to another, the absence of transitional members in the fossil record seems to be no impediment to those who believe in the TofE.

There are many transitional fossils in the fossil record. However, due to the rarity of fossilization, the fossil record really isn't a very good way to measure the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution makes plenty of predictions that we can observe simply by observing organisms that are alive today, observations which are going to be vastly more reliable than anything in the fossil record.

The fossil record is more useful in providing information as to how life evolved, but shouldn't really be used as a basic source for support of the theory of evolution due to the uncertainties involved.

While it may be anecdotal to begin with you can hardly say there is "NO" evidence. For just one example I would inquire as to the discovery of sea shells and other such sedimentary deposits on mountain tops. I'm relatively certain that clams and mollusks aren't disposed to mountain climbing as a hobby.

We see mountains rising today. Many years ago those mountains were much lower. Many of them would have been below sea level at some point in their history. This is expected as a result of evolutionary theory and geology.

While I will grant you the premise that this is tough to wrap your mind around it is no more unfeasible than the claim that "ALL" life evolved from a "COMMON ANCESTOR". The TofE asks us to accept that life began with no intervention and grew to the current level of diversity out of pure chance and happenstance mutations.

No. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origins of life. It merely talks about how life changes once it exists. The theory of evolution expects that we would see one or more common ancestors from which all life would descend. As such, the theory of evolution is itself completely consistent with special creation of many species and later evolution.

What tells us there is a single common ancestor is not the theory of evolution, but rather the evidence. All life on Earth fits into one single nested hierarchy. That is evidence for common ancestry.

Also, by the way, the first life forms would have been asexually-reproducing organisms. It is entirely possible for one single member of an asexually-reproducing species to propagate the species. It's the sexually-reproducing species that have big problems with low population counts (and this is observed, by the way, not just an objection from incredulity).

Still, the measurements, such as they are, are based on our scales and made at least partially questionable by the fact that they are arrived at by imperfect beings.

Well, yeah, that's why we have this amazing self-correcting process called science. We are imperfect. We make mistakes. We have personal biases. Science is a process by which we reduce the affects of these problems as much as possible. But on the side of religion you just have human consensus with no self-correcting process that arrives at the idea that some specific doctrine must be correct. Science is infinitely preferred as a knowledge-obtaining method, and has proved itself over and over again in our development of modern technology. No faith is required, because if we doubt something, and are interested, we can actually go out and test that very thing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Your problem is not with creation science, but with the contents of the Bible.

So therefore, I conclude that is a personal problem with you and your views.

Wow, you really are a beginner philosopher. Come back more when you learn to properly arive at a conclusion.

Creation science is a direct attempt by followers of the bible to prove the the bible is a valid set of documents. Furthermore, criticism of the Bible is hardly uncommon, nor can you say that it in any way implies underlying personal problems!

1) A criticises B
2) A doesn't like C
3) Therefore, A has deep emotional problems

Logic, mon ami, helps to make an argument strong by showing where it is weak.

 

[Knowledge3]

Wow, you really are a beginner philosopher. Come back more when you learn to properly arive at a conclusion.

Creation science is a direct attempt by followers of the bible to prove the the bible is a valid set of documents. Furthermore, criticism of the Bible is hardly uncommon, nor can you say that it in any way implies underlying personal problems!

1) A criticises B
2) A doesn't like C
3) Therefore, A has deep emotional problems

Logic, mon ami, helps to make an argument strong by showing where it is weak.

I am not a creationist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am not a creationist.

Irrelevant. I was showing you why your conclusion was wrong. You still have yet to answer my points.

 

[Knowledge3]

Irrelevant. I was showing you why your conclusion was wrong. You still have yet to answer my points.

Are we in court? I am not obligated to answer your points.

Why is my conclusion wrong? Wait, we are going to verify that by opinion?

*chuckles*

 

[TheCommonPatriot]

There are many transitional fossils in the fossil record. However, due to the rarity of fossilization, the fossil record really isn't a very good way to measure the theory of evolution.

How convenient is that? It just so happens that the fossils that the TofE needs to help its cause are the ones that are missing. In light of that you would think that science would tend to the "fact" that there is no record rather than engage in speculation on why there isn't. This is where the scientific version of dogma comes in. "No evidence to help our cause; explain it away."

The theory of evolution makes plenty of predictions that we can observe simply by observing organisms that are alive today, observations which are going to be vastly more reliable than anything in the fossil record.

The word incredulous comes to mind. Predictions have a tendency to be a good deal more accurate when they're revised to take more current information and knowledge into account.

The fossil record is more useful in providing information as to how life evolved, but shouldn't really be used as a basic source for support of the theory of evolution due to the uncertainties involved.

Not really. The fossil record thus far has been useful for showing what creatures were alive at any given time but has no real standing for providing information on anything other than that, including evolution.

We see mountains rising today. Many years ago those mountains were much lower. Many of them would have been below sea level at some point in their history. This is expected as a result of evolutionary theory and geology.

I don't have a problem with that. Of course, it would become exponentially more difficult to explain if the time scale were compressed. Also, there's no guarantee that we're right about the time frame for the development of those mountains. Basically, it's guess work at best.

No. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origins of life. It merely talks about how life changes once it exists. The theory of evolution expects that we would see one or more common ancestors from which all life would descend. As such, the theory of evolution is itself completely consistent with special creation of many species and later evolution.

I'm glad you see that much at the very least. The origin of life is, after all, a seminal question in the whole process. This doesn't make me any more comfortable with the principle of evolution but then again my main issue is not with the pedestrian idea of evolution itself. My problem is with the grossly overarching claim that the TofE must, by it's very nature, preclude God from existence. While I believe that it is perfectly plausible for an omnipotent God to create the universe in 7 actual days I cannot know, because I was not there, that 7 days for God is not millions or billions of years for mankind. I must ask myself if an eternal being with no beginning and no end must be constrained to my existence in days and years and thus measured by my understanding.

What tells us there is a single common ancestor is not the theory of evolution, but rather the evidence. All life on Earth fits into one single nested hierarchy. That is evidence for common ancestry.

I can't accept this as wholely authoritative since the hierarchy is a concept of our own. The grouping of species is based wholely on our own observations and "assumptions" about those species. This being the case we can arrange the hierarchy in any way we see fit.

Also, by the way, the first life forms would have been asexually-reproducing organisms. It is entirely possible for one single member of an asexually-reproducing species to propagate the species. It's the sexually-reproducing species that have big problems with low population counts (and this is observed, by the way, not just an objection from incredulity).

Again, this is the assumption. Not being there and having no unbroken fossil record to illustrate that fact makes it a bit difficult to support that claim. This statement has more to do with the fact that it would be necessary to help explain the TofE than with any demonstrable fact.

Well, yeah, that's why we have this amazing self-correcting process called science. We are imperfect. We make mistakes. We have personal biases. Science is a process by which we reduce the affects of these problems as much as possible. But on the side of religion you just have human consensus with no self-correcting process that arrives at the idea that some specific doctrine must be correct. Science is infinitely preferred as a knowledge-obtaining method, and has proved itself over and over again in our development of modern technology. No faith is required, because if we doubt something, and are interested, we can actually go out and test that very thing.

Yes and No. I have no area of disagreement with science itself in general. Where I have to take umbrage with science is where it presumes to do the very thing that it criticizes faith for. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science claims to rely only on evidence and fact but enters into speculation when it asserts the claim that because of "X" or "Y" there can be "NO GOD". That's a bit of a leap don't you think? If science wants to be respected by the faith community it should cease attacking faith. Also, there would be greater respect for the scientific community and science in general by those of faith if it were not used so consistently as a cudgel in attempting to beat faith out of society. Science is a much greater tool and benefit for society when it sticks to the facts and lays off its assumed role as the final arbiter on whether or not there is a God.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I am not a creationist.

So just to clarify; you believe the various species of life evolved naturally rather than being magically created?

 

[c'mon sense]

TheCommonPatriot was supposed to be the best creationist? TheAllTooCommonCreationist...
What else can I say about someone who expects serious discussion yet dismisses geology as "guesswork at best"?

 

[shernren]

TheCommonPatriot was supposed to be the best creationist? TheAllTooCommonCreationist...
What else can I say about someone who expects serious discussion yet dismisses geology as "guesswork at best"?

He's the best there is precisely because he has realized that you don't need to know much to refute evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

...you don't need to know much to refute evolution.

That is so true --- a good Bible should do it.

 

[Psudopod]

How convenient is that? It just so happens that the fossils that the TofE needs to help its cause are the ones that are missing. In light of that you would think that science would tend to the "fact" that there is no record rather than engage in speculation on why there isn't. This is where the scientific version of dogma comes in. "No evidence to help our cause; explain it away."

It's not convient, becuase we'd love to have a better record on life previous around on the planet. We;ve found plenty of beautiful transitionals that are exactly what we'd predict. On one has yet found one that goes against prediction. It's not a fact that there is no record, adn given that we understand fossilization, we can say why it's rare.

Not really. The fossil record thus far has been useful for showing what creatures were alive at any given time but has no real standing for providing information on anything other than that, including evolution.

Transitional fossils show how life has diversified. We have transitionals between reptiles and birds, between reptiles and mammals... the list goes on.

I'm glad you see that much at the very least. The origin of life is, after all, a seminal question in the whole process. This doesn't make me any more comfortable with the principle of evolution but then again my main issue is not with the pedestrian idea of evolution itself. My problem is with the grossly overarching claim that the TofE must, by it's very nature, preclude God from existence. While I believe that it is perfectly plausible for an omnipotent God to create the universe in 7 actual days I cannot know, because I was not there, that 7 days for God is not millions or billions of years for mankind. I must ask myself if an eternal being with no beginning and no end must be constrained to my existence in days and years and thus measured by my understanding.

Nothing in the ToE preculdes God. It jsut doesn't comment on His existance. I have never seen any scientfic proof that God cannot exist, any more than have seen any scientific evidence that says he has to exist.

Yes and No. I have no area of disagreement with science itself in general. Where I have to take umbrage with science is where it presumes to do the very thing that it criticizes faith for. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science claims to rely only on evidence and fact but enters into speculation when it asserts the claim that because of "X" or "Y" there can be "NO GOD". That's a bit of a leap don't you think? If science wants to be respected by the faith community it should cease attacking faith. Also, there would be greater respect for the scientific community and science in general by those of faith if it were not used so consistently as a cudgel in attempting to beat faith out of society. Science is a much greater tool and benefit for society when it sticks to the facts and lays off its assumed role as the final arbiter on whether or not there is a God.

I agree with this, and fortunately it is only a very small (though sometimes vocal) minority who would disagree. I don't think there are many (any?) on this forum who would disagree with you on that point.

 

[JohnR7]

How convenient is that? It just so happens that the fossils that the TofE needs to help its cause are the ones that are missing.

It sort of makes me wonder why they keep claiming they have evidence when they can not produce any evidence.

 

[c'mon sense]

He's the best there is precisely because he has realized that you don't need to know much to refute evolution.

So dark the con of man!
"Where you there?" - that is the question every criminal should ask everyone else and walk free. What appalling reasoning!

 

[Dragar]

This evolutionist went on and on for ages about the layers of rocks and millions of years. Finally, he just said to the man, “Were you there?” The geologist was dumbfounded.

I'd be dumbfounded too. I would be stunned anyone would be stupid enough to think that was a good argument.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is so true --- a good Bible should do it.

Now if only we could find a "good" Bible. All the ones I've seen are littered with mythology, anti-intellectualism, and gaping holes in logic that one could drive a Humvee through.

We may have to accept the fact that no such item exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now if only we could find a "good" Bible.

I'd give you the one in my CF Character if I could, but you can get one, yourself.

We may have to accept the fact that no such item exists.

You have one listed in your profile.

 

[Phred]

That is so true --- a good Bible should do it.

Were you there?

 

[AV1611VET]

Were you there?

No, but I know Someone Who was.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, but I know Someone Who was.

Can you give me their phone #?