|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists acknowledge evolution makes sense | ||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
I don't know if everyone saw this on another thread. At first, I thought it was a joke by CobraSnake. Then I read more of his/her posts and realized he/she is a creationist. I asked a creationist to define the barrier for evolution (i.e. what limits 'micro' evolution from 'macro'). Here is the response (I still don't know if this is a serious response or a joke):
quote: In other words, according to creationists a bacteria may, or may not be descended from the same original created kind. I can't tell you how many creationists have lamented that evolution is a 'bacteria to man' myth. When pressed for the limits on what evolution can accomplish, they reach the same exact conclusion. Is this really the definition creationists are touting as the limits to evolution. I still think someone is yanking my chain. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM:Actually, your definition is something i've seen before from creationists. They have the same escape clause for 'baramins' (created kind=bara min) as you have for hybrids. It's hilarious because it includes the possibility of exactly what they claim as impossible (eg bacteria to man)! cheers joe meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: BRAD McFall is a bot.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Like I said, if you think you start to understand him, check yourself into a hospital immediately. Cheers Joe MEert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Well, actually if you go to the first post on this page you will see their wriggle room. Nevertheless, I agree completely. Creationists thrive on vagaries because specificity will cause them problems. In geology, no creationist is willing to tell us what strata marks the onset and end of the flood yet. Baramins will no doubt contain the same wriggle room. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Thanks for being honest, your bias shines through in the next statement.
quote: JM: This is a false dichotomy. It could be that neither of these are correct. This bias is quite common in creationist literature. Basically, the assumption is that if evolution is wrong, then a common creator is the default answer. It's a great emotional argument, but it is a very poor scientific argument.
quote: JM: Again, this is a false dichotomy since similar structures and similarties do not mean a common creator. Do the spring-wound watch and the quartz watch have a common creator (singular)? You might say 'the common creator was man', but in this case it is not singular. Indeed, another option is that each of these life forms were created by different intelligent sources over time. One creator says "Hey that looks good", uses it, and adds something else. It flies off and a new intelligent being arrives, kills all the things he/she/it does not like and uses some of the old in creating the new.
quote: JM: There is no way man can fly! The moon is unreachable. The computer has reached its limit in terms of speed and power. If a man sails to far, he will fall off the edge of the earth. Your argument is one of personal incredulity. Science does not have an answer for many things, but a non-answer does not equate to a miraculous explanation!
quote: JM: See above. There are many unsolved mysteries of science. Lack of an answer does not mean that a miracle has occurred.
quote: JM: No kidding! It will be very difficult due to the nature of the fossil record. I agree 100%.
quote: JM: Well, we can use the fossil record in terms of morphologic new addition/evolution. Eyes are one example, but I am sure others more familiar with the biologic side of things can explain more.
quote: JM: I saw that, very interesting. In my opinion, this is a good case of evolution in action. Obviously, you would disagree; however why would a common creator add this advantage to man? I have an idea of the typical creationist answer, but you seem to be approaching the subject a bit more cautiously.
quote: JM: Given that creationists had none, anything would revolutionize their taxonomy! However, as with all science new data are always welcome. Cheers Joe Meert [/B][/QUOTE]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]OK Joe, why is that a false dichotomy? Is there seriously an alternative to creation/macroevoltuion? I do know of the recent book by that chemist who presents a case for the independent genomic evolutiuon of each creature. I haven't read it but have read critical mainstream reviews of it. Tell me about it if you know how he can possibly get hemoglobin for man and cows to be independently similar. Does he propose horizontal transfer? If he's arguing physi-chemical determinism he is wrong. I work in protein design and artificial evoltuion (of all things I'm quite happy for you to believe that gene duplication/drift/natural selection can lead to proteins with new protein folds in the time available. Didn't I say that already? Please don't tell me stories of moon trips and such. What I said was that it is no more than evolutionary expectation. The public has the impression you guys know how it all happened - they really do. You don't have any evidence for the actual macroevoltuionary steps. That's my point.
[/QUOTE] JM: My point is simple. You take a lack of knowledge as an immediate need for an intelligent creator. You further assert that this creator is a singular being. There are many scenarios beside the single creator! Therefore, you have created a false dichotomy by saying it is either/or. It most certainly is not. I am sorry that you are unable to comprehend that a single intelligent creator is part of a larger subset of alternatives to evolution. Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: No, I don't think that the possibility of God is silly. Please show me where I have made such a claim. I have said that there are many other possibilities which you have not explored. While it is satisfying to rely on the bible for evidence, you must first show, that the bible is a scientific text. It is not. Your creator could have created via macroevolution. That is also an alternative possibility that many find plausible and supported by BOTH science and their Faith. In fact, that is also different from your either/or proposition. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Sure I have. You say that God created each organism in a special way. I am sure you would argue that evolution says it happened by the mechanisms cited above. Theistic evolution says God created those mechanisms and allowed them to act. Look, we can go back and forth on the semantics, but your either/or assertion is false. As for your biblical arguments, they are just that. You are trying to turn the bible into a scientific treatise. In doing so, you necessarily limit God to your interpretation of the bible. I've said this often in the past that you worship the bible as God rather than the God of the bible when you limit his power through your interpretation of the Bible. Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-15-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Well, let's use your logic. What does the book tell us about Virgins in Numbers? Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: You'll get no further discussion. My point has been made. You will no doubt interpret those verses as the commands of a loving god, but that's the key point! Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: What translation 'issues'? You mean that the English bible may misrepresent the actual text? GASP! Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Although rabbits are not ruminants they do eat their own pellets as pointed out by AIG and we would hence suspect that this was categrized as the Hebrew 'alah'. [/QUOTE] JM: I thought you were a "phded' scientist (biology part of your emphasis no doubt) and you can't distinguish between 'cud' and 'feces' Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Thanks for the info MP!
Cheers Joe Meert
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5710 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Fine, the same could be said about the words in Genesis 1 and 2. The same could be said about the words used in the Noachian flood story. I think you should have held back before posting this one Cheers Joe Meert [This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-21-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024