Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To the creationists - the tough question
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 78 (1535)
01-03-2002 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Val
01-03-2002 10:32 AM


I do believe that saying if there is a God that evolution is wrong, and if there isn't then evolution is right, wouldn't really be a valid assertion. Though I would have to say that if God used Evolution (with a capital 'E') to bring us about, I would have to conclude, that God isn't very smart, he didn't know what he wanted.
-------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Val, posted 01-03-2002 10:32 AM Val has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 78 (1536)
01-03-2002 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
01-03-2002 11:07 AM


I've know this argument, but I would have to wonder, how even is it possible to have it any other way. Change from least complex to most complex, is the simplest way to put the origin of life and Evolution. How else could anyone ever conceive of an idea to bring us about with no intelligence, being no God, and no designer, to have some support by scientific evidence. (keep in mind, if there is no God then todays scientific 'rules' or laws must be applied to any situation at any time, time has always existed, equalling up to 'eternity' and starting with nothing because there was no creation, having no creator)
-------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 01-03-2002 11:07 AM Percy has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 78 (1537)
01-03-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mark24
01-03-2002 11:09 AM


"He asked "What sort of evidence would you find convincing enough to sway you into believing that organic evolution was and is real?"
--Define evolution? Is this evolution as to micro-evolution? Macro-evolution? Speciation, simple change, evolution with a lowercase 'e'? Or is it Evolution with a capital 'E', as I see as a good analogy. Define this evolution you wan't us to prove anything of?
"I therefore ask, without reference to God, prove evolution never happened"
--A definition is needed to conceive an answer.
-------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mark24, posted 01-03-2002 11:09 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 01-04-2002 9:15 AM TrueCreation has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 20 of 78 (1545)
01-04-2002 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by TrueCreation
01-03-2002 10:09 PM


Fair enough, Moose?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 01-03-2002 10:09 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-04-2002 8:07 PM mark24 has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 21 of 78 (1570)
01-04-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by mark24
01-04-2002 9:15 AM


quote:
TrueCreation: Define evolution? Is this evolution as to micro-evolution? Macro-evolution? Speciation, simple change, evolution with a lowercase 'e'? Or is it Evolution with a capital 'E', as I see as a good analogy. Define this evolution you wan't us to prove anything of?
To me, evolution is evolution. Micro-evolution is evolution over a short time period. Macro-evolution is evolution over a longer time period.
Elsewhere I have pointed out that the 1)Fact of evolution, and 2)Theory of evolution are two seperate things.
What I am trying to deal with here is the fact of evolution; that it happened whether by the mechanisms of the theory of evolution, or through devine creation and/or guidence.
My defination of evolution is that the nature of the populations of the earth has changed down through time. As time passes, some species go extinct, while other new species appear.
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 01-04-2002 9:15 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 01-05-2002 9:11 AM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 01-07-2002 9:04 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 46 by Warren, posted 02-08-2002 5:25 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 22 of 78 (1576)
01-04-2002 11:44 PM


Restating the topic:
To the creationists - the tough question
I can't over emphasize my serious intent of using that title. I do recognize that it is indeed a tough question, for a creationist (anti-evolutionist) to supply an honest answer.
Respectfully,
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-04-2002]

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 23 of 78 (1582)
01-05-2002 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
01-04-2002 8:07 PM


I thought Creationists didn't have a problem with evolution per se, just with evolution between kinds. Within this group there may be two sub-categories, one holding that change within a kind draws only upon variation already present within the genome, the other accepting the additional possibility of mutation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-04-2002 8:07 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-05-2002 2:09 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 42 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 9:25 AM Percy has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 24 of 78 (1585)
01-05-2002 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
01-05-2002 9:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
I thought Creationists didn't have a problem with evolution per se, just with evolution between kinds.
--Percy

As I see it, the geologic record has clearly shown a progression of "kinds" as having appeared and gone extinct, as time has passed. This is the "fact" of evolution.
This, in itself, makes no comment on why and how the new appearances happened. The cause behind the fact of evolution could be God's creation process, the processes of the theory of evolution, or some combination of the two.
I think it is possible for a creationist to accept this fact of evolution without accepting the theory of evolution.
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
Added by edit 1/5/02, c. 4:00pm EST:
It seems pointless to debate the mechanisms of the theory of evolution (TOE), if the fact of evolution is not first accepted.
Are the creationists, in taking part in the debate over the TOE, in effect conceding the "fact of evolution" as being true?
Regards,
Still Moose after all these years
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-05-2002]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 01-05-2002 9:11 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by TrueCreation, posted 01-07-2002 9:17 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 39 by Warren, posted 02-05-2002 12:07 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 78 (1677)
01-07-2002 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
01-04-2002 8:07 PM


"To me, evolution is evolution. Micro-evolution is evolution over a short time period. Macro-evolution is evolution over a longer time period."
--I would have to say that here is your problem, Micro evolution isn't evolution over any period of time, neither is macro evolution, it is the amount of change, in which all we see today in our micro evolution is a devolving process, we are all slowely getting worse, loosing things, not gaining, to say that all of the dogs of the world have a common ancestor and it is a dog is revolving around ;micro evoution' or variation of kinds into species. The chuawa probley was not here 500 years ago, it is on the shallow end of the gene pool, any more change to that poor thing and it will mean bad news, and possibly extinction, as too is the cheetah. To say that the Dog and say iguana, or the horse are related, or as kent hovind puts it, related to the bananna, that is taking the leap of faith into macro-evolution.
"Elsewhere I have pointed out that the 1)Fact of evolution, and 2)Theory of evolution are two seperate things."
--I havent been able to locate this.
"What I am trying to deal with here is the fact of evolution; that it happened whether by the mechanisms of the theory of evolution, or through devine creation and/or guidence."
--Then we have no argument, I would have to say that evolution happens, but not to the macro scale as you so believe.
"My defination of evolution is that the nature of the populations of the earth has changed down through time. As time passes, some species go extinct, while other new species appear."
--Then there is no argument, you are right, 'species' change, and variate, all throughout time....about 6000 years. And some species go extinct and other new 'species' are produced by variation of their kind.
-----------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-04-2002 8:07 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 02-04-2002 12:24 PM TrueCreation has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 78 (1678)
01-07-2002 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Minnemooseus
01-05-2002 2:09 PM


"As I see it, the geologic record has clearly shown a progression of "kinds" as having appeared and gone extinct, as time has passed. This is the "fact" of evolution."
--You should stand to be corrected, this is not the fact of evolution, facts cannot be interperetted other than its 'factual' presentation. The geologic record doesn't clearly show a progression of kinds that have appeared and gone extinct as time has passed as fact, it is able to be vastly interpereted. The 'fact' of evolution is the change (evolution means change) of an organism in some way, which we see all the time.
"This, in itself, makes no comment on why and how the new appearances happened. The cause behind the fact of evolution could be God's creation process, the processes of the theory of evolution, or some combination of the two."
--There is always the possibility, but I could equally as you would beleive that the evidence points clearly to either a young earth, old earth, no flood, a flood, etc. And I see when I look at geology without a doubt that there was a massive flood and I think that the evidence is overwhelming of the age of the earth. Unfortunately, the Dating methods topic is not being continued by another evolutionist to continue discussion with me.
"I think it is possible for a creationist to accept this fact of evolution without accepting the theory of evolution."
--I already have accepted the 'fact' part of evolution. As I have shown throughout my debates and discussions.
---------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-05-2002 2:09 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 78 (1689)
01-08-2002 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Val
01-02-2002 11:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Val:
Retro
There are many contradictions in the bible to how to evolutionary concepts.Adam and Eve is one for instance.They were not conceived from apes,in fact one was created from another.
Val

The ToE does not claim that humans were "conceived from apes", so this is a false representation of evolution. The ToE claims that apes and humans had a common ancestor, and this is the reason we see so much morphological, social, and (especially) genetic similarities betweenhumans and other primates.
I suggest that you really cannot point to the Bible story of Adam and Eve and say "See? That's evidence which falsifies science!"
You are free to believe Bible stories, but your belief in Bible stories as reality has no effect on Biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Val, posted 01-02-2002 11:20 AM Val has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 28 of 78 (1900)
01-11-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RetroCrono
01-01-2002 8:58 AM


quote:
e.g. the claim that animals couldn't be found in the fossil records before men, because there was no death before sin. Read "Romans 5:12", "Romans 4:13" and "I Corinthians 15:22". It is obvious to me that it is not referring to animals, otherwise it just sounds silly. There's other claims that I felt they've also falsified. I find it hard to believe the 6 days of creation as 6 man days and not 6 God days. I've heard all the creation arguments for why it must be taken literally but to me it makes no sense, it doesn't seem to work, unless you take it as 6 ages the Bible doesn't contradict itself.
I think you partially erected a strawman, as I don’t think YEC Christians including myself base the belief of sin = death merely on the verses you cited. When God finished after 6 days, he declared everything was very good (Gen 1:31). The actual Hebrew word used is perfection. What it boils down to is your statement that I find it hard to believe the 6 days of creation as 6 man days and not 6 God days. Do you find this hard to believe because of what modern day scientists say, or because of some other reason? I strongly suspect, correct me if I’m wrong, that it’s the former (especially since you later equated 6 Ages to congruency with the big bang). If the later, then how do 6 literal days in Genesis contradict other portions of the Bible?
quote:
It also helped me understand a few problems with evolution, like why the fossil record goes from simple to complex life forms,
RetroCrono, this is a long-since disproven myth still promoted by many evolutionists. Many informed evolutionists no longer make this false claim:
"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence. - N.D. Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet
I believe that our failure to find any clear vector of fitfully accumulating progressrepresents our greatest dilemma for a study of pattern in life’s history — S.J. Gould, ‘The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology’, Paleobiology, Vol 11, No 1, 1985, p 3
quote:
I now know the Bible is the only real truth so that's what I'm sticking to. :-)
We are in strong agreement here!
Ps 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RetroCrono, posted 01-01-2002 8:58 AM RetroCrono has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 01-11-2002 1:08 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 29 of 78 (1911)
01-11-2002 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 12:04 PM


Your point about the fossil record is worth emphasizing again. The Newell and Gould quotes warn against the mistake of interpreting the fossil history in the geologic column as a record of progress, but it is an easy trap to fall into, more so for laypeople I expect than scientists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 12:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by gene90, posted 01-13-2002 11:38 PM Percy has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 30 of 78 (2036)
01-13-2002 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
01-11-2002 1:08 PM


"Progress" is poor diction because it implies an anthropocentric view of all life on Earth. Evolutionary change is toward better fitness, not necessarily towards humanoid body types and biochemistry. But the inevitable conclusion from the geologic column is that organisms have changed over the history of life on Earth, and that we are a recent product of that change.
What fossils do we find in precambrian rocks? Bacteria and some cnidarian-like and poriferan-like organisms. Find a human fossil in there. Or a fruit tree. If not, a fish would do.
It becomes obvious why the Bible is automatically considered inerrant and any evidence contradictory to the Bible is immediately discarded: Creationism would not survive being exposed to real evidence.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 01-11-2002 1:08 PM Percy has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 78 (2460)
01-19-2002 3:16 AM


No one want's to play with me...
-------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with....*ouch! I cut myself*

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024