Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 96 (79043)
01-17-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by TruthDetector
01-17-2004 11:04 AM


Re: Question
What do you mean by "man"? Different people use the word "human" to mean different things, depending on the context. Sometimes "human" means any individual belonging to the same family, so the Australopithecines would be considered "human". Sometimes "human" refers to the genus Homo, which would include H. habilis but not the Australopithecines. Sometimes "human" means just H. sapiens.
And what, in your mind, is the difference between "man" and "caveman"? Just what is "caveman"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 11:04 AM TruthDetector has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 32 of 96 (79069)
01-17-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by TruthDetector
01-17-2004 11:04 AM


Duration of H. sapiens
Chiroptera has good questions for you since you are asking rather imprecise questions.
However, if you mean Homo sapiens and subspecies (like the archaic form). Then about 200,000 years is the answer. Very recently some excellent finds of 160 kyr old specimens were found.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 11:04 AM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 6:33 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Soracilla
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 96 (79075)
01-17-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-17-2004 9:50 AM


Re: Interesting...
Thanks Stephen for the complement. I learned to identify the logical errors from taking a logic class. We went through many informal fallacies (or sophisms) as well as formal fallacies, and learned to create arguments in different forms (i.e., syllogisms). As for a source, I am at a loss; our instructor used his own text and I do not believe he has had it published yet (if he has I would not know where to find it). About volunteering for judging, I would enjoy doing so, yet I am quite swamped in the next few weeks. But I'll contact you when I'm available, naturally. Thanks, Soracilla.

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-17-2004 9:50 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 01-18-2004 10:26 AM Soracilla has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 96 (79203)
01-18-2004 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by TruthDetector
01-17-2004 11:04 AM


Re: Question
Truthdetector,
Man, the species we know today as Homo sapiens, has probably been on earth for about 6000 years. The most scientifically plausible description of this species identifies us as a symbiotic union of two life forms. One is called a "soul." This part weighs something less than an ounce, but is composed of some sort of dark matter, material (to satisfy the materialistic naturalists) that has mass but interacts with electro-magnetic material only through quantum effects and/or some other, as yet unknown, mechanism. The other life form in this symbiotic union is a primate. This union is modelled in purely electro-magnetic material by lichens, which probably exist to help us understand our nature. That is, the fungi part of lichens cannot use light (that is, electromagnetic light) to generate life or energy, but has to be saprophytic on dead or dying stuff. It functions to provide water and nutrients to a photosynthetic component, that "sees the light" and turns that light into life, if the fungal part provides water and nutrients. Thus, if our primate self bathes our dark matter selves in "the water of the word" and feeds the soul properly, the soul is able to take spiritual (dark energy) light, and turn it into electro-magnetic "life," that is, a lively primate. The soul-less human, called zombies, return to becoming "naked apes." They are able to survive for a while, feeding on dead stuff (TV, the theory of evolution, for example) but apparently are less able to reproduce. The photosynthetic part of lichens, however, can live quite well without the body in nutrient-rich water, near water-falls for example. And the soul can live without the body, and does when it's environment is pure light and nutrient-rich word. Souls returning from NDE's describe these environments for us.
This view of man fits the scientific evidence best, and is not inconsistent with many spiritually based visions. But it remains true that "if any man thinks he knows something, he doesn't yet know anything as he ought to."
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TruthDetector, posted 01-17-2004 11:04 AM TruthDetector has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 01-18-2004 4:06 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 96 (79208)
01-18-2004 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Loudmouth
01-16-2004 6:32 PM


Re: Both Sides
Loudmouth,
Thank you for your well-thought out response. Gave me many things to think about! I hope the results of my deliberations will be useful to you.
In science, we look for a measureable physical/chemical mechanisms that can be measured and are consistent with the data. Saying "God created the universe" falls short of this requirement.
Well, in science as I have known it so far (and there's a thread called "the best scientific method" in the "Is it science?" forum, where I elaborate on this), we look for measurable physical/chemical patterns that can be deduced from a given hypothesis, and which are confirmed in data. Thus, Thomas tested the hypothesis that Yeshua rose from the dead by putting his physical hand into the physical wounds of the risen Christ. As many have pointed out since, this experiment did not exclude the hypothesis that Yeshua faked His death on the cross, but it was enough to persuade Thomas so that he then chose to live the rest of his life serving the vision of Yeshua, and to die a martyr on His behalf.
Thus, as long as any hypothesis makes predictions that can be tested in the measurable physico-chemical world, it's fair scientific game.
If you could show HOW God created the universe and illustrate the ongoing mechanism in physical/chemical units, then you would have a scientific theory.
But this requirement would exclude Newton's theory of gravity, because he had no idea how gravity drew things together. The notion of science as a patient process of discovery allows us to hypothesize almost anything, as long as we can make predictions about what we can measure. Our hope is that constantly making and testing such predictions will lead us into the sort of understanding you are hoping to see.
This is an arbitrary postulation, a guess with no evidenciary support.
The postulation of a creator is not arbitrary, because the creation looks created, we create life forms (through genetic engineering and artificial selection) and see no reason why someone else could not be out there doing the same, most surviving human societies have found it useful to suppose that such a Creator was out there to be honored and dealt with, many persons report conversations with such a Creator, a book reporting such conversations strikes a chord in so many people that it is the most popular book ever written....I could go on for quite a while, even though the existence of one such reason is proof that the postulate is not arbitrary.
As to evidenciary support, the list is even longer. If this postulate is true, then we predict that prayers will have an effect. This has been demonstrated even in double-blind experiments which, given the putative nature of prayer, is somewhat surprising, and is evidence of grace from some Person, as we postulate the Creator to be. In studies of prayer done as prayer is supposed to be done, it has an even greater effect. Ivan Panin's Gematria studies, Del Washburn's Theomatics, the Bible Code studies, the NDE's, the research going on at Duke now....Of course, as the philosophers of science have proved for half a century now, any and all evidence supporting any hypothesis can be explained away by a diligent rationalizer. This can be done without touching in the least the Bayesian estimate of the objective plausibility of the hypothesis. The resulting skepticism is purely subjective, which is what rationalizing is for--a defense of a subjectively held position. Intellectual suicide.
we never sense the machinations of a supernatural entity. Could a deity exist? Maybe. Will science ever find one? Probably not, and the chances are shrinking every day.
You will never see a star wobble with a microscope, you need a telescope. You will never see God with a machine, you need a "seeing eye." How do you get a "seeing eye?" He gives specific instructions, (as it is reasonable a Creator could and might do) in the Bible. Follow the instructions ("the materials and methods" of this scientific document), and, if your experience is like mine, you get the eye and you see all sorts of God-stuff.
I think even the most ardent fundamentalist christian can agree with this statement: "God did not write the Bible." Saying "God inspired the writings of the Biblical Authors" is probably a closer approximation to the belief held by most christians.
Let us deal here with the human condition, as reported over the centuries, even up to the present. Solomon could only find one sane man in a thousand. The Psalmist reported that "in my haste, I said that all men are liars." Diogenes looked unsuccessfully his whole life for an honest man. Thomas Kuhn, more recently, reported from the history of science that nearly all scientists were merely "defenders of the faith," busy maintaining the intellectual status quo and resisting the efforts of those seeking the truth at the expense of contemporary paradigms. Yeshua said that "narrow is the gate (to truth), and few are they that find it." Christian theologians conclude that we are all born in original sin, some sort of addiction to lies and evil.
So, we have to be careful who we listen to.
Now, the original hypothesis says that there is this Creator, and He "wrote" or authored the Bible. Inspired, true, but actually dictated to faithful secretaries, what is written there. It "cannot be broken." according to Yeshua. This book, the Bible has a lot to say about who can be trusted. Christians, those that say of themselves "I am of Christ." are specifically excluded. "Anyone who says that they know God, but do not keep His commandments, is a liar. The truth is not in them."
I know not a single person in this fair world who calls themselves a Christian, and has any idea what the commandments are, how many there are, or how they ought to be kept. This is especially true of fundamentalist Christians. Those I have asked have always referred back to "the Ten Commandments," what Yeshua calls a part of the "Law and the Prophets." But, few could accurately tell what these were, and none have known how it is written in Scripture we are specifically commanded to obey them. Trust me that putting a granite monument up in the court house is not written!
So, your refering to "Christians" as some sort of authority is misguided. They, of all peoples on earth, can not be trusted.
But how do we determine what is inspired and what is directly conveyed? How do we separate the relation of a story through allegory and the relation of a story through actual events? How do we trust the fallibility of man to transmit an infallible message?
Do what the materials and methods say, and see what you get. The Bible is quite clear that the first ingredient needed to understand the Bible itself, and creation in particular, is a hearing ear, and a heart (courage) to listen to the voice of God, Himself. Without hearing the voice of God, "all that proceeds out of the mouth of God," you cannot get faith ("faith comes from hearing the words of God as these are spoken from His mouth"). And, "whatever is not from faith is sin" or a lie. Then do your science on what you (seem) to be hearing.
As to testing the Creator through tithing, I have tried that and it didn't work. But that wasn't the reason I tithed, I did it because it made me feel part of the christian community. Anecdotal evidence may show a connection, but you would be hard pressed to find a double-blind study that illustrates a tie between tithing and wish granting. For instance, do you think Steve Forbes or Bill Gates tithe? They seem pretty blessed. Anecdotal evidence is fun, but ultimately useless.
If you tithed, but not to test God, you didn't follow the protocol's instructions. Then, when the windows of heaven opened, and you felt a part of the christian community, you didn't realize you were getting the result predicted. Bill Gates? "It is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, then it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." What do you estimate is the probability that, if Bill Gates were told to sell everything he had, and give all the dollars to the poor, in order to come and live with some homeless guy and learn from him, that he would do it? He probably has the lowest chance of going to heaven of anyone in history. So, it does not appear that the windows of heaven have opened for Bill Gates. But, I could be wrong.
The promise is that the windows of heaven will open, and that the devourer will be rebuked. Wish granting? God forbid! I want my joy complete, not my almost always foolish wishes granted! Been there, done that, do not want to go back! Rather be happy, joyful, keen on life.
The Creator seems to bless non-christians such as Hindus in India and Confuscians and Buddhists in China. Believing in the Christian God does not explain population booms in those countries,
Maybe, maybe not. I understand that the population boom world-wide began when missionaries, especially medical messionaries from biblically based countries, began exporting wisdom relating to health that had been sought out and found in these countries. Moreover, the God Jehovah as presented in the Bible requires humility, not some religious position, for blessing and salvation. "He has told you, oh man, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your god." Your god, whoever or whatever that may be. The standard Christian position misrepresents this, as, according to the Bible, it is the job of Christians to do. Remember, Christians are liars.
Anecdotal without reference to a mechanism. This is important. For instance, cancer rates can be correlated to the proximity to power lines. However, without a mechanism by which high voltage and EMF can cause cancer the relationship can not be drawn.
But with that correlation in hand, you'd be very foolish to live under power lines.
Anecdotal evidence is fun, but ultimately useless
Too strong, in my opinion. Weak is not useless. It can pile up, to carry the day.
Where did you show that evolution was implausible? I must have missed it. Maybe you were referencing a previous post? But just a question for you about "breeding out evolutionists". If evolutionists were breed out and every scientific book was lost, could the theory be rediscovered? I would say yes. If all christians were breed out and the Bible lost, could the Christian Creator be rediscovered? No. It exists as a belief system, not something that was discovered through scientific inquiry into the natural world. Creationism is the propagation of ideas while evolutionary theory is the best explanation of physical observations. Oh, and the other scientific theories could be rediscovered as well, such as Gravity, Quantum Mechanics, Fluid Dynamics, etc. Why? Because they are based on observation and are not dependent on a faith system.
Natural selection and random mutation production of useful genes are implausible when there is evidence for strong willed and powerful agents that will engage in artificial selection and genetic engineering. Hence, evolution is implausible. It is quite hard, statistically, to prove a random effect.
But, if creation is true, then the Creator would revive lost understanding. That's why, apparently, the Bible has perservered so well.
But, I don't think evolutionary theory will disappear soon, even though evolutionists as a group are a sink population. The disease spreads to the trickle of rebellious offspring of creationists, that use their free will to reject their parents' teachings. Of course, as creationists get purerer and purer in their theology, they will raise their children more and more "the way they should go." diminishing the trickle.
Thanks for the stimulating questions.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Loudmouth, posted 01-16-2004 6:32 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 36 of 96 (79211)
01-18-2004 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Soracilla
01-17-2004 3:10 PM


Re: Interesting...
Soracilla
Before you go patting yourself on the back could you please deal with the logical error pointed out in post # 28?

"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Soracilla, posted 01-17-2004 3:10 PM Soracilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 2:46 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 38 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 2:46 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 47 by Soracilla, posted 01-19-2004 12:05 AM sidelined has not replied

  
TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 96 (79244)
01-18-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by sidelined
01-18-2004 10:26 AM


Re: Interesting...
I'm sorry! O forgive me! I meant H. SAPIENS. How long do most scientists believe H. SAPIENS have been on earth? Because anyone who believes Genises and if scientists agree with 6000 year H. SAPIEN, should believe that the earth is also 6000. So how long?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 01-18-2004 10:26 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by sidelined, posted 01-18-2004 3:40 PM TruthDetector has replied

  
TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 96 (79245)
01-18-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by sidelined
01-18-2004 10:26 AM


[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-18-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 01-18-2004 10:26 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2004 2:51 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 96 (79248)
01-18-2004 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by TruthDetector
01-18-2004 2:46 PM


Answered already
I already gave you the answer. And we have firm evidence for it. So the 6,000 year figure is wrong.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 2:46 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 40 of 96 (79256)
01-18-2004 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by TruthDetector
01-18-2004 2:46 PM


Re: Interesting...
TruthDetector
Please hit the reply button located at the bottom of the post you are responding to. I believe you wished to respond to Stephan and not myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 2:46 PM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 4:06 PM sidelined has not replied

  
TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 96 (79258)
01-18-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sidelined
01-18-2004 3:40 PM


ok sorry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sidelined, posted 01-18-2004 3:40 PM sidelined has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 96 (79259)
01-18-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-18-2004 8:15 AM


The soul-less human, called zombies, return to becoming "naked apes." They are able to survive for a while, feeding on dead stuff (TV, the theory of evolution, for example) but apparently are less able to reproduce.
Can you prove to me that you're not a zombie every second Tuesday? If not, how do you know who the zombies are? Isn't this just a ridiculous, unfalsifiable dodge so that you can say "well, you disagree with me,but it doesn't matter because you're a zombie."
Anyway, it's not born out by the data. Everybody knows that, in America at least, it the people who sit and do nothing but watch TV in trailer parks that are having the most kids.
This view of man fits the scientific evidence best
I guess I don't see how, since your conclusions about souls and zombies are obviously wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-18-2004 8:15 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
TruthDetector
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 96 (79288)
01-18-2004 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NosyNed
01-17-2004 2:14 PM


Re: Duration of H. sapiens
Yes, but what method are they using to date the specimen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2004 2:14 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Abshalom, posted 01-18-2004 7:23 PM TruthDetector has not replied
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2004 7:45 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 96 (79309)
01-18-2004 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by TruthDetector
01-18-2004 6:33 PM


Method of Dating Specimens in Genesis
Dear Truth Detector:
One of the more arcane methods used to date the handful of specimens who were fortunate enough to survive Noah's Flood is to count the tree rings in the huge gopher wood beams that Ron Wyatt found on Mt. Ararat.
Apparently, Ron discovered that the largest of the beams used in the super structure revealed through their growth rings to be in excess of two thousand years old, kind of like the giant redwoods of California.
Mr. Wyatt added two thousand to his 2350 BCE date for the Flood, to arrive at 4350 BCE as the most recent possible date of Creation of homo sapiens. Since this date did not coincide with the date generally acceptable to his pro-Creationist collegues, he apparently neglected to include this information in his subsequent writings.
Literalists are eagerly awaiting the release of a study that is intended to prove that gopherwood trees reflected two sets of growth rings for each year unlike other species. The research is still incomplete, but should be available for publication in the near future, as soon as geneticists are able to clone gopherwood trees using the DNA from the beams Wyatt found on Ararat.
Film on Mysteries of Genesis, TLN, at 10:00
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-18-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 6:33 PM TruthDetector has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 01-18-2004 8:25 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 45 of 96 (79311)
01-18-2004 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by TruthDetector
01-18-2004 6:33 PM


Re: Duration of H. sapiens
A couple of pop articles claim carbon dating was used which is obviously wrong. This site is not the original paper but give more detail.
from: http://www.berkeley.edu/.../releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml
quote:
The sediments and volcanic rock in which the fossils were found were dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years by a combination of two methods. The argon/argon method was used by colleagues in the Berkeley Geochronology Center, led by Paul R. Renne, a UC Berkeley adjunct professor of geology. WoldeGabriel of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Bill Hart of Miami University in Ohio used the chemistry of the volcanic layers to correlate the dated layers.
You can take any disagreement with dating to the correct forum not this one. Since this has been covered in great detail you should read up before posting refuted AIG ideas. K?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TruthDetector, posted 01-18-2004 6:33 PM TruthDetector has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024