Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
I refer to the crimes against little children, kidnapped, raped, and then brutally murdered, their bodies discarded like yesterdays trash.

---

Ah yes - those crimes your god (who sees the sparrow fall) has the power to stop but doesn't.Of course this is not because your god can not or would not interfere with the world or free will. After all, he will strike down the occasional person in the bible for their sins, turn Lot's wife to salt for curiosity, fill nets with fish, provide a picnic for the 5000, and even splash out to keep the guests in wine at a wedding. But lift a finger to save a little child who is to be raped and murdered? Now that would be asking too much, wouldn't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Typical response from a darkened mind.

---

I wonder what you could mean by this: was mine a typical response? Perhaps, but is that not because it was a fair question?
It is, after all, in essence the very question asked by Jeremiah - "Righteous art thou, O Lord, when I plead with thee; yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper?"
And are these not the same doubts endured by the Psalmist in Psalm 73? "When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end."
Both Jeremiah and the Psalmist found answers to their doubts eventually but not after long mental struggle.Look at what you are doing, Jet, and think hard about it. Rather than trying to explain, rather than helping to enlighten minds, you are turning your back, in arrogance and smug conceit. Yet these you call darkened minds are in the same pain and confusion that Jeremiah and the Psalmist suffered. Remember also that Jesus abjured us to use our own moral judgement, (Luke 12:57 And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?)You should be ashamed of your petty, ignorant and arrogant answer to genuine doubts.So will you answer my question? Why does your God perform miracles to feed the 5000 and provide wine for a wedding, but will not intervene to save the raped and murdered child?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
By requesting an answer you assume that I know the mind of God and that I understand His purpose in all things mysterious!

​

That causes me to question if you truly are able to recognize who is petty, ignorant, and arrogant.

---

That's not implied by my question. What I am looking for is why you hold your opinions and what you make of it all.What do you say to the issue of evil. Have you thought about it? Does it trouble you that your god allows evil to flourish on this earth even though he could intervener? If not, why not?For example, you clearly think the rape and murder of children is despicable - have you never wondered why your god does not prevent it? If you have wondered, what answer did you find?

quote:

---

Originally posted by thatstretchyguy:
My answer to the question of why god doesn't take away suffering is that this would be taking away our freedom as human beings with free will. The only reason there is suffering in this world is because humans (Adam and Eve) were created with the POSSIBILITY of suffering by god, which they ACTUALIZED when they ate the forbidden fruit. When they chose to sin, the consequences were suffering. Suffering isn't punishment, it is a natural consequence of the choice to sin.

---

So even on a strict reading the ball is back in the almighty's court - why create human beings with the possibility of suffering. Especially why do so with perfect foreknowledge that the suffering will be actualized? What if Adam and Eve had not fallen - would the life of their descendents be not worth living? Would they be unfulfilled? Unhappy? Would they not know the love of God?
Presumably if there was only the possibility of suffering, there was the possibility of not suffering - why did God not so arrange it? And why should all humanity be condemned for Adam and Eve's choice?
In your scenario, why do humans and animals suffer from natural causes? Infants, too young to consciously or actively sin, can suffer in the most terrible ways from diseases and natural disasters. God may feel he cannot interfere in our causing suffering to each other without restricting free will, but he could certainly keep us from natural harm.
Why, for example, were we not created as cherubim, seraphim or angels? They live in the presence of God in heaven (where doctrine teaches there to be no suffering, though I guess that may be wrong) but they have free will: Lucifer exercised his rather dramatically. Suffering and free will do not go together for angels - in particular because they are in the immediate presence and knowledge of God and cna accept him with direct knowledge, something which is denied to human beings: we have to struggle by on faith, and on the misleading, obscure or inadequate testimony of human interlocutors, which is often misused for sinful ends.[b] [QUOTE]The reason people often equate evolution with atheism is because if life came about by chance, then there was no need for an outside creator to intervene,[/b][/QUOTE]Evolution, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with the origin of life. But even a naturalistic approach to the origin of life does not preclude the existence, or metpahysical and moral significance of a transcendent God.[b] [QUOTE]and if there is no outside creator, then there are no morals, no universal truths, no right and wrong.[/b][/QUOTE]This does not follow. It has been pointed since the time of Plato (in his "Euthyphro") that morality does not come from a personal God or Gods. If something is good only because a personal God wills it, then there is no need to worship him for goodness, because anything he does is, by definition, good. On the other hand, if you are say that there are things (the slow torture of children, say) that a personal God would never declare to be good, then there is a standard of morality which the personal God also adheres to.[b] [QUOTE]Most evolutionists have no intention of breeding such a lawless school of thought, but it often inadvertently does.[/b][/QUOTE]You say this "often" happens. Can you give some examples of evolutionary theory leading to moral relativism? I don't mean here the hijacking of Darwinism by racist groups to support their agendas - unless you can show that their morality is relativistic. Most fascist organizations have a pretty strict, if disgusting, code of moral absolutism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Creationism or Evolutionism not the only two possibilities?

​

What could be posited as an answer to origins other than the two contending philosophies which assert either that an omnipotent Creator is responsible for existence, or that existence came about through purely naturalistic means?

---

Evolutionism is not particularly concerned with the origin of life, per se, but with ways in which life comes to be as it is now. Whatever, you still you have a number of possibilities to be considered as alternatives:no creator, life emerges by naturalistic means, life develops complexity by naturalistic means;no creator, life emerges by naturalistic means, life develops complexity by intelligent intervention;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by naturalistic means;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by creator's intervention;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by intelligent intervention by other than creator;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by naturalistic means;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by creator's intervention;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by intelligent intervention by other than creator;That's 8 to be getting on with ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Creationism or Evolutionism not the only two possibilities?

​

What could be posited as an answer to origins other than the two contending philosophies which assert either that an omnipotent Creator is responsible for existence, or that existence came about through purely naturalistic means?

---

Evolutionism is not particularly concerned with the origin of life, per se, but with ways in which life comes to be as it is now. Whatever, you still you have a number of possibilities to be considered as alternatives:no creator, life emerges by naturalistic means, life develops complexity by naturalistic means;no creator, life emerges by naturalistic means, life develops complexity by intelligent intervention;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by naturalistic means;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by creator's intervention;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by intelligent intervention by other than creator;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by naturalistic means;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by creator's intervention;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by intelligent intervention by other than creator;That's 8 to be getting on with ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
If you don't believe that the physical material required for "evolutionary" or "creationistic" scenarios existed from the infinite past, then it either popped into existence without cause or the omnipotent Creator caused it, right?

​

Hmmm. So the choice is either:

​

it came into existence by a process we do not understand,
or
it came into exist by a process we do not understand directed by a being who is beyond our comprehension.

​

Seems like you want to add something incomprehensible to something incomprehensible and call it an answer. Your welcome to that, if it makes you feel better.

​

Oh yes, and why would the creator be omnipotent? Can't see the logic in that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
". . He cannot lie, be improved upon, or do anything else that is inconsistent with his nature."
--I think that he 'chooses' not to lie or do anything else inconsistent with his nature would be more accurate. Also, technically he can 'improve upon' himself. But its futile as the improvement will only be infinity + x. Do you see the problem in infinity + x?

---

And of course you and I cannot do anything inconsistent with our (fallen) natures either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
The difference is that particles are already present now, and so are evaluated in an after-the-fact manner.

---

I don't think that was what was meant. The Casimir force, and the miniature "machines" which have been driven by it, relies on particles coming into existence from ex nihilo. Exploitation of the Casimir force relies on understanding that particles can come into existence ex nihilo "before the fact" as you put it.[b] [QUOTE]Do you at least understand my point that either God is the creator, OR that something else (naturalistic) would have to be appealed to in order for existence to exist?[/b][/QUOTE]It is still not an either or - the supernatural Creator need not be the Christian God. The Judaeo-Christian attributes far more than creation to their God. Besides, you seem totally hung up on the principle of a cause - as you put it something that "has to be appealed to in order for ..."
Nothing needs to be appealed to unless one requires a cause, a requirement that seems to many unneccesary. SO why do you need this somthing that "has to be appealed to in order for ..."?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Let me get this straight. Are you saying, then, that the natural forces that can now be detected in connection with minute particles, composes the reason, or reverse-order "precedent," as to why the tonnage of materials that composes the universe came into being ex nihilo?

---

Not necessarily, but possibly. Your point, at least insofar as you expressed it in the post I replied to, was that particles are evaluated in an "after-the-fact" matter: my point was that this is not so, but that physicists can and do conduct experiments which not only predict, but require, the appearance of particles from nothing. As for the scale of these occurences, it is almost unimaginable as it appears throughout space and time.However, perhaps your new point is rather that the mass of the universe is inexplicably? Hardly, given the energy available in the Casimir effect alone. But please don't get me wrong, I am not saying we have all the answers, just suggesting that answers are conceivable and that research in this field does bear fruit.[b] [QUOTE]I like the "far more" part.[/b][/QUOTE]You should - after all, the Judaeo-Christian God is not just creator, but source of morality and much else besides.[b] [QUOTE]The Judaeo-Christian "claim" is far more than a putting forth of an unsupported "view." That's what all of the apologetical books are about.[/b][/QUOTE]I know - I have many books of apologetics in my library.[b] [QUOTE]As I've recommended in other discussions, read Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, or any others, like some of Strombel's works, and the bibliographies in these opens up libraries of supportive, legitimate data.[/b][/QUOTE]You're kidding surely? "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is a travesty of a book. I did read it and can truly say that it is enough to make one feel ashamed to have even picked it up - I found it puerile, shallow, doctrinaire and sectarian.[b] [QUOTE]Odin, Zeus, the first "Alien," or whomever one might want to imagine, really doesn't compare with the facts that back up the evidence for the validity of Christianity. [/b][/QUOTE]And your knowledge of Hinduism is presumably exhaustive enough to comment on this with authority? Or perhaps you are also familiar with the entire output of the Therevada Buddhist tradition - or perhaps the more familiar (in the west) Mahayana tradition?
Whatever, you misunderstood my point. You reject, for your own unclear reasons, a naturalistic explanation for the existence of matter. But even if you accept a supernatural explanation - which is in essence no explanation at all - the following do not follow from it: that the supernatural cause is intentional; that the supernatural cause is or was in any sense "personal"; that there is or was only one supernatural "person"; that the supernatural cause is eternal; that the supernatural cause is or was infinite; that the supernatural cause is or was omniscient; that the supernatural cause is moral; that the supernatural cause has any influence or, even means of influence, over the universe once created.[b] [QUOTE]I don't know; I guess I just have this strange quirk about me, as irrational as it is, that cause is fundamental.[/b][/QUOTE]I don't think it is irrational, but I do think there are alternatives - it is your insistence on the correctness of your admittedly irrationality prejudice, that I disagree with. You could be mistaken you know ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
What kind of sadistic, utterly cruel God would send his most wonderful, altruistic, loving creations to eternal suffering simply because they didn't believe exactly the way you say that God wants them to? What kind of wierd, twisted God would reward a serial child rapist/murderer with his heavenly reward only because he was a death row convert?

---

And surely the next question is "what kind of human being believes this kind of God is perfectly good?" I think you know the answer - a very sick one indeed.

Thanks for the reply Martin. Here are some comments ...[b] [QUOTE]Given the limited answers that we have now, I think it is unSCIENTIFIC to define science in a way that precludes the possibility of the study of nature itself leading to the conclusion that something beyond nature may have been responsible for the existence of the universe, i.e., naturalism is just as assumptively religious-based as creationism.[/b][/QUOTE]You seem to be saying that science must leave space in its models for modalities which are by definition unverifiable by science. But how is science to identify when it is appropriate to do so?The only way I can see is leaving space for that which cannot be verified, but is to be done in all cases or only whenever a verified or verifiable solution is not known?If the latter, this is simply the traditional God of the Gaps problem where a supernatural explanation stands in for current lack of knowledge.If the former, it leads to an unbridgeable inferential gap, because if one must always leave room for that which cannot be verified, one can never make an inference, even from observation, without also leaving room for an unverifiable cause for the effect.As an example of the latter, take a game of pool. When one ball strikes another I can infer that energy is transferred from one to another, and that consequently the struck ball moves. But this is an inference - there remains the possibility that no such thing happened and that the second ball was moved supernaturally and arbitrarily. How am I ever to secure the inference that is a not a supernatural event?[b] [QUOTE]Given the data regarding the person and ministry of Jesus (some of which you might be inclined to dismiss as readily as some of the apologetical information I mentioned), I have very good grounds for believing, among other things, that Jesus rose again from the dead. "If" he did, it sort of takes care of all other man-made religious traditions that have become popularized as alternatives in a largely Christ-rejecting world.[/b][/QUOTE]This argument can be paraphrased as "the evidence for Jesus is so overwhelming that I don't need to know anything about any other religion." Actually, this may well play in Peoria as a piece of polemics, but your original assertion was that no other deity compares with the facts for Jesus. You are in fact not making a comparison, which again is ok by me if you present it as what it is - a piece of sectarian rhetoric, but do not present it as comparative when you are not willing to make the comparison.You give no reason as to why one should accept your grounds for beleiving in Jesus over and above others equally deep conviction that Mohammad is the prophet of God, or in the efficacy of prayers to Ganesha.More significantly, I notice you did not reply in any way to my later point - that a supernatural explanation alone does not imply that the supernatural cause is intentional; that the supernatural cause is or was in any sense "personal"; that there is or was only one supernatural "person"; that the supernatural cause is eternal; that the supernatural cause is or was infinite; that the supernatural cause is or was omniscient; that the supernatural cause is moral; that the supernatural cause has any influence or, even means of influence, over the universe once created.Would you care to address this point?Finally, let me put it as simply as this: you appear to have a position securely anchored on a personal faith, and on certain a priori assumptions about the need for a "first cause." This is fine, but doesn't provide a basis for argument with others because you can only go so far without falling on arguments from your faith. In other words, and to be blunt, your personal faith provides no basis for discussion. Your replies are simply statements of faith, dressed up as reasoned argument.

Martin, thanks for taking the time to reply at length.Let's be clear about the disctinction we are making about Science and the supernatural. Science proceeds on what can be observed or, more accurately, on what it is conceibale to observe: if the universe was created then that creation could concievably have been observed as soon as any matter, space or time or whatever it was that was "created" was created and therefore is the subject of science. It is not that science or naturalism is based on an assumption of a self-caused system, it is the rather the position that causality is also the business of science.[b] [QUOTE]All of that goes back to assumptions about "the grand design." Neither creationists or evolutionists/naturalists would posit a supernatural force for things like the movements of pool balls.[/b][/QUOTE]Why? How does a creationist scientist identify which phenomena are to be attributed to supernatural agency?[b] [QUOTE]do naturalists know scientifically or via a priori knowledge that there was no Creator.[/b][/QUOTE]The question is not a priori assumptions, but how one identifies the universe as being created and, if the identification is made, how one identifies the properties of the creator.[b] [QUOTE]If I was to be true to your suggestions about "the comparison" issue, I'd have to spend more than a lifetime studying all of the religions of the world before I responded to the message of Christ. If I began to engage in such a strategy, some might think that I was being very rational, all-the- while, though, I'd be missing out on serving the Master.[/b][/QUOTE]You know something? I agree with you. Think of it this way: when I fell in love with the girl who is now my dear wife, I didn't embark on a spree of "comparison shopping" to be sure of it. Belief in God is very like being in love - actually I think it is the nearest comparison one can make to religious belief in human experience. But it is not objective - and your suggestion that Christ excels "in comparison" is simply wrong if you cannot make a true comparison. I love my wife dearly and she fills my heart with fathomless joy by herself, in herself and through herself - not "greater joy in comparison to Cindy Crawford."[b] [QUOTE]Now, because I realize that that gives you fodder for waxing purely logical with me[/b][/QUOTE]So, you see, I wasn't point-scoring, but trying to indicate that you cannot extrapolate from your love of Christ to an objective logical constructed interpretation that others can or should orient theories, beliefs or actions around. Apologetics, indeed, try to bridge this chasm between our personal experience of God and the observed reality of the world in an objective way: but ultimately it is love. I can try to explain to someone why I love my wife - her beauty, grace, intelligence, kindness, care for others - yet no doubt they could point to someone more objectively beautiful, more intelligent, who has performed more selfless acts, etc. Yet I could not love them in the same way. Apologetics cannot persuade one to love - and love reduced to a equation is no love at all.