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

[QUOTE][b]Nothing could convince me that evoulution happened.[/QUOTE][/b]Do you realize that you are admitting that you would still stand by Creationism even if it were wrong? Further do you realize that
you have admitted that you are not at all interested with deciding if Creationism really happened, that you cling to the position that it did without question? Finally, do you agree that "Creation Science" is not science?Your startling honesty is exactly what we want to hear. Thank you!

[QUOTE][b]nothing you say will convince me of evolution.[/QUOTE][/b]In that case, can you really call your views "rational"? Are you being honest and fair to yourself? One more thing: do you think this is an acceptable attitude to do science? [QUOTE][b]The chimps was the ones in the ape-kind that happened to mutate or combine genes so that they became more similar to us[/QUOTE][/b]We have a 98% DNA match to chimps. You have posed two possible explanations (1) They suddenly mutated 98% of their DNA to match ours (2) they 'combined' genes (mated) with us or amongst themselves to look like us.In a murder case where a DNA match was found, do you think either of those explanations would not be laughed at? What is the probability that they would 'just happen' to have a 98% match? Some Creationists like to attempt probability arguments against evolution but this one blows them all completely away.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-23-2002]

Correct, Octopice.These probability arguments are silly. I can conclude that Zauruz does not exist.If an average man produces 3,650,000,000 sperm in one lifetime, and an average woman produces 360 ova in her lifeftime, the probability of any one of us being conceived is 1:1,314,000,000,000. And that does not count the improbability of our parents being paired. That alone could be as improbable as one in three billion. But then we have to factor in the improbability of BOTH of our parents being conceived, and our grandparents, etc., the probability of THEM being pared up, and suddenly even the most extreme abiogenesis probability calculations become moot. These insanely large numbers would have to go back generation upon generation for us to find out just how improbable our birth was, even given the existance of our species.Thus by Zauruz's logic, he does not exist.

[QUOTE][b]then I think that that would supply one of the main reasons why otherwise intelligent people would be so susceptible to falling headlong into the support structure of a theory (naturalism) that the facts have failed.[/QUOTE][/b]You consider "naturalism" a theory?!

You believe that naturalism is a religion? Then that would make science a religion as well wouldn't it? Hence, little point in debating you.But the examples you asked for are all problems for reasons that are quite apparent. Not all dinosaurs of the Brachiosaur family are represented. Beetle fossils don't preserve fine details like tubes or noxious chemicals. Flakes of bone in woodpecker skulls are so small they are not likely to be well represented in the fossil catalog.We can speculate about how those features could evolve but I think you are deliberately choosing examples that you know would not be likely to be represented in the fossil record.I have one more bone to pick with you. You are not well informed of bombardier beetles, repeating an error of Dr. Gish. There is no inhibitor--the two do not explode when mixed. Gish was first corrected in 1978 but kept repeating the mistake (because it makes his argument a little more impressive).By the way, I have already found a scenario for gradual evolution of this "design feature".

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 07-02-2002]

[QUOTE][b]3--Assumptive Claims extend exclusively from supernaturalist or metaphysical philosophy and attempt to harmonize empirical science and extrapolative rationale details with the favored philosophy.[/QUOTE][/b]Replace "favored philosophy" with "observation" and you'll be much closer to the truth. If we notice the nested hierarchy of the fossil record that we have evolution, we can then look for mechanisms to explain it. The logical mechanism is microevolution, and so far no 'barrier' to it has been found. [QUOTE][b]An example of such an assumptive claim is that "The mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution."[/QUOTE][/b]Your definition of science must be different from that of everyone else. Cell Theory posits that all living things on Earth are composed of individual cells, it is based upon observation. However, this what you would call a non-scientific assumptive claim because it is extrapolating data, yet we have not yet found a lifeform on Earth that is not composed of at least one cell. Do you also think that Cell Theory is pushing some kind of philosophy, or is otherwise pseudoscience?We measure gravity on Earth and Newton composed some formulae that roughly predict its phenomena. Yet we have not measured gravitational forces in other parts of the Galaxy. Wouldn't it be another one of your "assumptive claims" to posit that gravity even exists elsewhere in the universe? Wouldn't it be the same to state that even such a remainder of the universe even exists?How about Atomic Theory? Early chemists conduct a few empirical tests on Earth and then the scientific community extrapolates it to cover the entire observable universe. The grandaddy of all the "assumptive claims"! But is it wrong? Is it science? [QUOTE][b]Models (such as evolutionism and creationism) have
been constructed to harmonize inherently metaphysical[/QUOTE][/b]Evolution can work entirely within natural means, therefore it is not metaphysical, but physical. [QUOTE][b]with empirical science via extrapolative methodologies, but no matter how persuasive such theories may be to an affected group,
the validity of the philosophies represented by assumptive claims
cannot be irrefutably verified (as empirical science details
always are); they are ultimately matters of individual faith. [/QUOTE][/b]The quote above can cover any extrapolation, can it not? Including Cell Theory, the Theory of Gravity, and Atomic Theory? The fact is that "extrapolative methodology" is a part of science. The problem with evolution is that you are inherently biased against it. [QUOTE][b]Therefore, definitions of "science" that favor one such
supernaturalist or metaphysical philosophy over another represents
an irrational bias.[/QUOTE][/b]We're not favoring any 'supernaturalist' or 'metaphysical' 'philosophy' here, but I do see an obvious bias.Now, if science embraces naturalism, if naturalism is a religion, doesn't that mean that you either (1) have not thought out your logic to its ultimate end or (2) consider science a religion?

[QUOTE][b]OK. Assumptive Claims, such as "In the beginning God created . . . on the sixth day . . . the land animals" (corroborated by the fossil record's lack of "transitional forms")[/QUOTE][/b]And refuted by the observation that the order in Genesis is not present in the fossil record. The earliest evidences of birds are found in the Triassic. The fish go much further back than that. Fruiting plants are fairly recent, not the oldest life on Earth.Also you admitted that we have "uncles" and "cousins" of transitional forms. Why is that, if there is no macroevolution? You have acknowledged that a whole set of transitionals (brachiosaurs, beetles, and woodpeckers) are not likely to be found. Now extend that to cover most of the fossil record. [QUOTE][b]If we notice the nested hierarchy of the fossil record (including upright logs with bluntly terminated root ends, extending through layers of strata that supposedly represent millions of years each, etc.)[/QUOTE][/b]You've overlooked something patently obvious, roots grow "in the ground". What is the colloquial term for past sediments that often represent millions of years each? "The Ground". If I fall down a well that terminates in Cretaceous sediments, does that make me a contemporary of the dinosaurs? Does it mean that eighty feet of Cretaceous sediment was catastrophically deposited around me? No.Now, if a tree is standing on a steep hillside and a rainstorm causes a landslide of prior-existing sediments millions of years old, does that mean that the whole world is underwater? No, that's another unfounded assumption. And a terrible assumption to make, to say that because you have some vertical petrified logs the whole world was underwater, especially when that "flood" was discontinuous (see the debate between TB and others regarding 'multiple surges') and there is no global flood debris layer. [QUOTE][b]we see that we have an increasing ability to escape from the Flood, depending on the complexity of the creature.[/QUOTE][/b]Ability to escape has nothing to do with "complexity".If a T. rex can sprint at 30 mph, I think it could find shelter before I did. That would put the dinosaur layer above the layer I would be in. Of course, mountain goats would already have the high ground so they would appear to be contemporaries with the dinosaur. Where is that evidence?By the way, what in the world does this have to do with "complexity"? How do you define "complexity" anyway?You do recognize, of course, that more complexity often has nothing to do with the ability to survive? You know that ancient saying about roaches and nuclear war, right? [QUOTE][b]Aren't you forgetting to factor my equalizer[/QUOTE][/b]Are we talking about the universal definition of science, or do you have your own personal definition that is exclusive to you? [QUOTE][b]The tale of evolution, of course, begins with cosmic evolution.[/QUOTE][/b]No, the Theory of Evolution deals with the divergence of traits.If you were to compile the history of the Universe we would have to deal with astrophysical theories, but I'm not interested in that debate right now. We're going to stick to the topic, the definition of science, and those Flood arguments. [QUOTE][b]I remind you of my equalizing agent again.[/QUOTE][/b]I remind you that the definition of science was around before you came up with an "equalizing agent". I also remind you that science is based partly upon extrapolation, and that the extrapolation in evolution is no different from that in Atomic Theory. [QUOTE][b]Yes, as you are against creationism, a model that happens to fit the facts of hard science better than the model of evolutionism does.[/QUOTE][/b]Begging the question. If there are "facts of hard science" that fit Creationism better I have not yet heard them. You have given us a hypothesis that "complex" living things can escape the flood better than everything else, but you didn't even define "complex" things or present any kind of case that "complexity" means an organism can run to high ground.You also used a 'polystrate fossil' argument that is around 200 years old, and is itself a fossil, and every bit as able to support a YEC view as those petrified trees are to sprout leaves. [QUOTE][b]that the prior state of universal nonexistence became, without cause[/QUOTE][/b]Fundamental error, there is a cause for everything. That cause may be natural, but it is a cause. The cause may not even be understood, but the general assumption in science is that there is a cause.But since you are obfuscating the point with philosophy, I'll just skip down until we start talking about science again. [QUOTE][b]Evolutionists[/QUOTE][/b]Work with biology, not cosmology. You are obfuscating again. (Friendly reminder)If you have evidence against evolution, present it. [QUOTE][b]You confuse "evolution" and "naturalism" with science.[/QUOTE][/b]You confuse "creationism" and "supernaturalism" with science.Naturalism is a necessity in science. Because science deals with the mechanisms of natural phenomenon, anything supernatural is beyond the bounds of science. Therefore you have no right to include anything other than "natural" phenomena in any discussion in science. [QUOTE][b]SCIENCE does not embrace naturalism.[/QUOTE][/b]See above. Science, particularly natural science, is a study of nature, that is, what is physical or quantifiable. Anything outside of that nature is outside the realm of science.This is a very simple principle. If you can't explain or quantify a creator how can you make it science? (The creator would be beyond your comprehension anyway.)That is why you call Christianity a religion, and not a science.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 07-06-2002]

[QUOTE][b]But Christianity promises just such a thing in the Gospels. You probably know some verses so I'm not going to quote any. Problem is that it rarely ever happens.[/QUOTE][/b]The Spirit leaves people that don't live up to the proper ideals. [QUOTE][b]But there is no punishment for failing to bear good fruit. Once saved, your in forever.[/QUOTE][/b]That may be true to the Baptists down the street but I don't believe it. You can fall from grace. Easily. I think that much of Christianity, perhaps even a majority, has. [QUOTE][b]Jesus is quoted as telling one inquisitor to leave his family without even saying goodbye.[/QUOTE][/b]He is also quoted as telling people that they cannot be his follower without being reconciled with his family first. What you may have here is a Biblical mistranslation or fragment of an allegory. [QUOTE][b]In the old testament misbehavior is punished via a curse upon the sinner and his FAMILY for several generations.[/QUOTE][/b]The OT also tells people that God loves those who love Him. In other words, even the kids of the wicked can escape the curse. The problem is that children are raised by their parents, wicked behavior can be adopted by the children. [QUOTE][b] is full of slaughter easily on the scale of the Nazi holocost, if the tales be believed.[/QUOTE][/b]War stories can be exaggerated by the victor. Also, sometimes slaughter is necessary. It is better that some die now rather than many dieing later. It is a nasty reality that on the borders of Israel were the enemies of Israel. Enemies who might have happily driven the Jews to extinction a couple of generations later were supposedly cut down preemptively in retribution for their wickedness, just punishment for the lot of them. (We also learned in the OT that God doesn't level cities with even a handful of the righteous inside). As for the children who had not yet reached accountability, they are automatically saved by the Atonement, they were presumably killed as well but would have died of exposure anyway.The whole point of this that you need to come to grips with is that the world of the Middle East was particularly nasty. God's chosen lived in a miserable neighborhood and the rules then are different from the rules today because society is more advanced and, for the most part, more altruistic. It is easy for us to have high ideals because we are not faced with the possibility of extinction in the next generation. Back then you would have been trained to fight from a young age and your home town would have had a wall around it to keep your neighbors from sacking it on a weekly basis. And I'm not just talking about other nations, I'm talking about organized crime as well, it was such a big deal it was a military problem.Now, does this mean God rejoices in plunder? See 1 Samuel 15. God gave the order to wipe out a city and its inhabitants, but became angry when the Israelites tried to profit off their victory. Essentially, it had to be done but the victorious army was not allowed to profit it or "enjoy" the victory.

[QUOTE][b]And the reverse as well. Israel is often the agressor not the defender.[/QUOTE][/b]That is true. Israelis did nasty things throughout the Bible. [QUOTE][b]Again a gloss on the fact that the Israelites are the agressors.[/QUOTE][/b]Sometimes aggression is justi5BQUOTE[b]And the same for the other non-chosen nations. Still God commanded his chosen to DO THE ATTACKING, and the land stealing and the plundering.[/QUOTE][/b]You haven't responded to my points that they might have actually deserved it and that the attack might have been preemptive. Also, you forgot that plundering was forbidden. Finally you ignored the point that God does not level cities with even a few righteous people inside. Therefore, if this really did happen, those people must necessarily have deserved it. [QUOTE][b]Numbers 31:7, 17-18--- soldiers got to take virgins to rape and marry.[/QUOTE][/b]I'm sure that you're aware that in OT law, it was the right of the soldier to take unmarried female captives to marry (and thus have them granted the marital rights afforded the women of the day). This law is not an invitation to do something cruel, it is a restriction of what the soldiers would normally do: debauch, then torture, kill, or sell cessarily have deserved it. [QUOTE][b]Numbers 31:7, 17-18--- soldiers got to take virgins to rape and marry.[/QUOTE][/b]I'm sure that you're aware that in OT law, it was the right of the soldier to take unmarried female captives to marry (and thus have them granted the marital rights afforded the women of the day). This law is not an invitation to do something cruel, it is a restriction of what the soldiers would normally do: debauch, then torture, kill, or sell them into slavery. I have to keep reminding you that this is not the 21st century we are talking about and that the Israelites were, on their own, not a nice people.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 07-10-2002]

[QUOTE][b]Entire cities with not one righteous person.[/QUOTE][/b]Not if the righteous get out of Dodge before the Israelis get there.
There are Scriptural precedents for that. [QUOTE][b]Of course, righteous is defined by believing in Israel's God....[/QUOTE][/b]Not always. Perhaps in this case, perhaps not. It might not have even happened. [QUOTE][b]The right of tiberal constitutional democracy with a universal sufferage when they were what they were. [QUOTE][B]I am concerned about the influence of a religion that in my opinion has done more damage to humanity than any other single source I can name.[/QUOTE][/b]Yes, you are blaming the nasty things that have happened in the past (primarily in Western Civilizations) on religion, specifically Christianity, because some bad things were done by the Catholic Church. In doing so you are no different than the YECs that blame nasty things on evolution.For example, Spanish missionaries that killed native peoples that wouldn't convert. That did this because they were racists. If they were atheists hungry for gold and slaves rather than Christians hungry for gold and slaves do you think the outcome would have been any different? The Spanish Inquisition...do you think that if those inquisitors were atheists looking for political radicals rather than
religious heretics they wouldn't have tortured and killed them?The things done by Christians in the past were done not because of belief in God but because the individuals were degenerate and immoral. And of course, those individuals were not living Christian standards.So, I honestly don't see how you can carry out a diatribe against religion when the doctrines of that religion have no bearing on what was done in the name of the religion. The situation is much like blaming all of Islam for 9/11.Something else you are overlooking?ferent than the YECs that blame nasty things on evolution.For example, Spanish missionaries that killed native peoples that wouldn't convert. That did this because they were racists. If they were atheists hungry for gold and slaves rather than Christians hungry for gold and slaves do you think the outcome would have been any different? The Spanish Inquisition...do you think that if those inquisitors were atheists looking for political radicals rather than
religious heretics they wouldn't have tortured and killed them?The things done by Christians in the past were done not because of belief in God but because the individuals were degenerate and immoral. And of course, those individuals were not living Christian standards.So, I honestly don't see how you can carry out a diatribe against religion when the doctrines of that religion have no bearing on what was done in the name of the religion. The situation is much like blaming all of Islam for 9/11.Something else you are overlooking: I consider most of Christianity to have fallen into apostasy anyway.

[QUOTE][b]I agree, in this way: From what I can tell -- archeology, textural analysis, etc.-- Christianity now is very different from what it probably was when it began.[/QUOTE][/b]I can confirm that some things were lost. Baptism for the dead is specifically mentioned in the NT but I am not aware of any other church that practices it. [QUOTE][b]Christianity as a whole, is far into the bad range.[/QUOTE][/b]I agree, but to the extent that I see a lot of shortfallings, especially in US Protestant branches amongst the politically conservative. Some of the things they stand for offend me on a regular basis.

[QUOTE][b]About two dozen, nearly all at the top of their fields, arrived at a different conclusion.[/QUOTE][/b]Argument from authority. Interesting, but still... [QUOTE][b]George Ellis, a cosmologist said, There is a huge amount of data supporting the existence of God. The question is how to evaluate it.[/QUOTE][/b]But how does evidence of a creator necessarily imply the Judeo-Christian God? How does Creation of the universe necessarily mean special creation of Man and a <10,000 year old Earth? [QUOTE][b]Item one on his list was the so-called Anthropic Principle. This principle has to do with the extreme unlikelihood for all the fundamental constants of nature to be so precisely balanced by accident. Without this very precise balance, galaxies and life could not exist. Astronomer John D. Barrows asked, One possible explanation they give is that the universe was designed.[/QUOTE][/b]That's a possibility but it still requires faith. Remember, the obvious response is that "if all those things had not fallen into place, we wouldn't be here in awe of it". Small wonder all these things happened in just the right way: they had to. [QUOTE][b]Mitchell P. Marcus, chairman of computer science at the University of Pennsylvania said, In mathematics and information theory, we can now guarantee that there are truths out there that we cannot find. The inability of science de to provide a basis for meaning, purpose, value and ethics is evidence of the necessity of religion Sandage adds, The reasons for the existence of the universe, the existence of any physical laws at all and the nature of the physical laws that do hold--science takes all of these for granted, and so cannot investigate them.[/QUOTE][/b]These issues are completely outside of science. In fact, I consider "creation science" be an oxymoron because it presupposes a divine creator and is reliant upon miracles. We've established that
science can't explain a creator, so why attempt to invoke a creator in science? [QUOTE][b]I will begin the indirect evidence support with NDEs (near death experiences). The best reference I can give you is the book Fingerprints of God by Arvin Gibson, Horizon Press,Bountiful, Utah, 1999. This is a book written by a scientific professional and has analyzed dozens of NDEs. Gibson correctly asserts that studying NDEs can be done with scientific methodology, you just have to pick those who claim NDEs as your test subjects.[/QUOTE][/b]So far, so good. But before we can use the testimonies of people who have had an NDE, we have to establish that what happened was real and not a hallucination created by the brain. I would ask Dr. Gibson if the experiments involving hidden objects in emergency rooms had yielded fruit. If not, then the whole premise of the NDE is questionable.I wonder how you will demonstrate that we are the spirit children of God. [QUOTE][b]He is interested to get comments on his ideas from forum readers. If I cannot get him to join the forum, I will submit some of his findings.[/QUOTE][/b]I'll keep an eye out. [QUOTE][b]Can anyone out there help me set up a web site?[/QUOTE][/b]Somebody here might be able.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 07-14-2002]

[QUOTE][b]In fact, I will go a step further and if you can accept the previous statement, perhaps you could imagine that God's children were the genetic engineers working under his direction.[/QUOTE][/b]As in the Book of Abraham? [QUOTE][b]I would not get too stuck on using a "day" or 6000 years as the age of the earth.[/QUOTE][/b]Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 says the following: [QUOTE][b]We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existance[/QUOTE][/b]Maybe that means Post-fall but it just shows that it isn't easy to be an OE LDS. I do not know how much information the prophets have about the Creation but I occasionally hear disturbing things in Church pubs. For starters, Ensign, September 1980, which essentially rails against the current scientific view in favor of a catastrophic young Earth: [QUOTE][b]It is therefore helpful to remember, when pondering the millions of years secularists postulate to explain the formation of the earth, that all current geological dating processes are based on the assumption that the present order of nature preceded us and will continue uniformly hereafter. This secularist view also holds that God, if he exists, never has and never will interfere. However, the revelations Latter-day Saints have about the earth and God’s dealings with it simply do not permit us to make those assumptions.[/QUOTE][/b]President Hinckley has also formed a negative opinion on evolution. In Ensign, October 1984 he said this: [QUOTE][b]I remember when I was a college student there were great discussions on the question of organic evolution. I took classes in geology and biology and heard the whole story of Darwinism as it was then taught. I wondered about it. I thought much about it. But I did not let it throw me, for I read what the scriptures said about our origins and our relationship to God.[/QUOTE][/b]Then this, from the Apostle Russel Nelson [QUOTE]New Era October 1987 [b]Through the ages, some without scriptural understanding have tried to explain our existence by pretentious words such as ex nihilo (out of nothing). Others have deduced that, because of certain similarities between different forms of life, there has been an organic evolution from one form to another. Many of these have concluded that the universe began as a big bang that eventually resulted in the creation of our planet and life upon it.To me, such theories are unbelievable! Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? It is unthinkable! Even if it could be argued to be within a remote realm of possibility, such a dictionary could certainly not heal its own torn pages or renew its own worn corners or reproduce its own subsequent editions![/QUOTE][/b]What are we to make of these quotes?

[QUOTE][b]The example of levitical sanitation principles compared to the coterminus example of inferior secular humanist medical practices
of the Egyptian Empire comes to mind.[/QUOTE][/b]Why don't you define 'secular humanist' for us because I don't think the Egyptian theocracy quite fits under that category.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 07-17-2002]

Win 98; Internet Explorer ver 5.50.4134.0600Same problem, except I *never* get the whole message, only the first couple of paragraphs. It doesn't bother me much since I have the person's post in the same window.