Creationism vs Evolutionism

[otseng]

OK, give me reasons why evolutionism or creationism is right or wrong.

[Corvus]

Yes, I accept the statement that I think therefore I am. Doubting your own existence is a self-defeating exercise, I find, with the only benefit being that it gives philosophers something to do.

I find that believing in Evolution is a self defeating exercise. Why should I even listen to an Evolutionist's arguments since he himself declares that he is just rearranged pond algae? After all, your nonextinction is based on supposed survival advantage, which doesn't necessarily correlate to intelligence. For example, an animal can be physically strong and wipe out all his competition and not become extinct.

Yes. And? What exactly is your point? The same thing could have happened in the creationist model. Of course, since nature has evolved as a working system, not just a loose collection of things that happen, the chances of this are rare. More likely to occur is intelligent human beings ruining the environment and the balance of said system, than some sort of super strong monster.

Besides, wasn't it God that magically created men out of dirt? How is this better than being reconstituted pond scum? And, without taking into account the Lilith myth, Eve was created from Adam's rib. Yes, that sounds a lot more feasible than current evolutionary theory.

You know, I actually think it was better when the masses only knew the bible second-hand from sermonising priests. That way they could leave the stupid parts out or Latinise them.

Wouldn't it be more logical to listen to someone who, from the get go, claims that he is an intelligent being?

Simply acknowledging intelligence to be a product of evolution doesn't mean that intelligence doesn't exist. Therefore, I am listening to people claiming to be intelligent beings. Scientists.

Whether he credits this intelligence to design or some other factor is another matter. But at least he already has a leg up on the Evolutionist.

You're saying I should ignore large amounts of scientific evidence and believe the alleged words of an eternal, omnipotent written by a Jew a few millenia ago, even when the account clearly doesn't seem to be literal, but metaphoric? Or discredit the words of scientists becaue it seems unfathomable to you that intelligence and consciousness can arise independently?

Arguing with you would be a self-defeating exercise. Instead of debating the evidence of the theory, as otseng has done, you're deriding it because it doesn't make sense. But it makes sense that the earth is flat and is the centre of the universe. It makes sense that plate tectonics doesn't exist. But these have all been proven false.

It's actually possible to support the evolutionary theory while still believing in a God. In this case, it's God who, in his limitless knowledge, sets into motion evolution to provide adaptable and self-improving species instead of flimsy and static creatures.

[otseng]

It's actually possible to support the evolutionary theory while still believing in a God. In this case, it's God who, in his limitless knowledge, sets into motion evolution to provide adaptable and self-improving species instead of flimsy and static creatures.

And actually I would suspect a large number of believers subscribe to evolution in one way or another.

OK, let's move back to transitional life. Let's suppose all the animals that has ever existed is represented as a dot on a sheet of paper. Single cells at the bottom. Man as a single dot on the top. And all the other animals scattered in between. According to EM, you should be able to connect all the dots to some other dot. But, have you ever seen a graph like this? No. Have you ever even seen a part of this graph? No. If the EM is true, why doesn't the graph exist? What does exist is hand-waving. Single cells became multicellular. Marine animals became land animals. However, no dots are actually connected.

[Corvus]

It's actually possible to support the evolutionary theory while still believing in a God. In this case, it's God who, in his limitless knowledge, sets into motion evolution to provide adaptable and self-improving species instead of flimsy and static creatures.

And actually I would suspect a large number of believers subscribe to evolution in one way or another.

OK, let's move back to transitional life. Let's suppose all the animals that has ever existed is represented as a dot on a sheet of paper. Single cells at the bottom. Man as a single dot on the top. And all the other animals scattered in between. According to EM, you should be able to connect all the dots to some other dot. But, have you ever seen a graph like this? No. Have you ever even seen a part of this graph? No. If the EM is true, why doesn't the graph exist? What does exist is hand-waving. Single cells became multicellular. Marine animals became land animals. However, no dots are actually connected.

First of all, refer to the fact that we only have a very small percentage of the earth's fossils.

Second, although there are no "graphs", we do have complete sets of transitional fossils with no morphological gaps.
Reptile to bird transitional fossils, no gaps: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra ... l#syn2mamm

There's your small part of the graph, by which I think you mean some sort of massive family tree. What you're actually saying is, "creationist websites have never shown me these graphs, and say they don't exist, so they mustn't!"

Actually, this particular page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html has a page of links to lists of transitional fossils. from There's your dots, all connected, otseng. Included are:

Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
Transition from fishes to first amphibians
Transitions among amphibians
Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
Transitions among reptiles
Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
Transition from reptiles to first birds

Some have morphological gaps, others don't.

[Corvus]

Single cells at the bottom. Man as a single dot on the top. And all the other animals scattered in between.

Wait a sec... I just noticed this. Man wouldn't be a single dot at the top. That would mean we were the only creature left on earth, and that every animal on earth only pursued one kind of evolution that culminated in man. No, we are as adapted to our environment as birds, only in different ways. We might be more of an evolutionary success, and birds probably die more often and reproduce less, but we definitely wouldn't be a single dot. Think of a family tree. It would only keep sprouting off branches. Our ability to trace origins relies on fossil evidence. We have a good deal of that, but not enough for a complete tree tracing back the lineage of every single creature on earth.

We have whole branches, as you have seen, however.


EDIT: Just noticed a phylogenetic tree on the talkorigins website!


So, common ancestors at the bottom, and at the very top, what everything eventually becomes.


This is, I think, a simplified version of what you are looking for. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1 The page describes the reliability of the tree, as well as where its inaccuracies might lie. Since it has more information than I could possibly condense, I recommend you read those areas for yourself.

[clue]

I find that believing in Evolution is a self defeating exercise. Why should I even listen to an Evolutionist's arguments since he himself declares that he is just rearranged pond algae? After all, your nonextinction is based on supposed survival advantage, which doesn't necessarily correlate to intelligence. For example, an animal can be physically strong and wipe out all his competition and not become extinct.

Yes. And? What exactly is your point? The same thing could have happened in the creationist model. Of course, since nature has evolved as a working system, not just a loose collection of things that happen, the chances of this are rare. More likely to occur is intelligent human beings ruining the environment and the balance of said system, than some sort of super strong monster.

Besides, wasn't it God that magically created men out of dirt? How is this better than being reconstituted pond scum? And, without taking into account the Lilith myth, Eve was created from Adam's rib. Yes, that sounds a lot more feasible than current evolutionary theory.

It's better than being "reconstituted pond scum" because an intelligent being created another intelligent being. It' better then saying that random processes created some being that might or might not be intelligent. And if that being might or might not be intelligent, why should I listen to him?

In case you are crediting me with this argument, I'm sorry to say that I am not the author of it.

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970) pp. 52-53:

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts—i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.’

Simply acknowledging intelligence to be a product of evolution doesn't mean that intelligence doesn't exist.

I'm NOT acknowledging that intelligence is a by product of evolution. I'm suggesting that it's not.

Therefore, I am listening to people claiming to be intelligent beings. Scientists.

Don't you mean evolutionary scientists? I would be more than happy to provide you with a list of scientists who subscribe to Creation, but I'm sure they don't count as REAL scientists to you.

You're saying I should ignore large amounts of scientific evidence ...

Argumentative.

... and believe the alleged words of an eternal, omnipotent written by a Jew a few millenia ago, ...

Sure, if there is good reason to.

... even when the account clearly doesn't seem to be literal, but metaphoric?

Argumentative.

Or discredit the words of scientists becaue it seems unfathomable to you that intelligence and consciousness can arise independently?

From random processes?? Yes and yes.

Arguing with you would be a self-defeating exercise. Instead of debating the evidence of the theory, as otseng has done, you're deriding it because it doesn't make sense.

I really didn't mean to deride anything. I was merely pointing out the self defeating nature of the theory. But I am sorry if my post was offensive to you.

But it makes sense that the earth is flat and is the centre of the universe. It makes sense that plate tectonics doesn't exist. But these have all been proven false.

If you are suggesting that this is a creationistic claim here, you would be wrong.

It's actually possible to support the evolutionary theory while still believing in a God. In this case, it's God who, in his limitless knowledge, sets into motion evolution to provide adaptable and self-improving species ...

Sure, I'll give you that He COULD HAVE done it this way. But what did He say as to HOW HE REALLY DID IT??

... instead of flimsy and static creatures.

Once again, if you are suggesting that this is creationism, you would be wrong.

[clue]

Arguing with you would be a self-defeating exercise. Instead of debating the evidence of the theory, as otseng has done, you're deriding it because it doesn't make sense.

There are several reasons why I won't debate specific evidence for or against any theory.

One reason is - I am not an expert in that field. No matter how many books I've read, or how diligently I have educated myself on a certain topic, no one's really going to listen to what I have to say about that topic. I have a college education, but not in the realm of the biological or chemical sciences.

Another reason why I won't debate specific evidence is - starting assumptions will overwhelmingly dictate what a person's conclusions are going to be. So, if you start with the postulate that intelligence can only come from intelligence, and life only begets life, then that's what you are going to find. Likewise, if you start with an axiom 'denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for ALL phenomena' (Merriam-Webster's definition of naturalism, clue added emphasis), then that's what you are going to conclude.

Any specific piece of evidence can be interpreted in a variety of ways based on your starting maxims. So, ultimately, what you are debating is not really THAT piece of evidence, but what presuppositions you are going to have.

[otseng]

Another reason why I won't debate specific evidence is - starting assumptions will overwhelmingly dictate what a person's conclusions are going to be. So, if you start with the postulate that intelligence can only come from intelligence, and life only begets life, then that's what you are going to find. Likewise, if you start with an axiom 'denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for ALL phenomena' (Merriam-Webster's definition of naturalism, clue added emphasis), then that's what you are going to conclude.

Clue, I see your point and agree with it, but it can side-track this topic. Perhaps you can start other topics to discuss these basic assumptions. Like, "Does God exist?" "Can science answer everything?"

[Corvus]

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts—i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.’

This is the same old, "order can't possibly arise from chaos" fallacious expostulation with an added, "and if it did, and your intelligence was an accident, then by the virtue of this accident," in a twist of tortured logic, "why should I trust it?"

Again, it doesn't have to be an accident. It could well have been an act of God. It could well have been guided by some sort of supreme being. You can believe the words of some dead guy, and I can believe the voices that whisper inside my mind. Your book can't be taken for evidence and neither can my mental voices. That is why we need evidence to support our claims.

Don't you mean evolutionary scientists? I would be more than happy to provide you with a list of scientists who subscribe to Creation, but I'm sure they don't count as REAL scientists to you.

Argumentative.

But it makes sense that the earth is flat and is the centre of the universe. It makes sense that plate tectonics doesn't exist. But these have all been proven false.

If you are suggesting that this is a creationistic claim here, you would be wrong.

No, what I'm suggesting is that what "makes sense" isn't always the correct answer.

It's actually possible to support the evolutionary theory while still believing in a God. In this case, it's God who, in his limitless knowledge, sets into motion evolution to provide adaptable and self-improving species ...

Sure, I'll give you that He COULD HAVE done it this way. But what did He say as to HOW HE REALLY DID IT??

Argumentative. I wouldn't know, I wasn't there.

... instead of flimsy and static creatures.

Once again, if you are suggesting that this is creationism, you would be wrong.

The intelligent creationists believe in micro-evolution. But if you subscribe to the existence of an old earth, then there's nothing preventing lots of micro-evolution becoming macro-evolution over time.

The intelligent design presents species that are mostly static. They can't survive in the case of drastic environment change other than change their pigment or shed their hair.

Another reason why I won't debate specific evidence is - starting assumptions will overwhelmingly dictate what a person's conclusions are going to be.

This also holds true for every word you've currently written here. Why are you posting?

Any specific piece of evidence can be interpreted in a variety of ways based on your starting maxims. So, ultimately, what you are debating is not really THAT piece of evidence, but what presuppositions you are going to have.

No. Evidences and theories have to withstand emprical examination. It's how we discover and prove anything.

[otseng]

Actually, this particular page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html has a page of links to lists of transitional fossils. from There's your dots, all connected, otseng. Included are:

Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
Transition from fishes to first amphibians
Transitions among amphibians
Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
Transitions among reptiles
Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
Transition from reptiles to first birds

I couldn't load the Part 2 links, so I'm not sure what's there.

When I say dots, I mean a particular animal. This animal turned into that animal. Not a dot of reptiles turning into a dot of birds. So, I didn't see any of that on the link you gave me.

Wait a sec... I just noticed this. Man wouldn't be a single dot at the top. That would mean we were the only creature left on earth, and that every animal on earth only pursued one kind of evolution that culminated in man.

My Y-axis is complexity, not time.

[clue]

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts—i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.’

This is the same old, "order can't possibly arise from chaos" fallacious expostulation with an added, "and if it did, and your intelligence was an accident, then by the virtue of this accident," in a twist of tortured logic, "why should I trust it?"

Sorry, but given that something could have arisen from chaos, you haven't really demonstrated why this logic is "twisted".

Again, it doesn't have to be an accident. It could well have been an act of God. It could well have been guided by some sort of supreme being.

If that's the case, then why don't you believe what He told you He did? All the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), has some sort of Creator as the cause of a young universe.

Also, why do Evolutionary propronents give us this "supreme being" cause, but then try to force him out of the picture at every successive turn? Sounds more like a smoke screen to me.

You can believe the words of some dead guy, and I can believe the voices that whisper inside my mind. Your book can't be taken for evidence neither can my mental voices.

I doubt if you would be willing to undergo torture and death for the voices inside your head.

That is why we need evidence to support our claims.

Sure, we need evidence to support some claims. But to say that science is sufficient to explain ALL phenomena is a little arrogant and frankly, well, I hate it to say it, but UNPROVEABLE.

Another reason why I won't debate specific evidence is - starting assumptions will overwhelmingly dictate what a person's conclusions are going to be.

This also holds true for every word you've currently written here.

You are EXACTLY right. At least I'm up front about having presuppositions. Evolutionary scientists will make it sound like they have NO starting assumptions whatsoever so whatever they expouse to has to be pure, unbiased conclusions.

Why are you posting?

Uh, because it's a debate forum. And at the risk of inciting your anger again, to show the self defeating nature of believing in Evolution. Whether I got my point across or not is up to the audience. But don't worry, I have a pretty good idea of my impression on you.

Any specific piece of evidence can be interpreted in a variety of ways based on your starting maxims. So, ultimately, what you are debating is not really THAT piece of evidence, but what presuppositions you are going to have.

No. Evidences and theories have to withstand emprical examination. It's how we discover and prove anything.

Obviously, my philosophical arguments have missed their mark.

But what about otseng's empirical evidence for Creation? That also seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

It's like I said. No "evidence" will be sufficient for you because of your starting premises.

What if I could somehow demonstrate to you that Evolution started with the unproven assumption that there is no God? Would you then question the theory?