creationism is the truth
-
It need not be.Originally posted by vince69:my frustration with all these evolution evidence is that its a circular argument.
based on evolution theory, we deduce from observation, A evolve into B, hence a proof for evolution.
Remember Ironside quoted Josh's apologetic for Christianity that said the argument for Christ need not be circular?
We can likewise apply the same standard for evolution.
How? By assuming that change is reasonable, then we examine the observations, and try to form a synthesis. -
Don't run away!
First of all, pick up any textbook and you can read for yourself that theory for evolution is based on adaptation. I shall not go too deeply in that. However, you're right to say that humans to humans is not evolution.Originally posted by vince69:human to human is not evolved, its adaption.
From your arguements, you seem to be not convinced of evolution unless you witness the change personally. May I ask if you witnessed creation? So in that case how can it be true when you've not seen it yourself? At least for evolution, we provide snapshots of the process through careful scrutiny and specific scientific process vetted by thousands of peers.Originally posted by vince69:my frustration with all these evolution evidence is that its a circular argument.
based on evolution theory, we deduce from observation, A evolve into B, hence a proof for evolution.
Would you believe a tall story of Jack and the bean stalk if someone tells you with no prove or if he provides pictures of the giant and the bean stalk?
On the contrary, creationism is a circular arguement. A circular arguement is one that based its explanations on a single assumption and keeps returning to it for an answer. Why do humans exist? Cos' God created them. Why do that animal exist? Cos' God created that. Can you see why your arguement is circular now? At the very least, evolution provides an explanation of the process and has an understanding of the mechanism. It is much better to know something about the dark and unknown, than to walk blindly and hope for some invisible hand to guide you.
Human species can evolve to other species. No one is saying we will, but the possibility is there. Nevertheless, the stone cold fact is that we evolved from ape-like pre-humans! Explain away your tailbone. Oh I forgot, maybe the creator forgot to remove it cos' he created humans based on monkeys? Wait... wouldn't that make the creator... imperfect?!Originally posted by vince69:Human specie as a whole will evolved into another species? still an unproven theory, right? and the basic assumption for this deduction? evolution theory.
We are different from chimpanzees by only lesser than 5% of our DNA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee. If such a small change in DNA can bring about such big changes, why can't adaptations bring about changes and eventually evolution of a species?
Evolution does not attempt to explain how life comes about. It is merely trying to work out the mechanism of how we came to be. The reason why it annoys most creationists is because it undermines the credibility of the almighty creator. If the creator is so perfect, why would he design flaws that needs to be corrected by mutations over time?Originally posted by vince69:conflicting views? ok, life begins on earth or from space? from simple single cell or complex multi-cell (where do these cells come from?)
what is the trigger, random or specific? ...etc
while having conflicting views does not in anyway disprove the theory, its does shows that there are still alot more to debate and understand about.
Still despite your valor attempt, you made no remarkable points about conflicting views of evolution. You merely pointed out evolution does not explain how life comes about. I would have to agree that evolution does not explain the source of life. It merely explains how all organisms came from a single cell being. Unless the snapshots of evidence proved by scientists of evolution can be disputed, you'll have to do better than to that, to disprove the facts. -
vince mati liao .. kaister is an intellectual and more sophisticated than people like NUS and Skyfoo.
-
oh ya davidche, if you want to know what is good manners and good discussion, read kaister's replies.
-
go back to my previous post, already say, creation cannot be observed also, you will need a time machine to do this, a task that is not possible (at least at this moment).Originally posted by kaister:Don't run away!
Evolution does not attempt to explain how life comes about. It is merely trying to work out the mechanism of how we came to be. The reason why it annoys most creationists is because it undermines the credibility of the almighty creator. If the creator is so perfect, why would he design flaws that needs to be corrected by mutations over time?
Still despite your valor attempt, you made no remarkable points about conflicting views of evolution. You merely pointed out evolution does not explain how life comes about. I would have to agree that evolution does not explain the source of life. It merely explains how all organisms came from a single cell being. Unless the snapshots of evidence proved by scientists of evolution can be disputed, you'll have to do better than to that, to disprove the facts.
if like you say, adaption is the basis of evolution, then can adaptation be used to prove evolution? btw what is the unerlining assumption of this basis?
circular argument is when one use the same theory to come out with a deduction to prove that very theory.
ok, since you agree that evolution does not explain the source of life, let me tell you this also, without faith in the existence of a creater, neither can creation theory explain this.
And about the conflicting view, I am not even talking about explaination on the source of life, I am merely pointing that there are still alot of questions unanswered and researches still going on in this search for the ultimate answer of how and why.
Do have an open mind on this subject, be it evolution or creation, question everything, check every underlining assumptions, for its only in questioning we can gain knowledge.
recently there are also some who propose progressive evolution, which attempts to combine both creation and evolution theory. -
Are you doing that?Originally posted by vince69:I am merely pointing that there are still alot of questions unanswered and researches still going on in this search for the ultimate answer of how and why.
Do have an open mind on this subject, be it evolution or creation, question everything, check every underlining assumptions, for its only in questioning we can gain knowledge.
Kaister is inviting you to do that, but all you could do was to give some vague replies.
-
Vince,
what do u think abou theistic evolution? -
its like, taking the head from creation theory and put in the tail from evolution theory.Originally posted by ben1xy:Vince,
what do u think abou theistic evolution? -
what about a hybrid of theistic evolution with chaos theory?Originally posted by vince69:its like, taking the head from creation theory and put in the tail from evolution theory.
aiyah, why not u explain your view to me. it's why easier than me having to ask every single option -
Alright, to add on to the vestigial organs, it includes our appendix as well. There's nothing beneficial about appendix, contrary it might developed into appendicitis which may be fatal to our body.
Yet it is there?
Evolution is a known fact, but how does the all perfect Creator fit into the picture then? If evolution is based on Natural Selection in which species adapt to changing environment, then God wouldn't be as perfect as we all thought he would be, right?
The thing is, maybe Humans have got the idea of God in all the wrong sense, and this tragedy carried on even up till today, even when all of us are fully aware of what is happening around us, there will still be some that clinch onto biblical ancient beliefs.
Say, Bible is the word of God, but it is written by men of the past, miracles to them may be just some advanced technology to us, they may overly glorified God because of their primitive thinking, who knows? And when the impression is such that God is omnipotent and capable of doing anything, this belief passes on to us till today.
What i meant was that in the past, these men might perceived God as perfect being, omnipotent and all, because they are incapable of such feat that God can do. How about now? Aren't we playing God when it comes to the way we treat the animals and the lesser beings on Earth?
To them we're God, because they can do nothing about their fate. Yet we ourselves know that we are as vulnerable as well, and have limitations, just that in relative to them, we're significantly more advanced.
Say, if one day, we successfully genetically engineered a species of monkey that is capable of human-level cognitive function, speech and consciousness, as the creator, will you tell them we're as vulnerable as them, or will you tell them we are their creator, perfect and mighty, and then display a firework of advanced technologies like doing a biometric fingerprinting scan that activate the lighting, fan, tv, hi fi set and all? To them, it could be something inconceivable, miracle?
And once they have acknowledged you and your powers, you proceed to tell them that you've created the universe, everything, and anything (even though you didn't). Will they believe? They will, because they have witnessed the amazing feats you've done that they felt was impossible to accomplish.
And at the end of the day, they're still as vulnerable because you have the capability to kill them, why not? Just shoot them with your gun, and they'll die, just like any other animals. And then, they'll know that they are vulnerable when it comes to you, creator of the universe.
Oh, that sounds very familiar to me. -
you will need to read our exchange againOriginally posted by Icemoon:Are you doing that?
Kaister is inviting you to do that, but all you could do was to give some vague replies.
kaister's stand is that evolution is right, creation is wrong
mine is, both are just as questionable and need to be questioned.
(from the start, I already said I am not going to disprove evolution, cause I can't)
ok
adaption is the basis for evolution
we says, if A's behaviour modified to adapts to B, we can only A evolved if the theory of evolution is assumed to be true, else it would just be instincts to survive. then can this observation be used to prove evolution?
in my opinion, when it comes to evolution, only the deductions/observations from the fossil records are really admissible for discussion.
and sad to say, creation (from christian view) only have the first 2 chapter of Genesis, if you take them literally. -
the thing is, I don;t have the answer, that's why I am questioning all.Originally posted by ben1xy:what about a hybrid of theistic evolution with chaos theory?
aiyah, why not u explain your view to me. it's why easier than me having to ask every single option -
fair enoughOriginally posted by vince69:the thing is, I don;t have the answer, that's why I am questioning all.
hmm, i keep hearing this young world theory. stating that our earth is 6,000 yrs old?? where did they get that figure from? they traced back generation by generation??
people might question evolution, but i think the claim that our earth is only 6,000 yrs old is even more dubious -
this is a bible based theory,Originally posted by ben1xy:fair enough
hmm, i keep hearing this young world theory. stating that our earth is 6,000 yrs old?? where did they get that figure from? they traced back generation by generation??
people might question evolution, but i think the claim that our earth is only 6,000 yrs old is even more dubious
its derived by going through the genelogy starting from Adam, by adding up those numbers (example adam is xxx years when he begats
example:
so from Adam to Enosh is 130 + 105 years
Genesis 5:3-8
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father [b] of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
the other possible reasoning is that its based on the Jewish calender, but then this will means the earth is only 5000++ years -
First of all, you hold a good arguement
And you're a late sleeper...
Okie, at least we agree that there's no observable evidence for creation at all. Where's the other evidence that you can provide for creationism other than observation?Originally posted by vince69:go back to my previous post, already say, creation cannot be observed also, you will need a time machine to do this, a task that is not possible (at least at this moment).
Nope, it cannot.Originally posted by vince69:if like you say, adaption is the basis of evolution, then can adaptation be used to prove evolution? btw what is the unerlining assumption of this basis?
However, it is very useful in explaining why evolution happen. I hate to explain everything from the start but here goes:
It was first noticed that all populations of animals grow exponentially, even with slow reproducing elephants. A single pair of elephants can give rise to a few thousand elephants in ten generations.
However, we don't see that in everyday life. Why? Cos' due to competition, the less able elephants die off, leaving the fitter ones to carry on reproducing, thus more representation of their "better genes" in the gene pool. This survival of the fittest allows for evolution, so that each generation of elephants will be able to survive better in their harsh environment.
We also see this type of breeding in pure breed dogs or cattle (although man-induced, in contrast to environment-induced). Understand so far?
Here comes the role of adaptation. Evolution can only adapt to existing structures and modify them, instead of creating everything from scratch. Take for example giraffes, fossils of giraffes were recovered and found to have shorter necks (but still quite long) than the comtemporary ones. Why? In the natural evolution history of giraffes, those with longer necks get more food from higher branches and thus more capable of producing more offspring. Over time, their necks grew longer but the number of bones in their neck remained the same (7, same as any mammals). This is adaptation.
The same adaptation rules can be applied to explain why humans have tailbones (when they evolved from ape-like prehumans), whales have rudimentary hind limbs (when they evolved from land-walking mammals) and bats have finger bones and membranes for wings.
If creationism exist, why would adaptations be so evident everywhere? Imagine you're an engineer, wouldn't it make more sense to build a bird like an F-16 so that they can fly faster? Wouldn't it make more sense to have wheels instead of feet so that animals can run faster? Wouldn't it be more sensible to build fishes with turbines, so that they can swim faster?
Hmm... okie... so creationism is circular right? You use a creator to prove that all things are created.Originally posted by vince69:circular argument is when one use the same theory to come out with a deduction to prove that very theory.
Evolution uses different evidence to prove how it works. Adaptation is only one mechanism. Bottle-neck selection, macro-evolution and micro-evolution are all different theories, all contributing to the grand theory of evolution.
As you can see, evolution is not circular.
Yup, precisely why creationism is circularOriginally posted by vince69:ok, since you agree that evolution does not explain the source of life, let me tell you this also, without faith in the existence of a creater, neither can creation theory explain this.
I agree on this. Maybe it's just me, but half-answered questions are so much better than not answering them at all.Originally posted by vince69:And about the conflicting view, I am not even talking about explaination on the source of life, I am merely pointing that there are still alot of questions unanswered and researches still going on in this search for the ultimate answer of how and why.
Do have an open mind on this subject, be it evolution or creation, question everything, check every underlining assumptions, for its only in questioning we can gain knowledge.
recently there are also some who propose progressive evolution, which attempts to combine both creation and evolution theory.
Evolution is a very young theory (relatively), there are tons of things not explained. And yes, we do need to keep an open mind - that's why we encourage active criticisms on all existing evidence on evolution.
However, I'm sadden to say that no way as a scientifically trained person, can I accept progressive evolution unless creationism can be proven or supported by evidence. It is at most a crude theory, no more advanced from its weakest link - creationism. -
Wah... so many responses while I was drafting my long reply...
-
Vince69, don't mistaken me for not liking christians. Many of my good friends are and I think it is a good religion cos' it teaches its followers to do good.
But to take texts straight out from the bible is not advisable. Granted that if all writers of the bible had their facts right, you would still have to account for the human and dirty politics that played a part in compiling the book together.
Who decides what to include? And who decides what to exclude? -
ok, me at fault also, to me, having half a answer is not good enough, its only means that there is the other half waiting to be found.Originally posted by kaister:First of all, you hold a good arguement And you're a late sleeper...
I agree on this. Maybe it's just me, but half-answered questions are so much better than not answering them at all.
Evolution is a very young theory (relatively), there are tons of things not explained. And yes, we do need to keep an open mind - that's why we encourage active criticisms on all existing evidence on evolution.
However, I'm sadden to say that no way as a scientifically trained person, can I accept progressive evolution unless creationism can be proven or supported by evidence. It is at most a crude theory, no more advanced from its weakest link - creationism.
if you have noticed, even as I am questioning evolution, I am also pointing creation don't have the full answer to that as well. which by the way, is only one of many theories, disproving one does not prove another.
the entire creationism lies solely on one basic assumption, that there is a Creater. (that's why, whenever there is a debate on creationism, its almost always ended up on the question of whether if there is a Creater)
* pls note that the notion of having a creater is not a christian only thing, there are other teaching/religion which also teaches this.
the part I like about using fossil records is that, dispite its various missing links, at least it attempts to shows how one specie evolved to another.
ok, its 2.30am, time to go to bed
good night, else I will "evolved" into a panda bear (2 black eyes) -
I am not taking this personal, its always good to trash things out, we may not agree on many things, but at least we learn something (as least I do)Originally posted by kaister:Vince69, don't mistaken me for not liking christians. Many of my good friends are and I think it is a good religion cos' it teaches its followers to do good.
But to take texts straight out from the bible is not advisable. Granted that if all writers of the bible had their facts right, you would still have to account for the human and dirty politics that played a part in compiling the book together.
Who decides what to include? And who decides what to exclude? -
Half an answer is not good enough to me too... but I probably won't live long enough to see the truth.Originally posted by vince69:ok, me at fault also, to me, having half a answer is not good enough, its only means that there is the other half waiting to be found.
if you have noticed, even as I am questioning evolution, I am also pointing creation don't have the full answer to that as well. which by the way, is only one of many theories, disproving one does not prove another.
the entire creationism lies solely on one basic assumption, that there is a Creater. (that's why, whenever there is a debate on creationism, its almost always ended up on the question of whether if there is a Creater)
* pls note that the notion of having a creater is not a christian only thing, there are other teaching/religion which also teaches this.
the part I like about using fossil records is that, dispite its various missing links, at least it attempts to shows how one specie evolved to another.
ok, its 2.30am, time to go to bed
good night, else I will "evolved" into a panda bear (2 black eyes)
Ya it's true some other religions and cultures also hold creationism as the truth. But sadly, only christians are daring enough to speak their mind. Bravo to you guys!
I think this thread is a bit unfair to you leh... so many people bombarding you, including me
heehee... But I've have to say I admire your courage to speak your mind and your openness to new ideas and criticisms.
Good nite! -
Without going into points you and kaister have already discussed.Originally posted by vince69:ok, its 2.30am, time to go to bed
good night, else I will "evolved" into a panda bear (2 black eyes)
Observation is the one of the key component to all scientific theories. This is especially true in pathological sciences. Key discoveries around the world owes itself to that; if alexander fleming simply attributed the bacteria's death to god's smiting we'd still be stuck with ritual healings.
It is thus untrue to say that it is a half answered question. To begin with, the evolution theory is a THEORY built on OBSERVATION. It is NOT an answer. Creationism is a passage of text found in the bible, no more, no less.
Scientific theories are held to be correct in the scientific community until disproved. Since you so clearly expressed that your esteemed slef is incapable of disproving it, the other route you have chosen in attempting to destroy its credibility is by means of sulking.
Before you sulk more, allow me to assure you that others have already countered the points i cited earlier point by point with far more rational approaches as opposed to "that's not evolution!" Ben1xy made a good point about theistic evolution; perhaps you should get yourself acquinted with that.
Theories have been proven to be both right and wrong. But I assure you that the observations are very real. The keywords you have cited "adaptation" "survival of fittest" "mutation" are all central to the idea of evolution; i don't why you'd twist it around to say that it's not evolution; no matter if you know and agree that these happens, then despite what you may think, you're really standing on the side of evolutionists.
Perhaps what you really need to do is to read "the origin of species" to actually figure out what the theory is, and what it is all about. The way you're arguing indicates that you have at best read off wikipedia. ie: it's not the theory that's incomplete but rather, your understanding.
Funnily, the retrospective evidence you cite to be the most tangible is a terrible nightmare for creationists. If held to be correct without other parts of evolution, either god looks like an ape (created in his own image) or god only created part of the world. (since everything before b.c4000 predates creation)
Again since we're so much on observations, the number 1 observation is that Kaister provides you with ANSWERS, and all you're providing him are with QUESTIONS, vague ones, nonetheless. which btw, he's already answered. YOu're just too blind to see that.
Next time, if you lose an argument, bow out nicely, and nobody will say anything. Slowly changing your stance, and sulking until others agree with you is just plain childish. I know, because i observed my little nephew doing that all the time. -
1) Disagreeing with evolution is not a christian thing. The first people to disagree on evolution, believe it or not, are the scientists. It is notably a christian thing because christians are the strongest critics (darwin being born/lived in a christian society) of evolution.Originally posted by kaister:Half an answer is not good enough to me too... but I probably won't live long enough to see the truth.
Ya it's true some other religions and cultures also hold creationism as the truth. But sadly, only christians are daring enough to speak their mind. Bravo to you guys!
I think this thread is a bit unfair to you leh... so many people bombarding you, including me heehee... But I've have to say I admire your courage to speak your mind and your openness to new ideas and criticisms.
Good nite!
2) it is not unfair to him. everybody is taking a shot at him because his arguments are terribly weak.
3) With regards to your idea of 'living long enough to see the truth', I'd suggest that's not the point of the discussion. Since we have all agreed that we cannot examine the "truth", we can only examine the evidence. As such, we are working on the credibility of 2 very different theories seeking to explain the same thing.
evolution is a theory seeking the truth based on scientific evidence.
the bible is a book that purports to be the truth by mobbing.
- My stand is that evolution is the correct way to go.
- You seem to agree.
- Vince69 dosen't think that both are examinable, but by virtue of being christian he would take the bible to be right. As such, he presents no credible evidence for his stand, but instead chooses to insist that evolution is not evolution despite evidential presentation.
Which is why, point 2) is point 2). It's not unfair, really. -
that's actually the most common stand regarding the contemporary debate on creationism and evolution actually.Originally posted by Icemoon:It need not be.
Remember Ironside quoted Josh's apologetic for Christianity that said the argument for Christ need not be circular?
We can likewise apply the same standard for evolution.
How? By assuming that change is reasonable, then we examine the observations, and try to form a synthesis. -
so what's so questionable about creationism?Originally posted by vince69:you will need to read our exchange again
kaister's stand is that evolution is right, creation is wrong
mine is, both are just as questionable and need to be questioned.
(from the start, I already said I am not going to disprove evolution, cause I can't) -
x2.Originally posted by nomood:Again since we're so much on observations, the number 1 observation is that Kaister provides you with ANSWERS, and all you're providing him are with QUESTIONS, vague ones, nonetheless. which btw, he's already answered. YOu're just too blind to see that.
I feel that vince is not engaging him. Instead his replies are hazy and vague at best.
When kaister asked him about the tailbone, he never really answers the question.