Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

A person who believes in God but not evolution doesn't really understand either of them.

Define "evolution" so that there wont be any equivocation, please.

He's probably referring to the standard definition. That is, that life adapts to it's environment via natural selection. You know, theory that Charles Darwin came up with, not the expanded definition that creationists sometimes use which also seems to include Big Bang cosmology, synthesis of matter plus abiogenesis.

As for what else he's implying, I don't really care. It just seems to me that all the factual evidence on the ground tends to support evolution. It supports Big Bang cosmology too but that's a separate issue.

If you are referring to the 'swamp theory' where single celled organisms over millions of years eventually crawled on land, then I suppose the Bible can loosely be interpreted to support that if you read Genesis.

"Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens."
God made plants and animals long before man, and man (from clay and the Earth) before woman. Even though 'Days' are mentioned in Genesis, we cannot be sure exactly how much time actually passed, seeing as if God only has enough stamina to do a week's work, what hope do the rest of us have?

It was possible man was asexual (why would God give a creature a penis and then decide later to make a female), since it is the only creature in Genesis that special procedures are mentioned to create a female, but it was more likely to subjugate women.

So at this point, evolution is possible. But it is at this point that man does a bit more evolving to what we know know as man.

In Genesis, Man and Woman are members of "Eden", Paradise. I believe Eden to be a euphemism for Nature. See, when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, they were forced to evolve prematurely, and were kicked out of nature as a species. God had no choice but to remove us from Eden, we were no longer animals. Notice how we humans are separated from the beasts? This is the beginning of man's travel to what we know him now to be, Adam lives to several hundred years old, and with each generation that number got smaller. From this point on, the Bible's stories of war, suffering, sin take off and we get to where we are today.

'keet: I'm sure you're familiar with the "Judge not..." passage in the Bible? I've been thinking about that a lot lately as it applies to this kind of idea.

Here's what I came up with: Evolution is the product of scientific inquiry, specifically some observations made by Charles Darwin. Science is built on observations of the natural/material world made with the classical senses (see, hear, smell, feel, taste, and drawing its conclusions from applying logic in forming hypotheses, testing theories, and so on. At the lowest end of science, you have logical conclusions based on physical evidence.

The trap here is that applying LOGIC to physical evidence. Those that would insist on physical evidence alone have to ignore logic. Why? Because there is no physical evidence for logic!! ! Yet without logic, we can't draw conclusions from physical evidence. The very science of evolution based on required physical evidence presupposes the very logic it's based on and cannot provide the physical evidence for it's own foundational elements (logic).

Now getting back to the "Judge not" verse. One may say, as the OP did, that a person who believes in God but not evolution doesn't really understand either of them. If one were to say that Modern creationism makes no sense based on interpretations of physical evidence that presuppose its own logic, that is, it provides no physical basis for logic, then one must say that the opposite view (in this case evolution) is at least equally if not more so nonsensical than creationism!

"Judge not" applies here because value judgments such as morality and logic provide the lens by which all things are judged, including one's personal views. For one to say that physical evidence is necessary for creationism based on his own logic, one must ignore the fact there is no physical evidence for his own logic. And if there is no foundational logic for science, then no matter what physical evidence you can provide, evolution can't possibly be anything more than an unconvincing work of fiction.

Creationists, on the other hand, are more prepared to accept things that are not falsifiable. Why shouldn't we? We have all the proof we need. So what if others are too closed-minded to get it?

I'm not sure what mean hear. You may be referring to abiogenesis which is more a theory of how life started. Evolution describes how life diversifies and proliferates. What happens is simply that if a mutation in an existing species is beneficial to it being able to survive and reproduce, that mutation will eventually come to dominate whereas if it's detrimental then the organisms carrying that mutation will eventually die out. If this process happens over millions of years then this would explain how the first land animals evolved from sea creatures or how humans and other primates could have a common ancestor for example. I get your point though.

Yes I was not sure if by evolution the OP meant abiogenesis, or maybe something like this

So I tried to address both
I had the single cell thing floating around my head from when NASA found water (was it on the moon, Mars, I can't remember) and they were talking about how this could mean life outside of Earth.

You're talking nonsense. The whole point is to use logical reasoning light of the physical evidence. If you've studied predicate logic in mathematics you'd know that the definition of a logical argument is that it is structured in such a way that true premises lead to true conclusions. This is purely due to the structure of the argument. Note that I said that the premises .i.e the initial facts, observations, assumptions have to be true for the conclusion to be true. A logical argument in fact can lead to the wrong conclusions if the premises are false. It's like a machine - if the premises are true, your conclusions are also true but if they are false then it follows the GIGO principle (Garbage In Garbage Out).

In any case, to cut a long story short - logic itself does not need physical evidence. You seem to be arguing that you can ignore evidence for evolution if you discard logic. Thanks, I'd rather stick to being rational.

No problem.

And you are doing no different.

What does logic look like? Can you paint me a picture of it? Can I pick it off a tree?

Where is it? Can I buy a bucket of logic off ebay?

If you can't give me physical proof of logic, how may I believe in it? Prove to me that logic is an observable, material entity.

[img][650:496]http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3818/logic.gif[/img]

Lol JK

Getting rid of evolution is one form of peculiarity. Getting rid of logic is not just throwing out the baby wit the bath, it's throwing out thinking totally. When psychosis emerges like some mud covered monster with teeth an claws, my only instinct is to run like hell.

Epilefftic: Touché and nice try, but not quite. Books about logic isn't logic itself. Interesting, though, and I might add that I am personally a user of the Apple Logic Studio 9 audio software package and even use Mainstage 2 when performing keyboards live with my band.

What's more, I also use Propellerhead's Reason. So yes, Logic and Reason can both be very important to the electronic musician!! !

Anyway, back to my point, logic is not a material thing. You can read what others think about it, but a book is NOT logic. You can't pump it out of the ground, distill it, and use it for fuel. You can't mine it and turn it into pretty jewelry. You can't eat it, keep yourself warm with it, spray it on like perfume, put it under a microscope, or listen to it on the radio. And most relevant to my original point, you can't apply science to it.

Sand, you're absolutely right about getting rid of logic is "throwing out thinking totally." Well, perhaps logic isn't the ONLY way of thinking, but it's certainly a big one. And as I've said before, logic and science seem to be inextricably linked. Logic doesn't need science, but science obviously depends on a logical foundation. The problem I have with total reliance on science alone is that kind of thinking ignores the fact that one of its most important foundational elements cannot be proven in any materialistic way. To say that "evidence suggests the evolution of species" is one thing. But to further suggest that "evidence proves evolution and creationist ideas are just stupid" would, indeed, be outright silly. For one, evolution is still theory, not absolute fact. Why? Because the body of evidence has not PROVEN it to be so. I might just as well say that evidence proves creationism and that evolution is outright stupid. I'm justified in saying so just as much as the adversary is in making the opposite claim. Yet again, there is no conclusive evidence.

Someone who argues physical evidence alone is enough ignores the logic behind assessing such evidence. Therefore, physical evidence alone is not enough. One must accept that there is the existence of at least one thing which cannot be physically proven, that being logic.

Believers have never really had trouble accepting the Unseen. Where believers fall into traps debating creation/evolution, existence of God, logic, philosophy, science, and so on is trying to satisfy an inappropriately perceived need for evidence to somehow "prove" unbelievers wrong. That's why I don't buy into intelligent design theories, particularly the ones used to show how God set nature into motion and everything just somehow came about right on schedule as a result of how the gears turned. A miraculous creation, on the other hand, demonstrates that God is not limited in size or strength by His own creation and that He can intervene in the human story whenever and wherever as He sees fit. It is, after all, only logical!

Your statement:

Sand, you're absolutely right about getting rid of logic is "throwing out thinking totally." Well, perhaps logic isn't the ONLY way of thinking, but it's certainly a big one. And as I've said before, logic and science seem to be inextricably linked. Logic doesn't need science, but science obviously depends on a logical foundation. The problem I have with total reliance on science alone is that kind of thinking ignores the fact that one of its most important foundational elements cannot be proven in any materialistic way. To say that "evidence suggests the evolution of species" is one thing. But to further suggest that "evidence proves evolution and creationist ideas are just stupid" would, indeed, be outright silly. For one, evolution is still theory, not absolute fact. Why? Because the body of evidence has not PROVEN it to be so. I might just as well say that evidence proves creationism and that evolution is outright stupid. I'm justified in saying so just as much as the adversary is in making the opposite claim. Yet again, there is no conclusive evidence.

This continuous defecation on the term "theory" by religious people who do not understand the meaning of the term is a really dumb answer by someone who seems to have a grasp of the way things work. There is working evidence all around you continuously of the principles of organisms responding to evolutionary forces and these are used all the time from plant and animal breeders to more scientific investigations of depth. Not once in human experience has anyone seen a new type of animal appear in a puff of smoke and a Godly pronouncement. That is such outrageous garbage that I am afraid it destroys any possibility in my mind that you have some sort of rational basis for your thinking. Logic connects causes to effects and you are saying, basically that there are effects without causes. Sorry, no.

Theory - that which is assumed to be true, but not yet proved to be so through repeatable scientific experiment. This I believe is close to a good definition of theory. So evolution is a theory, and biblical creationism is a theory, as science cannot prove, through experimentation either of them. However the weight of 'scientific evidence' tends to support biblical creation, as the more science learns, the more unlikely evolution becomes (such that the conditions Darwin himself placed on his theory of evolution being false, have been met, so that Science has proven that Darwin (by his own admission) is wrong).

In talking about plant breeding, I think you should be talking about natural selection, not evolution. Plant breeders select individuals who show most strongly the characteristics they want, and then breed them together to intensify that trait - this is natural selection (changes within a species), not evolution (changing from one species to another). Natural Selection is a well attested fact, evolution is a vain theory with very little, if any supporting evidence.

I'm not aware that anyone ever said that God is continuing to create new species. I have seen/heard of him creating new parts of bodies or fixing broken ones!! !
Show me a species of animal or plant undergoing evolution!! !

Evolution is a fact. The forms and varieties of life on this planet have changed over the eons. What is theory ( and a very well supported theory at that) is change in living things is driven by genetic variation and natural selection of those variants which have greater reproductive success. Three billion years ago there were only single celled biota on this planet. Now there are many kinds of living things and there are complex multi-celled living things. How did it come to be. Was there variation by mutation and recombination in the DNA or did some mysterious god keep making news kinds of living things?

ruveyn