How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Questions for evolutionists   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Questions for evolutionists

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


0 posted 06-18-2003 11:13 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose


1. Where did the space for the universe come from?  


2. Where did matter come from?  


3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?


4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?  


5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?  


6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?  


7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?  


8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?  


9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)  


10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)  


11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?  


12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?  


13. When, where, why, and how did  
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)  
b. Single-celled animals evolve?  
c. Fish change to amphibians?  
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?  
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)  
f. How did the intermediate forms live?  


14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:  
a. Whales evolve?  
b. Sea horses evolve?  
c. Bats evolve?  
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f.  Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?  


15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?  
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body"'"s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?  
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?  
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?  
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?  
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?  
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?  
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?  
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?  
i. The immune system or the need for it?  


16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?  


17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?  


18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.


19. How did photosynthesis evolve?  


20. How did thought evolve?  


21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?  


22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?  


23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?  


24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?  


25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?


26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.


1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)  


2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?  


3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?  


4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?


5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?  


6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?  
a. It is all they have been taught.  
b. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).  
c. They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.  
d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong.  
e. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.  


7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don"'"t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?  


8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?  


9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."  


10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.  

*I am not the author of these questions


Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


1 posted 06-18-2003 11:27 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

I am not an evolutionist, or a Darwinist, however, I have a question to answer the other questions... Who says that both theories can't and don't work together???
And, the questions put "How did ______ evolve" actually puts into the theory of evoution. Everything evolves from a set of external and internal influences. I actually do not believe that God, or any other n ame that He/She might be called has much to do with the evolution process.Putting everything here in the first place is definately in the field of Creationism. Evolving, I believe, isn't.

Day after day I'm more confused,
So I look for the light through the pouring rain...

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


2 posted 06-19-2003 12:37 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

My my.  So many questions. Hardly the medium for pursuing a post-graduate degree in physics and biology.  If you're really looking for answers though and not trying to be rhetorical you could start here.
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw02.html

and here:
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/h_kaku2.html

and then read Hawkings "Breif History of Time"

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (06-19-2003 12:37 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


3 posted 06-19-2003 01:25 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Given that these aren't your questions, Anne, are you prepared to defend them?  

There are actually a few really good questions here. However, since those few are mixed in with so many others that demonstrate an appalling lack of basic knowledge, I have to assume the few were just an accident. That this survey exists at all seems to suggest we should be teaching more science in our school system, not less.

Let's look at just a few.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Cells reproduce through mitosis, not sexual reproduction. With what did the first organism capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Probably with itself. Asexual reproduction is still very common, certainly in the plant world, and also among many invertebrates like sea stars and sea anemones. The first organism capable of sexual reproduction was also very likely capable of asexual reproduction. Its offspring could then reproduce with each other.

Sounds icky, I know. But with whom did the children of Adam and Eve reproduce? Whether you listen to science or the Bible, we all spring from a common seed.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Odds are there were a great many living cells and organisms at one time that did not reproduce. They, uh, aren't here any more. Survival of the species isn't some great scientific law as much as it is happenstance. Those organism that reproduce are only here to ask these kinds of questions because they reproduced. I guess those that didn't reproduce had different questions to ask.

It's called the Anthropic Principle and often offers the simplest answers to the most complex questions. The universe is as we see it today precisely because we're here to see it. If something important changed even marginally, we wouldn't be here. Stated another way, there may well be other universes out there that have no life or have life very different from ours. We don't live in one of those.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Never is a very long time, and if your handwriting was as bad as mine, you might think otherwise.  

But even if we accept that English won't mutate to Chinese, that still leaves an infinite realm of possibilities. Randomly combine English letters over sufficient times spans, and everything possible to write will eventually emerge. Gee, maybe all of life as we know it is still in its English phase. In another five billion years, it might have mutated into Chinese?  

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?  
2. Where did matter come from?  
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?


Where did God come from?

Opening the door to He "always existed" opens the same door to anything else that can't be readily understood. And interestingly, "always existed" makes perfect scientific sense, whether you're talking about space or God. Time and the measurement of time does not exist as a Universal constant, but rather is a product of the universe as we see it now. Anything that was here before clocks started ticking, by our definition, always existed.

Obviously, I'm not going to play devil's advocate to all of these questions. To be honest, some I couldn't answer and still keep a straight face. But there is one last point, I'd like to address.

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?

Because creationism is not a single subject. There's a different brand of it for every religion dating back to some crude paintings on the walls of a cave. If we are to protect our right to freedom of religion, we CANNOT elevate one over another. If we were to teach the story of Genesis in the public schools, it would make a lot of Christians very, very happy today. Ten or twenty or fifty years down the road, however, when Christians perhaps no longer held a majority position, they would be outraged to have their children being taught Buddhism or Wicca. Separation of church and state doesn't just protect the minority religions. It protects all of us.

Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory that most scientists will agree is flawed and incomplete, but is still valid enough to hold important truths. Nor does evolution necessarily contradict the Bible. Read Genesis carefully and you'll discover that the order in which God created everything is pretty darn close to that predicted by science. Coincidence? Or is evolution a tool?

Science and religion are not enemies. Mankind discovered electricity, we didn't invent it. If one is to believe in a god who created everything, then one must also believe in a god who created electricity. And gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics. And, yea, maybe even evolution. The greatest scientific mind of history, Sir Isaac Newton, was also a fanatical believer in God. Newton knew, I think, that science, in every single instance, reinforces and substantiates the Christian faith. The study of science IS the study of God.
Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 02-07-2003
Posts 1519
With my darkling


4 posted 06-19-2003 05:46 AM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle

Where did God come from?
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


5 posted 06-19-2003 09:58 AM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

Ringo, God says. That's all I can tell you. Evolution isn't in the Bible, so as a Christian, I believe it is a lie.

LR, would it take a post-graduate degree to answer the questions? I posted them somewhere else, and an atheist is attempting to answer all of them. A very nice young man who has as his only fault that he doesn't believe in God. He's answered the first 4 already, I'm assuming from sources online, and I understood, though didn't believe a word, of his answers.

Ron, The questions were posed by a creation scientist. I believe that they were to be taken literally, and an evolutionist, who is an evolutionist because he actually knows the equations and formulas put forth by the great Darwin, and Gould, and Dawkins and others, would know the answers.

In response to some of your other questions about man inventing, or discovering: I never said man didn't invent anything, or discover anything. Man is even capable of creating. The problem is he's not doing so from nothing.

There is a cute story that states my point.

God and man were having a discussion one day. Man tells God, "I too could create a man, just like you did". God says, "fine, prove it to me." The man bends down to pick up a handful of dirt, and God says, "get your own dirt."

God made everything from nothing, man will never be able to accomplish this feat. He's not God, so I'm surprised anyone thinks he will. But that's just me, you know, faith and all that.


Jason, God did not "come" from anywhere. He's always been, always is, and always will be. What is eternal has no origin.
Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 11-05-2001
Posts 2929
Transylconia, Winnipeg


6 posted 06-19-2003 11:28 AM       View Profile for Local Parasite   Email Local Parasite   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Local Parasite's Home Page   View IP for Local Parasite

quote:
and I understood, though didn't believe a word, of his answers.


If you understand them, why didn't you believe a word of them?  If you're not willing to listen to people's answers, however much sense they make, then your questions are pointless and I don't think anyone should waste their time trying to answer them just for your sake.

You shouldn't ask questions just to prove a point, especially when you're not willing to listen to the answers... you're trying to say that science is on your side, but you assure yourself of your points by dogmatically believing them...

So what's the point of asking to begin with?

Sorry, that just annoyed me... I don't usually speak up in this forum, I just read, but I felt the need to comment on this...
Sudhir Iyer
Member Rara Avis
since 04-26-2000
Posts 7206
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium


7 posted 06-19-2003 11:48 AM       View Profile for Sudhir Iyer   Email Sudhir Iyer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Sudhir Iyer

quote:
A very nice young man who has as his only fault that he doesn't believe in God.


Just wondering how could you say it is his fault. It is possible that it is your belief that he is wrong just as it is his right to believe that you  are incorrect.

No, I am not an evolutionist or any other fanciful personality groups that some try to seggregate people into, but I wonder what is your motivation to place forward these questions, if you are not going to believe the answers if they are not what you would like to hear.

I have nothing against you at all and also I try not to get involved in such discussions on too many occasions, but this I had to point out. Sorry for jumping in.

Regards to you and everybody else,
Sudhir

[This message has been edited by Sudhir Iyer (06-19-2003 11:58 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


8 posted 06-19-2003 12:13 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
In response to some of your other questions about man inventing, or discovering: I never said man didn't invent anything, or discover anything. Man is even capable of creating. The problem is he's not doing so from nothing.

Unlike others, I don't insist anyone believe the answers to the questions. It would be nice, though, if they were at least read.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


9 posted 06-19-2003 12:24 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

LP, I said I understood them in the sense that the equations were not over my head. He offered up the scientific theories. But then he went on to say the same thing the scientists say about those theories: "they cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and do not answer with any certainty the question of the origin of man.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


10 posted 06-19-2003 12:40 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

Ron,

Forgive me, I didn't mean to leave you with the impression I didn't read your post.

Given that these aren't your questions, Anne, are you prepared to defend them?  

There are actually a few really good questions here. However, since those few are mixed in with so many others that demonstrate an appalling lack of basic knowledge, I have to assume the few were just an accident. That this survey exists at all seems to suggest we should be teaching more science in our school system, not less.

Let's look at just a few.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Cells reproduce through mitosis, not sexual reproduction. With what did the first organism capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Probably with itself. Asexual reproduction is still very common, certainly in the plant world, and also among many invertebrates like sea stars and sea anemones. The first organism capable of sexual reproduction was also very likely capable of asexual reproduction. Its offspring could then reproduce with each other.

Sounds icky, I know. But with whom did the children of Adam and Eve reproduce? Whether you listen to science or the Bible, we all spring from a common seed.

Is there proof of this somewhere? And if it happened that way the first time, how did we get to where we are now? What intelligence was introduced, and how and why was it introduced, for reproduction to happen the way it happens now, within the animal, and human species?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Odds are there were a great many living cells and organisms at one time that did not reproduce. They, uh, aren't here any more. Survival of the species isn't some great scientific law as much as it is happenstance. Those organism that reproduce are only here to ask these kinds of questions because they reproduced. I guess those that didn't reproduce had different questions to ask.

It's called the Anthropic Principle and often offers the simplest answers to the most complex questions. The universe is as we see it today precisely because we're here to see it. If something important changed even marginally, we wouldn't be here. Stated another way, there may well be other universes out there that have no life or have life very different from ours. We don't live in one of those.

Again, can you offer me some proof? Something I can see? Something that is all around me now, that I could perhaps watch doing these incredible things, so that I would know they actually learned to do them all by themselves? For instance. If there are lower life forms now, which there are, can I watch one evolve? From the time of man's first recorded history, has nothing evolved so miraculously as it did in the beginning so that it could have been recorded, somehow?

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Never is a very long time, and if your handwriting was as bad as mine, you might think otherwise.  

But even if we accept that English won't mutate to Chinese, that still leaves an infinite realm of possibilities. Randomly combine English letters over sufficient times spans, and everything possible to write will eventually emerge. Gee, maybe all of life as we know it is still in its English phase. In another five billion years, it might have mutated into Chinese?


There should be evidence of these creatures that went extinct before their time. We are supposedly talking about billions of years. There would be more than just a few of these fossils laying around.

Have you read about the experiments with the fruit fly? There were mutations? Not one, not a single one was an improvement. All of them were harmful to the fruit fly. In that case, the mutations that would have taken place for evolution to be fact, would have all been harmful. We would not be the creatures we are today. It would just stand to reason, we would be abominable creatures with many eyes, many arms and so on and so forth. Wouldn't it?


1. Where did the space for the universe come from?  
2. Where did matter come from?  
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

Where did God come from?

I see you already knew my answer.

Opening the door to He "always existed" opens the same door to anything else that can't be readily understood. And interestingly, "always existed" makes perfect scientific sense, whether you're talking about space or God. Time and the measurement of time does not exist as a Universal constant, but rather is a product of the universe as we see it now. Anything that was here before clocks started ticking, by our definition, always existed.

Obviously, I'm not going to play devil's advocate to all of these questions. To be honest, some I couldn't answer and still keep a straight face. But there is one last point, I'd like to address.

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?

Because creationism is not a single subject. There's a different brand of it for every religion dating back to some crude paintings on the walls of a cave. If we are to protect our right to freedom of religion, we CANNOT elevate one over another. If we were to teach the story of Genesis in the public schools, it would make a lot of Christians very, very happy today. Ten or twenty or fifty years down the road, however, when Christians perhaps no longer held a majority position, they would be outraged to have their children being taught Buddhism or Wicca. Separation of church and state doesn't just protect the minority religions. It protects all of us.

Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory that most scientists will agree is flawed and incomplete, but is still valid enough to hold important truths. Nor does evolution necessarily contradict the Bible. Read Genesis carefully and you'll discover that the order in which God created everything is pretty darn close to that predicted by science. Coincidence? Or is evolution a tool?

I disagree, wholeheartedly. Evolution is in fact a religion. It takes more faith to believe in something that has no basis in fact, undeniable proven fact, than it does to believe in creation.

And there are many different theories of evolution. Not just one. So the same holds true as to what you say of religion. There are more evolutionary theories popping up  about the origin of man.

One does not have to teach religion to teach creation. The perfect answer would be to teach neither, don't you think? Christians children would learn creation in church, and non-christian children would learn what their parents taught them about the origin of man.


Science and religion are not enemies. Mankind discovered electricity, we didn't invent it. If one is to believe in a god who created everything, then one must also believe in a god who created electricity. And gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics. And, yea, maybe even evolution. The greatest scientific mind of history, Sir Isaac Newton, was also a fanatical believer in God. Newton knew, I think, that science, in every single instance, reinforces and substantiates the Christian faith. The study of science IS the study of God.

I already answered this one.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


11 posted 06-19-2003 12:46 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

Sudhir, Please don't apologize for jumping in. You have just as much right to participate in a discussion as anyone else.

The reason behind the questions, I believe is this. There are answers to be found from the scientists for these questions. I know, because some people have actually answered some of them with some very scientific answers. The problem with their answers is this. All of the answers are theories. Not one could offer me proof as to the validity, or the correctness of their answers.

I think that is the point of the questions. I would like for people to see that the theory of evolution in fact has no basis in fact. The scientists will admit that themselves. They are supposing, hypothesizing, and just plain guessing, in the hope of putting forth an idea that will allow for the origin of man to take place outside the realm of God.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


12 posted 06-19-2003 12:54 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant



"God made everything from nothing"

What is nothing?  Do you mean chaos or formlessness?  

If God has always been, why haven't created things always been?

Just a few more questions to the pile.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


13 posted 06-19-2003 12:55 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

Now before anyone attempts to answer these questions, with theories that have never been proven to be fact. (I'm learning that the phrase, "it's not an exact science" is actually a redundancy) When it comes to evolution, no science seems to be exact. I would like to put forth my problem with the answers that are being provided, not on this board, mostly because I think on this board no one is really going to attempt to answer them.

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are in fact just theories.

Creation is not a theory.

Creation was accepted by man right up until he decided to turn his back on God. Then something had to be thought up to replace creation, so that man would have something to replace the creation account with, for he was left with this problem of creation, which was all around him, and it needed explaining, outside of God.

After all, how would man convince all of mankind that there was no God, if he couldn't think up some theory to explain all the wonders of the universe, and the origin of man? So he was in a pickle.  

Now let me explain to you why, to me, a Christian who has the creator of this universe living within her heart, all of these theories are unbelievable, and ridiculous, from my point of view.

The Father of this universe, God, speaks to me through His Word. I learn something new each and every time I read the Bible. I've seen Him answer prayer. I've seen the miracle of His salvation work in the lives of many who have been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ.

I myself have been washed in the blood of Christ when I accepted the Lord as my savior, and put my faith in the Gospel, which is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The Gospel, of which God says, "it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth."

So you could say, I have the blood of Christ coursing through my veins. Not literally, but I say it that way to make a point. We say that we are the blood of our ancestors. Have you ever heard that phrase? You are of your parents. You inherited certain things from both of them. It's written in your genetic code.  

What would you think if I told you that you didn't come from your parents? What would you think if I told you that they did not in fact create you, but that you just evolved one day from a single-celled creature, and just happened to pop up in their house one day, crib and all? Wouldn't you think I was a bit crazy? Probably more than just a bit crazy? You'd think I was a lunatic.

You see, that is what I think when I hear all these theories about how we came to be. I have the Father of the universe living inside of me. I have the proof of creation written on my heart. So how can I possibly believe a theory, that all who answered the questions, have already stated is not exact, nor able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, when I know the truth? My mind, which is centered on the Lord, which is touched by God's infinite knowledge, every single day, cannot believe evolution. It's a physical impossibility.

I do not wish to offend anyone  in any way. I am grateful for the time anyone may have taken to search out the answers to the questions I placed on this board. If you feel that you are learning something, and you wish to answer all of the questions, please feel free to do so. But also, please understand, in my mind, your answers offer me no proof.  

Your answers do not actually answer, beyond a reasonable doubt, the questions posed. They do not satisfy, with any certainty, nor are they the answer to the one question that evolution stems from. "How did we get here, if God did not create us?"

The reason they do not, in my mind, which remember, is centered on God, is because it's impossible to do so.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


14 posted 06-19-2003 01:05 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"What would you think if I told you that they did not in fact create you, but that you just evolved one day from a single-celled creature, and just happened to pop up in their house one day... Wouldn't you think I was a bit crazy?..."

I would have no choice but to think you were crazy if you proposed evolution (or creation for that matter) happened in one day!    

[This message has been edited by Essorant (06-19-2003 01:25 PM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


15 posted 06-19-2003 01:58 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Whiterose:

It seems to me that you are asking evolutionists to provide you with evidentiary proof of their claims that you, as a creationist, cannot produce yourself.

I would argue that evolutionary theory is not a scientific theory, but rather a historical theory.  It relies heavily on decidedly inconclusive fossil and archeological records, observations of micro-evolution within species, and similarities in the genetic make-up of species that share certain attributes (e.g., apes and humans).  

I just watched "Walking with Cavemen" on the Discovery Channel this week and it is quite obvious that the evolutionary theorist must do much to fluff up the evidentiary record with speculation in order to fill a two hour television program, including commercials.  What I took from watching that show is that we really don't know all that much about our origins.

But what does the creation scientist offer us besides a different interpretation of the evidentiary record?  A reliance on texts that he believes are inspired by God?  Assuming that the texts are reliable, are we certain that his interpretation of the divine texts is credible?

If both camps were honest with us and with themselves, and relied only on the historical and scientific evidence at their disposal, they would both have to throw their hands in the air and admit that human origin remains a mystery to the historians and the scientists in both camps.  

Truth be told, even within orthodox Christianity, there are diverse opinions regarding the interpretation of the creation account of Genesis.  Were the days literal, 24 hour days?  Were the "days" spread over millions of earth-years?  Was the universe created old?  Is the universe really only about 10,000 years old?

I'm happy for you finding comfort in your faith, but I think it is important not to mince words - what you have in your heart is not "proof" in a scientific or evidentiary sense.  What you are really saying is that you need no proof because you are comfortable that what you believe to be true is true.

Jim
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


16 posted 06-19-2003 02:38 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

White, Rose:

I agree that this is way too many questions to ask at one time.  It ends up looking like or being just a rant of someone's.  I'm not saying that there are no good questions in there.  Just to narrow things down might get a better response, and folks might think you are ready to listen and reason with their responses also.  

Stephen.

As to evolution in general ...I am not necessarily a "young Earth creationist".  I am not a scientist, and therefore suspend my judgement on many things regarding evolutionary theory.  But then again I don't believe in the concept of a blind mechanistic universe that arose out of chance + time + matter.  I believe that God had to do it.  If not, then everything is molecules and motion ... and I do mean everything, including human rationality, morality, and all thought.

Epistemically this is suicidal belief.  Why?  Because if things like rationality arose out of the darwinian process of natural selection, then it only means that they are conducive to survival and nothing more.  So there is no foundation whatsoever for rationality or even consciousness being reflective of reality.  This means our reasoning arose out of mutations and genetic anomolies.  And everything that happens in the genetic world arose out of sheer nature, out of a cause and effect relationship.  But our reasoning itself doesn't function merely on a cause and effect level ... it also functions on a ground and consequent level.  But that's the problem. . . A naturalistic explanation of reason can't account for this unique relation.  Our brains don't come up with rational conclusions out of sheer cause and effect, but also uses syllogisms and logic based upon accurate sensory perception.  

I am not forced by chemistry in the brain to believe that since my friend Jay is in New York, he cannot also be San Francisco.  There is knowledge incorporated about the reality in the external world which is not contigent on mere brain chemistry.  If not, then there is no validity in saying I am right about Jay being in New York, and you are wrong about him being in Chicago.  Jay would still be in New York even if you and I died and thought no more on the matter.  Someone else could still verify that Jay is in New York and affirm the truth of the matter.

The difficulty I come to when approaching a totally Darwinist conception of naturalism, is that the very  faculties which are used to come to such knowledge is necessarily just another natural product of time + chance + matter.  A person's reasons for accepting evolutionary theory could be no more true than it's opposing views, than brown eyes could be more true than blue ones.  


As C.S. Lewis wrote,

"After studying his environment man has begun to study himself.  Up to that point, he had assumed his own reason and through it seen all other things.  Now, his own reason has become the object:  it is as if we took out our eyes to look at them.  Thus studied, his own reason appears to him as the epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the byproduct of a blind evolutionary process.  His own logic, hitherto the king whom events in all possible worlds must obey, becomes merely subjective.  There is no reason for supposing that it yields truth."


And I guess that's where I am with evolution.  I am convinced that there is such a thing as natural selection.  We have conclusively proven it to function in small scale changes (microevolution).  Finch beaks do change under environmental changes, but they have never been shown to turn into anything other than a beak, much less finches into other animals.  Natural Selection has not been conclusively proven to be the agent of large scale changes or differences, this is only a theory.  

Where I am dead against spreading Darwinian thought is into a total explanation of reality.  When it becomes the algorithm for the whole universe, including human rationality and all thought, it has been taken way out of context.  This is philosophical naturalism, where Darwinian thought like a cancer has been allowed to spread into philosophy, sociology, and ethics.  On the other hand, if you want to accept that scientific evolution operates without a Divine controller and maker, then you cannot help but to allow it spill over.

If anyone is interested in some counter arguments as to the certainty of darwinism in science, check out Michael Behe.  


http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-19-2003 02:45 PM).]

Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 02-07-2003
Posts 1519
With my darkling


17 posted 06-19-2003 03:11 PM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle

I question noones faith, but I must disagree with one statement you made.You stated that creationism was not a theory.

Creationism, is just another theory.It is as unprovable as the rest of them, but it is just another theory.
To state that mankind accepted it as truth until recently is the same kind of statement as to say, until recently we believed the world was flat.

I personally find no conflict with evolution and God.Is it so hard to believe that evolution was a tool of Gods in creation?

Jason

[This message has been edited by Jason Lyle (06-19-2003 03:12 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


18 posted 06-19-2003 06:18 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

WhiteRose said:
quote:
The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are in fact just theories.

Yes, they are. So, too, Anne, are electricity and chemistry. We don't really know what makes electrical and chemical bonds operate as they do, so we observe the world and create theories that can account for what we see. Sometimes, we get it horribly wrong, most times we get it only mostly wrong. But the computer screen from which you're reading these words is evidence that being a theory, by itself, isn't a condemnation of truth. Because mostly wrong also means partially right.

WhiteRose said:
quote:
Creation is not a theory.

For even a Christian, Creation is at best an incomplete story. Why is the entire universe filled with measurable background radiation? From where did all those old bones and fossils come? How can we run our automobiles and heat our homes with something Genesis never mentions God creating? The Bible tells us what we need to know, but it doesn't always tell us what we want to know.

Stephen said:
quote:
But then again I don't believe in the concept of a blind mechanistic universe that arose out of chance + time + matter.  I believe that God had to do it.  If not, then everything is molecules and motion ... and I do mean everything, including human rationality, morality, and all thought.

One doesn't preclude the other, and your conclusion need not follow from either.

When I write a computer program, I do it one line at a time. Our forum software is composed of nearly half a million such lines of code, and each line is very carefully considered and implemented. That's one way to create something and it's the one I suspect most people see when they think of God creating the universe.

Personally, however, I don't see any reason to assign our limitations to God. Wouldn't it be cool if I could fluctuate the current when I turn on my computer in just a specific way that the random bits and bytes resulting from the fluctuation would result in a tiny little program that could write a little bit bigger program that could then produce exactly the software I need to do exactly the task I had in mind? If I was omniscient, I would never have to write another line of code. And even though each of my programs started as random patterns, they would nonetheless have purpose.

With true omniscience, the word random takes on a somewhat different flavor.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


19 posted 06-19-2003 07:24 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

Ron,
  The main purpose for the posing of the questions was to get an evolutionist to admit that evolution cannot be proven. I've had some argue that it can, and they pose theories for me. That doesn't prove a thing.

I guess my way of going about it may have been a bit offensive, for that I apologize.

In the same way that they cannot prove the theory of evolution, they cannot disprove creation, and I have begun to tire of the "fanatic", and "nutcase" remarks that I receive when I speak of creation. (not that this ever happened here)

If neither creation nor evolution can be scientifically proven, what makes me an idiot for believing one, and not the other? And what makes a person who believes creation, intelligent, and not a fanatic?

Do you understand what I'm saying? Or asking? Evolution is quoted like a mantra by non-believers. They make it out to be some ingenious set of facts that I, as a Christian, can't possibly understand. Yet, it cannot be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Okay, I'm rambling now.......
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


20 posted 06-19-2003 07:44 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

But, Anne, NOTHING can really be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if someone refuses to listen.

The questions you posed, though I know they're not your own, show a remarkable lack of understanding of basic 9th-grade science. How can they be taken seriously in that light? It would be like someone arguing that the Bible is just a child's story when it was patently obvious they had never bothered to read it or made any effort to understand it. Christians see that happen all the time. Enough so, they shouldn't do it to others.

Understanding goes a long way towards resolving differences, I think. Those who stand in different rooms, without ever seeing each other, can yell back and forth all day and never accomplish anything useful. We need to be willing to explore someone else's room before we can declare it unfit.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


21 posted 06-19-2003 08:02 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Can the theory of evolution be wrong?

Sure.

But there is a confusion here, a confusion that if a theory can be possibly wrong, then we can jump to the conclusion that it is wrong. Because we aren't certain, absolutely certain, then it's not an empirical science. It's the other way around, if a theory can be possibly wrong, it can also possibly be right.

That is why we test it. If you are certain about something, there is no need to test it for you already know it's true. Empirical science (and I keep saying that because I don't want to get into logic or math) is based on asking questions, on the continual testing of its assumptions.

But no one here seems to question the theory of evolution in practice. No one is questioning that the use of antibiotics have in turn created microbes resistant to those same antibiotics. I don't see anyone here arguing that this is not true and that, instead, these microbes are a sign from God that we are doing something wrong (and of course there is no contradiction in saying both). The objection, therefore, is to the extrapolation of the theory of evolution into the past.

But that objection can be applied accross the board to any theory, scientific or religious. Did gravity work the same way a thousand years ago?

We don't know.

Did water freeze at 32 degrees F.?

We don't know.

Did the Earth orbit the sun?

We don't know.

If we don't allow ourselves to extrapolate, the only answer to be given about the past is, "We don't know."

Because, believe it or not, it is a logical possibility that it was different a thousand years ago.

So evolution can be wrong. In fact, I can almost guarantee that any current theory of evolution is wrong about something or other. But that is why it is taught as an empirical science. The strength of science is its flexibility, its ability to adapt to new evidence, not its certainty.

[This message has been edited by Brad (06-19-2003 08:08 PM).]

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


22 posted 06-19-2003 08:39 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

Ron,
  I wanted to be informed before I ever posed the questions. I found the entire copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species on line and read it. I also added to my favorites a Stephen Jay Gould website that contained articles from many, many, too many actually, evolutionists.

I read until my eyes blurred, and saw no proof offered. So I thought maybe some lay-evolutionists might have some answers for me.

Alas, I was wrong. I think I came away from this with a better understanding though about the actuality of scientific theory. So in the end, though it appears to have helped no one else, it did help me.
WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 07-23-2002
Posts 3310
somebody's dungeon


23 posted 06-19-2003 08:40 PM       View Profile for WhiteRose   Email WhiteRose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for WhiteRose

Brad,
  Thank you. You said what I was hoping someone would. That evolution cannot be proved, in the same way that creation cannot be proved.

Both must be taken on faith.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


24 posted 06-19-2003 09:14 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Brad said:
quote:
Empirical science (and I keep saying that because I don't want to get into logic or math) is ...

Coward.

Essentially, I think everything we know or think we know is still a theory. Newton was never shown to be wrong, and most of his conclusions are still presented as "Laws," but Einstein showed us why classical physics was only partially right. Even then, Newton's Laws of Motion are only laws until we start asking why and everyone admits all we've got are guesses.

But you're right, Brad, the strength of science is its adaptability. Theories that contradict observations are discarded with the morning trash, to make way for those with more to offer. Some cows are certainly better loved than others, but it seems none are sacred.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Questions for evolutionists   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors