Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#21 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 28 July 2011 - 01:29 PM

I can't seem to edit my post after a certain amount of time. I wanted to apologize for the way I worded my post. You many not believe the Genesis account and still believe God is responsible for creation. Its the people who don't believe in God that I was referring to.

I remember a time when I didn't even care about origins and any of this stuff. I didn't care how stuff happened. Evolution could have been true or the small stuff I heard about an Adam guy could have been. It didn't matter to me. Its probably because I was younger. I had never even heard of Jesus Christ. I may have heard the name in passing once or twice, but I knew absolutely nothing of who he was and thought nothing of the Bible. I even watched the whole Passion of the Christ movie with absolutely no idea what was going on. I kept asking my friends, who is this weird foreign guy getting beat up. They didn't even have an answer for me. They just said, "ya know, Jesus." I didn't know Jesus and never found out that day. Its weird how I didn't even care. Goes to show you how helpful that movie is lol. It might be for some people, but it didn't help to explain anything for me.

Then one day I started thinking about death as most people do in their life and I got that scared anxious feeling. I was thinking, why would God or the universe make us just to rot away forever. I started looking for answers about God and what was going to happen to me. I had always thought of myself as a great wonderful person who was nicer than all my selfish friends. I would think, God probably thinks I'm the nicest guy in the whole town. Anything wrong I would do, I'd just try to justify it by blaming God for all the unfair circumstances he subjected me to. I didn't get the girl I like or even when I lost in a video game, I'd say some crazy things. I'd cuss at God all the time and say if there is a place called hell, he's the one who deserves to go there. Sometimes I'd say sorry later in the day and think everything was dandy. I had done some really s*xually perverted things in my life too. Weird crap that I'd be embarrassed to talk about. I liked doing them when I did them and never thought about regretting those things.

Then when I was searching around the internet for answers to these God and death questions. I came to a list of the ten commandments on a website. I'd maybe heard of these things once, but never read them. I read them all and then they used a good example of how white a sheep looks against the grass. Then they said, imagine that sheep against the snow. It didn't look so white anymore. God's standard is perfection and like the whitest snow. I had always thought of myself like the sheep, so clean and innocent, but I was exposed by the truth of how much smarter and better God really was. I'd always thought God looked at me the way I wanted him to look at me, but he looks at me the way he wants to look at me. I thought about all those things I'd done wrong and how I tried to justify them and I was scared of God for once instead of thinking he was scared of my loud cussing voice. Then at the bottom of the page, it said to imagine your in a courtroom with all these charges against you and God is about to judge you for what you've done and sentence you to death, right as he's about to, some guy you don't even know comes in and pays for all your charges and your free to go. Not only free to go, but God was happy and forgot all about the charges. I thought, man, who on earth is this guy? He must have alot of money lol, but it was Jesus Christ, God's own son, who died for our sins, was buried, and brought back to life three days later, and then I finally got it. One day, were going to live with him and death won't be an issue anymore.

This might not have had much to do with creation and evolution, but I felt like sharing it and it shows how I came to know about the Bible and why it can be trusted, not only about Jesus, but about Genesis also.

#22 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 July 2011 - 02:32 PM

[quote] name='Czroo' timestamp='1311866642' post='73462']
If the bible explains the process of creation
[/quote]

Czroo, I notice you're 25. I'm 76. I once was where you are right now. I went through the Vietnam War as an atheist. If I had not survived, I would now be in Hell awaiting judgment.

I must ask. Would you accept His explanation? May I give you some matters to ponder.

If God did give a detailed explanation, would we be able to read it in a life-time? Would we be able to understand it? I think not.

But we can use our rational minds given to us by God to reasonably conclude a few things:

A. The universe could not have created itself from nothing. Nothing can't cause something.
B. The universe could not have always been here. A fire can't burn forever.
C. So, my only conclusion is that a Supernatural Creator outside and prior to the universe created it.

The Apostle Paul wrote: "... because what may be known of God is manifest in them [unbelievers], for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE , even His eternal power and Godhead, so that THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE" (Eom. 1:19:20).

To read God's explanation of how He did it, you would have to assume a few things. You would have assume that your senses and memory are reliable. You would have to assume that there are laws of logic and that you can reason and reach truth. And you would have to assume that there is absolute morality. (We have a moral obligation to reason logically, Reasoning illogically would not enable us to reach truth.} But laws of logic and reasoning are not physical. They are not part of the physical universe. So in a worldview without a rational/logical Creator God, there is no rational reason to assume that laws of logic and reasoning can exist. Matter can't give you rational thought and laws of logic. Rational thought can't come from lifeless, reasonless chemicals. Most atheist are unaware that they are using God's gift of rational thought and laws of logic to argue against Him. This is tantamount to a man arguing that he does not believe in the existence of air, while breathing in air to make his argument.

TeeJay

#23 Czroo

Czroo

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Orlando

Posted 30 July 2011 - 06:31 PM

If God did give a detailed explanation, would we be able to read it in a life-time? Would we be able to understand it? I think not.


Why not?

Also, What would be the origins or reasons of the creator existence?

#24 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 30 July 2011 - 08:30 PM

Why not?


I don't think God gave us a long, complicated, and hard to understand process for his creation, because it wasn't a long, complicated, or hard to understand process at all. It was simple for God to create what he did and he did it just as he describes in Genesis. He created the things he describes by his thoughts and spoken words.

Also, What would be the origins or reasons of the creator existence?

Thats one of the best, weirdest, and most incomprehensible parts about God. He had no origins. He never came into existence. He created time itself and the creatures in that reality of time to learn about and experience who he is and how powerful he is, to reveal his love to us and lavish it on us, so that we would in turn love him.

#25 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 31 July 2011 - 07:03 AM

[quote] name='Czroo' timestamp='1312075868' post='73502']
Why not?[/quote]

Because man has been on Planet Earth for over 6,000 years, and we can't figure out just one of God's physical laws--gravity for example. And Scientists are more perplexed over the property fo light.

Why did you not respond to my last paragraph? Can you explain just one of the dilemmas I presented: As an atheist, who believes that nothing exists but matter, explain the existence of the laws of logic and rational thought? These things are not physical and are not part of the physical universe.

[quote]Also, What would be the origins or reasons of the creator existence?
[/quote]

Within each man there is rational thought. Rational thought is independent of nature, and not part of nature. Now one must ask: If rational thought is not dependent on nature, then what is it dependent on? Dependence on nature (the non-rational) undermines the credentials of rational thought. Rational thought does not exist on its own. It must have a rational Cause--some other reason for its exisence. We do not have to look far for a cause--our parents. Our parents owe their ability to reason from their parents and so on. Reason comes from reason at each stage. If is only when you are asked to believe in reason coming from non-reason (reasonless matter) that we must stop and ponder if this is possible. If you don't, then rational thought is discredited.

If reason can only come from reason, then we can logically conclude that for reasonn to exist, we have to find a Source or Being that is self-existent or exists on its own. What does existence on one's own mean? It means that kind of existence which atheist attribute to matter and creationists attribute to a Creator. What exists on its own must have existed from all eternity; for if anything could make it begin to exist, then it would not exist on its own but because of something else. it must also exist incessantly: that is, it can't cease to exist and then begin again. For having once ceased to be, it obviously could not recall itself to existence, and if anything else recalled it, it would then be a dependent being. Not even God can create Himself from nothing if He did not first exist.

So you asked what would be the origin of the Creator. For you and anything to exist, there has to be a Source that always existed. But I also want you to ponder another matter: To doubt the existence of a Creator God, you ASSUMED a few things. You assumed that there are laws of logic, and that you have a rational mind to use logic. You assumed that your ratonal mind could reach truth. You assumed that your senses and memory are reliable. You assumed that there is absolute morality. (Rational thought to reach truth is a moral obligation.) But in your worldview, you have no rational reason to believe that any of these things can exist. You are using God's laws of logic and your rational mind (given to you by God) to argue against God. In doing so, you actually affirm His existence and affirm your worldview to be irrational, arbitrary, and inconsistent.

TeeJay

#26 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 31 July 2011 - 08:51 AM

Ha! Yes. Yes I did realise that ;)

So, to answer the clarified question, "What would it take for an evolutionist to consider creation?", then my simple answer would be if that it agreed with the consensus scientific view on things like the age of the earth, and diversity of life forms.

There are excellent reasons why the scientific community doesn't take creationism seriously, and it has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy, satanic influences, etc. It is purely because the facts point elsewhere.

Facts like what? You mean finding that 95% of the fossil record is marine in nature? That limestone, which can only be made by planktonic, and diatonic creatures, covers 10% of the earth's continental crust, and that many of the soft tissue fossils found in limestone laggerstatten prove rapid burial? That many fossils which are measured by other (the rocks around them) dating methods, have 14C in them. That shale, which covers much of the earth's crust also, can contain kerogen, which comes from the decay of organic material, sucn as diatoms, plankton, spores and woody material. And that many marine fossils, including Cambrian fossils, are found in shale and limestone.

So no matter how many people who have paid to be educated by others, who have also paid others to be educated in only one view--the state endorsed view of the ToE-- Which politicians, lawyers, judges, and all professionals have been educated in exclusively. And all other scientists who hold agnostic science to be the only possibility, with no rebuttal allowed, unless it upholds the ToE. No matter what they want to pass on you, they also intentionally ignore these facts by framing these facts into ad hoc stories which are unmentioned foundational footers, which only a few care to delve into. However the data that covered the earth is unquestionable, and no geologist would argue--they just "change the story" into many coverings, and smugly ignore the Bible, which tells of a historical flood.

The rest (like yourself) just take the word of the "vogue" science of the day. We're talking about agnostic state science which allow the ToE assumption to ride upon every new fact that arises.

#27 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 31 July 2011 - 06:49 PM

It's a simple question. What would it take for a evolutionist to "consider" creation.

Consider = not a trap type question.
Believe or convert = a trap type question.

One has to ponder or consider something before changing their mind. So what would make a evolutionist ponder or consider creation?


I think it would require two things:

(1) A body of evidence that cannot be explained by current evolutionary theories
(2) An alternative, plausible explanation for existing evidence besides current evolutionary theories

If these two conditions are met, creation (along with any other current theories) would become a possible explanation.

Becoming "accepted", though, requires a much higher threshold of plausibility than does "considered" (obviously).

#28 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 31 July 2011 - 09:37 PM

(1) A body of evidence that cannot be explained by current evolutionary theories

Why do you believe this does not exist and do evolutionary theories have a body of evidence? If so, could you please list three examples?

(2) An alternative, plausible explanation for existing evidence besides current evolutionary theories

Please list the evidences and I while try to give you that.

#29 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 31 July 2011 - 10:23 PM

Why do you believe this does not exist and do evolutionary theories have a body of evidence? If so, could you please list three examples?

Please list the evidences and I while try to give you that.


I'll just throw out a couple that fit both bills:

GULO gene in primates and rodents
ERV inheritance in primates
Vestigial structures (pelvic girdles in whales, for example)
Vas deferens pathway
Rubrospinal tract in humans

All five of these make sense from a phylogenetic standpoint (Requisite 1), but a creation that produced such anomalies wouldn't make much sense (Requisite 2)

I don't have any experience in geology, so that's why I won't dare say the six-letter "F" word here haha

#30 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 31 July 2011 - 10:49 PM

GULO gene in primates and rodents
ERV inheritance in primates
Vestigial structures (pelvic girdles in whales, for example)
Vas deferens pathway
Rubrospinal tract in humans

Could you please be a tiny bit more specific about why you believe these things indicate evolution? Like a sentence or two for each? So I can get a better understanding.

#31 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 31 July 2011 - 11:08 PM

Could you please be a tiny bit more specific about why you believe these things indicate evolution? Like a sentence or two for each? So I can get a better understanding.



GULO: a gene encoding parts of the enzymatic pathway required for Vitamin C synthesis (thus making a creature's diet VitC-independent)
-Why is a non-functional GULO sequence present in certain species? If it does provide some as-of-yet unknown function, then why is it so incredibly similar to functional sequences? (almost 100% similarity between functional and non-functional) Why not some other sequence that confers the same unknown function?
-If the mutations that caused this gene to deactivate were due to The Fall, then why did they occur at the same location in a group of primates and yet in a different location in a group of rodentia? (EX: deactivating mutation occurred at location X in a certain group primates, but in location Y in a certain group of rodents).

ERV Inheritance Patterns: genetic segments virtually identical to ancient viruses that were integrated into host DNA
-If this is a result of The Fall, then what are the odds of a particular virus inserting in the same location in two different animals? What are the odds of this happening several (in the case of chimp:human genomes) and many (primate:primate) times in various species?
-Why does such an "ERV Relationships Tree" resemble the phylogenetic trees yielded thru comparative anatomy, etc.? What are the odds of this?

Pelvic Girdle of the Whale: cartilaginous structures homologous to terrestrial mammalian pelvic girdles
-What is the function of these structures?
-Why did it only happen to occur in an aquatic species that evolution says lived on land at one time? Why isn't such a mysterious structure found in species that evolution has said always lived in water?

Vas Deferens Pathway: A convoluted pathway of the vas deferens that lends itself to injury and blockage
-Why would a structure take such a convoluted pathway?

Rubrospinal Tract: A neural circuit in humans that possesses ape characteristics despite humans not needing such a circuit
-Why would such a circuit be engineered into a human brain if it's not needed?
-Why would such a circuit be engineered into a human brain if it makes certain types of injuries even worse than they would be otherwise?

#32 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:55 AM

Why is a non-functional GULO sequence present in certain species?

Would you consider that perhaps:

- The GULO sequence once functioned and later lost its function (hence the similarities it has with functional sequences)?
- It has an as-of-yet unknown function?
- Its functionless does not indicate one kind of creature (ex. homo, canidae, felidae) can be become another and that God did not create those different kinds of creatures?

If it does provide some as-of-yet unknown function, then why is it so incredibly similar to functional sequences?


- It has an as-of-yet unknown function, but is still incredibly similiar to functional sequences?

Why not some other sequence that confers the same unknown function?

- It's the only sequence that confers that unknown function?
- The other sequence hasn't been discovered?

If the mutations that caused this gene to deactivate were due to The Fall,

- The mutations that caused this gene to deactive were due to a gradual degenerative process (which itself was due to the curse God placed on Adam and the ground [Gen. 3:17-19]) that is still active today (i.e., some of the problems [ex. functionless sequences] that would be associated with God's curse didn't all suddenly appear at once, placed in his creation, directly after the curse began)?

then why did they occur at the same location in a group of primates and yet in a different location in a group of rodentia?

- Given the idea of a degenerative process, this just happened to work that way for those different creatures (i.e., it was not due to a sudden insertion by God, therefore he wasn't discordant in where he placed the functionless sequences in those creatures after the curse)?
- God suddenly inserted them in different locations after the curse?

Or are you taking into account a degenerative process and still wondering why this functionless sequence didn't appear in the same location?

If this is a result of The Fall, then what are the odds of a particular virus inserting in the same location in two different animals? What are the odds of this happening several (in the case of chimp:human genomes) and many (primate:primate) times in various species?
-Why does such an "ERV Relationships Tree" resemble the phylogenetic trees yielded thru comparative anatomy, etc.? What are the odds of this?

I'm not understanding the big picture with this one. Could you please explain it on a more elementary level?

Pelvic Girdle of the Whale: cartilaginous structures homologous to terrestrial mammalian pelvic girdles
-What is the function of these structures?

- Given the idea of a degenerative process, whales used to (some may still [ex. dolphin]) have an extra pair of flippers (or is it fins lol?) (not terrestrial legs) that helped them to swim more efficiently, assist the reproductive process as anchor points for special muscles, and strengthen the pelvic wall?
- They are functionless, but don't indicate terrestrial animals became aquatic animals?

Why did it only happen to occur in an aquatic species that evolution says lived on land at one time? Why isn't such a mysterious structure found in species that evolution has said always lived in water?

- Cartilaginous structures exist in other aquatic animals, but haven't been discovered?
- The animals that have them are unique?

The dolphin needs its fully functioning sonar to find food and survive. How could its ancestors survive before they evolved sonar capabilities?

Vas Deferens Pathway: A convoluted pathway of the vas deferens that lends itself to injury and blockage
-Why would a structure take such a convoluted pathway?

- To demonstrate God's intricacy (its more interesting than being a straightforward pathway?), especially when it worked flawlessly (the injuries and blockage wouldn't have occured before God's curse, and today could be from a combination of the effects of the curse and not taking care of yourself in the right way)?

Rubrospinal Tract: A neural circuit in humans that possesses ape characteristics despite humans not needing such a circuit
-Why would such a circuit be engineered into a human brain if it's not needed?

- "It is the main route for the mediation of voluntary movement. It is responsible for large muscle movement such as the arms and the legs as well as for fine motor control. It facilitates the flexion and inhibits the extension in the upper extremities" (Wikipedia)?

Why would such a circuit be engineered into a human brain if it makes certain types of injuries even worse than they would be otherwise?

- There woudn't be these certain types of injuries before God's curse and therefore the Rubrospinal Tract would be a fine engineering feat?
- The injuries that become even worse with the Rubrospinal Tract could have come about sometime after the curse as a part of the degenerative process?

I don't have any experience in geology, so that's why I won't dare say the six-letter "F" word here haha

Transitional fossils are lacking
There are gaps between land mammals and whales

I hope I provided some plausible alternative explanations for your evidence, but please let me know more about the ERV Inheritance Patterns. Thanks for reading.

#33 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 01 August 2011 - 06:13 AM

I sincerely appreciate the conversation, man. My responses:

:::GULO DISCUSSION:::

Would you consider that perhaps:

- The GULO sequence once functioned and later lost its function (hence the similarities it has with functional sequences)?

That's exactly what has happened; both evolution and ID would agree on this.

- It has an as-of-yet unknown function?

Again, this is possible, but it begs the question about why it looks exactly like a functional GULO gene that has become disrupted.

- Its functionless does not indicate one kind of creature (ex. homo, canidae, felidae) can be become another and that God did not create those different kinds of creatures?

I don't quite follow you here

- It has an as-of-yet unknown function, but is still incredibly similiar to functional sequences?

So far, the only possible explanation, which is more of an observation and not an explanation.

- It's the only sequence that confers that unknown function?

As above

- The other sequence hasn't been discovered?

?

- The mutations that caused this gene to deactive were due to a gradual degenerative process (which itself was due to the curse God placed on Adam and the ground [Gen. 3:17-19]) that is still active today (i.e., some of the problems [ex. functionless sequences] that would be associated with God's curse didn't all suddenly appear at once, placed in his creation, directly after the curse began)?
- Given the idea of a degenerative process, this just happened to work that way for those different creatures (i.e., it was not due to a sudden insertion by God, therefore he wasn't discordant in where he placed the functionless sequences in those creatures after the curse)?
- God suddenly inserted them in different locations after the curse?

These three possibilities go straight to the issue with the GULO data. The issue of multiple species losing oxidase functionality isn't the problem for creationism (and the whole concept of discrete "kinds"). The problem arises when the data show that the primates, which evolution says are related, have lost the enzyme in a particular fashion (let's say a deletion at gene location X) while the rodents have had a deletion at location Y.
If this were a natural degenerative process after The Fall, then what are the odds of the several primate species losing it ONLY in manner X and the rodents only losing it in manner Y? The odds of that happening using the "Biblical kinds" model are virtually 0, while the odds of it happening in an evolutionary framework are closer to 1.




:::ERV DISCUSSION:::

I'm not understanding the big picture with this one. Could you please explain it on a more elementary level?


This video does a better job visually illustrating the process than I can do in pages and pages of written explanation. Apologies for the bias of the uploader, but it does a good job of explaining the biology in fairly simple terms. Also, the middle third of the video is pretty boring, but stick with it until the end.

ERV Summary



:::VESTIGIAL PELVIC GIRDLE IN CETACEAE:::

- Given the idea of a degenerative process, whales used to (some may still [ex. dolphin]) have an extra pair of flippers (or is it fins lol?) (not terrestrial legs) that helped them to swim more efficiently, assist the reproductive process as anchor points for special muscles, and strengthen the pelvic wall?

These vestigial pelvic girdles are the size of a shoe box and are buried deep within the animal's torso, so a current functionality is pretty unlikely, at least for most cetaceans.
If you say it's merely the result of a degenerative process, then why is the girdle built like a terrestrial vertebrate's instead of like aquatic fish or amphibians?

- They are functionless, but don't indicate terrestrial animals became aquatic animals?

So basically they're just meaningless?

- Cartilaginous structures exist in other aquatic animals, but haven't been discovered?

Are you saying that vestigial pelvic girdles exist in other non-mammalian aquatic species and yet somehow havent been noticed over the past several millennia?

- The animals that have them are unique?

So "just meaningless" as above?




:::VAS DEFERENS DISCUSSION:::

- To demonstrate God's intricacy (its more interesting than being a straightforward pathway?), especially when it worked flawlessly (the injuries and blockage wouldn't have occured before God's curse, and today could be from a combination of the effects of the curse and not taking care of yourself in the right way)?

So the anatomy of the vas deferens either (1) was engineered inefficiently in the beginning merely to illustrate creativity, or (2) changed after The Fall?




:::RUBROSPINAL TRACT DISCUSSION:::

- "It is the main route for the mediation of voluntary movement. It is responsible for large muscle movement such as the arms and the legs as well as for fine motor control. It facilitates the flexion and inhibits the extension in the upper extremities" (Wikipedia)?
- There woudn't be these certain types of injuries before God's curse and therefore the Rubrospinal Tract would be a fine engineering feat?
- The injuries that become even worse with the Rubrospinal Tract could have come about sometime after the curse as a part of the degenerative process?

I'm honestly not trying to be rude or condescending here, but I can tell that those definitions of the circuit were gleaned from non-technical sources like Wikipedia. You'd have to go to a neuroscience or neuroanatomy textbook in order to get a better feel for how the RST works. It is one of several "lower brain" circuits that are, frankly, leftovers from previous needs of the species. In the case of the RST, it sets our "default" state to "flexed extremities". Such a default setting makes plenty of sense for tree-bound primates (in which the RST is enlarged relative to humans), but it makes zero sense in upright humans. It means that it takes longer for toddlers to learn how to walk and that it limits the CNS's ability to remove itself from trauma that is damaging the higher levels of the brain.



Again, all five of these issues are easily and intuitively explained when viewed using an evolutionary mechanism, but become nonsensical, illogical, and even impossible when viewed from an ID or creationist perspective.

#34 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 01 August 2011 - 06:21 AM

There are gaps between land mammals and whales


Amigo, that source is almost 20 years old. I've got a book on the shelf next to me (printed 2010) that lists ten different intermediates between modern cetaceans and their most recent common ancestor with hippos.

#35 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 01 August 2011 - 11:57 AM

Amigo, that source is almost 20 years old. I've got a book on the shelf next to me (printed 2010) that lists ten different intermediates between modern cetaceans and their most recent common ancestor with hippos.

We have had good discussions on this matter with links and pictures. I encourage you to do a search. (I think Isabella provided the evidence, and I asked a question about it.)

#36 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 01 August 2011 - 12:22 PM

The dolphin needs its fully functioning sonar to find food and survive. How could its ancestors survive before they evolved sonar capabilities?


Not sure how I missed this question earlier:

Dolphins, unlike bats, use their lower jaw (including the bones that function in the inner ear of most terrestrial mammals) for echolocation. Thus, it is easy to see that ossicles-for-hearing gradually drifted into jaw-for-echolocation as the various species' skulls were adapting to their new aquatic lifestyle (nostrils drifting backwards and upwards to merge eventually into a modern "blowhole", orbits drifting from vertically-oriented to horizontally- and frontally-oriented, etc.)

All of these morphological changes in the cetacean skull enabled the whales/dolphins/porpoises to spend more and more time underwater and less time at the surface. Echolocation=better in darker areas than just hearing/eyesight, blowhole=more efficient and faster air exchange, etc.

#37 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:07 PM

[quote] name='jamo0001' timestamp='1312163357' post='73522']
I think it would require two things:

(1) A body of evidence that cannot be explained by current evolutionary theories
(2) An alternative, plausible explanation for existing evidence besides current evolutionary theories

If these two conditions are met, creation (along with any other current theories) would become a possible explanation.

Becoming "accepted", though, requires a much higher threshold of plausibility than does "considered" (obviously).
[/quote]

Jam,

There is no "evidence" that can convince an atheist of creation. Why? Because whatever evidence is presented to him, he will interpret through his worldview. I define a worldview as a network of presuppositions, untested by natural science, and in light of which all experience is interpreted. The creationist also has a worldview and he will interpret evidence through his worldview. A worldview is unavoidable; a rational worldview is not. For a worldview to be true, it must be rational, consistent, and non-arbitrary. I submit that the atheist worldview is irrational, inconsistent, and arbitrary.

To interpret evidence, you would have to assume a few things. you would have to assume that your senses and memory are functioning properly. You would have to assume that there are laws of logic. You would have to assume that you can use laws of logic with rational thinking to reach truth. You would have to assume that there is absolute morality (reasoning rationally is a moral obligation because one can't reach truth otherwise). And, most importantly, you would have to assume that there is uniformity of nature, that the physical laws will not arbitrarily change in the future.

In an atheist/evolutionist worldview, the atheist has no rational reason to assume that any of these things exist. How can an atheist believe that rational thought can exist if his senses, memory, and thinking are simply chemical reactions in the brain--a random chance accident. If thinking is simply physical chemical reactions, then he could not know that anything was true--not even that his brain is made of chemicals. Computers can reach correct conclusions doing logic, math, and playing chess even. But the computer does not KNOW that its conclusions are true or false--or that it is doing logic, math, or playing chess.

In an atheist worldview (where only matter exists), laws of logic can't exist. Laws of logic are immaterial, invariant and universal. They are not part of the physical universe. The atheist has no rational reason to believe that these laws of logic can exist in his worldview.

Unless there is absolute morality, there would be no mandate to reason logically to reach truth. If you reason illogically, you reach falsehoods. So we have a moral obligation to reason logically using laws of logic. But there can be no absolute morality in the atheist worldview--simply preferences.

And, most importantly, the atheist has no rational reason (within his worldview) to assume that the physical laws will be law-like or that they will not change tomorrow. Now atheists do scientific experiments assuming that the physical laws will not change, but they have no reason to assume so.

If one does not have a rational reason to believe something, he can't really know it. I can believe that there are little green men inside Jupiter, but my belief is simply arbitrary. Even if future exploration of space reveals little green men in Jupiter, I still had no rational reason to know it. So it comes down to which worldview (set of presuppositions) best explains the reality we experience around us.

The theist worldview does this best. A theist, who believes that a rational thinking God exists, can justify laws of logic and rational thought within his worldview. While the theist can rationally reason that rational thought can come from the mind of a rational God, the atheist can't likewise reason that rational thought and logic can come from lifeless, reasonless matter. The theist can rationally believe that he can reach truth, because Jesus said, "I am the Truth." The theist can believe that there is absolute morality because he has a moral Authority above man. (Atheists try to live in the relative world of subjective morality, but can't really do so. In fact they seem to be the first to rail against any injustice or evil they see or experience.) But when they do this, they are being inconsistent, arbitrary, and irrational.

And the theist has a rational reason to believe that the future will be like the past (uniformity of nature) because God has promised us this (in Gen. 8:22 for example). And he "upholds everything by the word of His power [Hebrews]." An atheist has no rational reason to believe the future will be like the past.

Now when an atheist thinks rationally using laws of logic, assumes morality, assumes uniformity of nature, he is borrowing from the Christian worldview. He is using God's laws of logic and the rational mind that God has given him to argue against the existence of God. In reality, he is like a man who does not believe in the existence of air, all the while breathing air to make his argument. In doing so, he is being irrational, inconsistgent, and arbitrary. And when he uses laws of logic, rational thought, morality, uniformity of nature, he affirms his worldview to be false and the theist worldview to be true.

TeeJay

#38 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 01 August 2011 - 04:36 PM

Now when an atheist thinks rationally using laws of logic, assumes morality, assumes uniformity of nature, he is borrowing from the Christian worldview. He is using God's laws of logic and the rational mind that God has given him to argue against the existence of God.


First off, I'm not sure how atheism got brought into the debate regarding my two (probably errant) requirements for creation to be placed back on the table as an alternative to evolution. At least for myself.

Secondly, I could not disagree with the above-quoted statement more. It is patently false and makes me incredibly sad to read. Are you saying that reason, logic, and observations of nature did not occur and could not occur until the inception of any type of Christianity/Christian worldview? I have read your entire post twice and I still do not understand what in the world you are trying to say.

Socrates, Pythagoras, Democritus, and all of the other great Greek logicians and philosophers predated Christ by centuries and were largely insulated from any type of Hebrew/Jewish influence. In fact, Paul himself uses their monumental work in order to lend support to the Christian religion theologically. How could you possibly say that Christianity or a Christian worldview is necessary for reason and logic to occur?

#39 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 01 August 2011 - 05:10 PM

Now that I got that out of the way, I'll go piece by piece on this one. I promised myself when I joined this board that I would not stray from the realms of molecular, cellular, anatomic, and medical biology, but this is too demeaning and insulting to let stand unchallenged.

There is no "evidence" that can convince an atheist of creation. Why?

Because someone would've won a Nobel Prize had they found it. No questions asked. You must have a very, very cynical and warped view of scientists, as human beings, to believe otherwise. To believe that there is some sort of worldwide scientific conspiracy to suppress any evidence that would disprove evolution is lunacy. For every 1 scientist you find that supports creationism, I can find 100 that are practicing, devout Christians, Muslims, or Jews who would love to find this apparent contradiction between faith and reason disappear in the sands of history.

Because whatever evidence is presented to him, he will interpret through his worldview.

Of course. That is the point of science. "Science" is no longer "science" if we introduce supernatural explanations. Therefore every scientist, atheist or not, must put on the "atheist glasses" when they're in the lab in order to acquire reproducible data.

I define a worldview as a network of presuppositions, untested by natural science, and in light of which all experience is interpreted. The creationist also has a worldview and he will interpret evidence through his worldview. A worldview is unavoidable; a rational worldview is not. For a worldview to be true, it must be rational, consistent, and non-arbitrary.

I totally agree.

I submit that the atheist worldview is irrational, inconsistent, and arbitrary.

The only way using an "atheist worldview" in the science laboratory is any of the above would be if God were a universally accepted fact, consistently demonstrable and evident. Obviously, this conversation would not be happening if that were so. An atheist worldview is therefore, at the very least, equally as rational and consistent as a theistic one.

To interpret evidence, you would have to assume a few things. you would have to assume that your senses and memory are functioning properly. You would have to assume that there are laws of logic. You would have to assume that you can use laws of logic with rational thinking to reach truth.

Of course you would. What would be the point, otherwise?

You would have to assume that there is absolute morality (reasoning rationally is a moral obligation because one can't reach truth otherwise).

Define "morality", because every definition I've looked up in the past 10 minutes has never included any mention of logic, reason, pursuit of knowledge, etc. All of them have, however, included mention of conduct, good/evil, doctrine, conformity, and virtue. Totally separate realms, unless you have some other definition of morality.

And, most importantly, you would have to assume that there is uniformity of nature, that the physical laws will not arbitrarily change in the future.

Of course you would. What would be the point, otherwise?

In an atheist/evolutionist worldview, the atheist has no rational reason to assume that any of these things exist.

Patently false. You do not need to believe in a God in order to look at an apple falling from a tree the same way over and over. You do not need a God in order to see that 2 marbles plus 3 marbles always equals 5. You do not need a God in order to come to a consensus with your neighbors regarding the acceptable level of noise from fireworks during July.

How can an atheist believe that rational thought can exist if his senses, memory, and thinking are simply chemical reactions in the brain--a random chance accident.

I'm honestly not sure if this is sarcasm or a serious question.

In an atheist worldview (where only matter exists), laws of logic can't exist. Laws of logic are immaterial, invariant and universal. They are not part of the physical universe. The atheist has no rational reason to believe that these laws of logic can exist in his worldview.

Again, I have no idea what definition you're using here. Atheism relates to the existence of a deity. It does not stipulate that the metaphysical doesn't exist. I have never heard of an atheist denying the existence of mathematics, truth, beauty, etc.

Unless there is absolute morality, there would be no mandate to reason logically to reach truth.


Well, unless you just hate wasting your time.

If you reason illogically, you reach falsehoods. So we have a moral obligation to reason logically using laws of logic. But there can be no absolute morality in the atheist worldview--simply preferences.

Again, you're either using a unique definition of "atheist" or you're just plain wrong. Atheism, agnosticism, etc do not deny the existence of the metaphysical.

And, most importantly, the atheist has no rational reason (within his worldview) to assume that the physical laws will be law-like or that they will not change tomorrow.

Totally to the contrary. Atheists are DEVOID OF A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING WILL CHANGE THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS. Theists, however, have every reason to believe that such suspension of natural phenomena can occur at any time.

The theist worldview does this best.

At the risk of totally derailing this thread, no it can't. A theistic worldview creates more questions than it does answers. But that's a topic for another forum and thread.

And the theist has a rational reason to believe that the future will be like the past (uniformity of nature) because God has promised us this (in Gen. 8:22 for example). And he "upholds everything by the word of His power [Hebrews]." An atheist has no rational reason to believe the future will be like the past.

He also has reason to believe that the natural order of things can be temporarily suspended. See: Joshua and the midday sun, Jesus being born of a virgin, the Grand Canyon being formed in a torrential flood, etc.
An atheist has no such reasons to believe that the laws of nature will change, which in turn makes science more practical.

Now when an atheist thinks rationally using laws of logic, assumes morality, assumes uniformity of nature, he is borrowing from the Christian worldview. He is using God's laws of logic and the rational mind that God has given him to argue against the existence of God. In reality, he is like a man who does not believe in the existence of air, all the while breathing air to make his argument. In doing so, he is being irrational, inconsistgent, and arbitrary. And when he uses laws of logic, rational thought, morality, uniformity of nature, he affirms his worldview to be false and the theist worldview to be true.

I've already addressed this demeaning and unsupported diatribe in my previous post.



Apologies in advance to all who read this. This is as heated as I get and it's mainly because these quotes were borderline ad hominem.

Can we return to biology now?

#40 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 01 August 2011 - 07:13 PM

It's a simple question. What would it take for a evolutionist to "consider" creation.

Consider = not a trap type question.
Believe or convert = a trap type question.

One has to ponder or consider something before changing their mind. So what would make a evolutionist ponder or consider creation?

A gradual almost imperceptible softening, perhaps... the same thing that made a Jehovah's Witness consider converting while at the same time preaching to others. B)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users