Creationists do not make sense

[Violet]

Actually... creationists often take the side that evolution is just a theory... that it has never occurred and will never occur.

Which is part of why we laugh at them so much ^_^

[Tiberius]

Your first paragraph uses "kind" in an entirely different way than I was using it.

How so? Please explain what you mean by the word "kind" then.

The rest is an extrapolation/interpretation from what we observe to something we don't and would be based on one's presuppositions. As I stated in another thread, where such an extrapolation conflicts with the Bible, I will take the Bible.

Not at all. The observations come in various forms. If you mean that we have never seen the evolution of a single cell into a human, then obviously this is true, since we haven't been around (objectively) for 4 billion years. However what was recorded was the fossil record, which quite clearly shows the transition between various forms of organism, to the point that you can accurately trace back all the changes and see that we indeed did come from ape-like hominds, and they in turn came from smaller monkey/lemur like creatures, and they came from...etc etc.

Your last sentence is interesting, and reveals your close-mindedness very well. It says simply "you can show me all the evidence in the world of evolution, you could even build a time machine and take me back and make me watch it, but since it contradicts my biblical teaching, and therefore my faith, I will always find a way to reject it". If this is truly your attitude, I have no further wishes to discuss this with you, as you aren't in the least bit interested in discussing it properly. If you showed me evidence of creationism, I'd accept it. It's evidence after all, and I accept evidence. Unfortunately for the creationism position, all evidence simply points in the other direction; it's how the theory of evolution started, how it became accepted by science (even theistic scientists).

Still waiting for some currently observable fact that is necessarily inconsistent with Biblical creation.

No you aren't. You've just said that you ignore such facts and choose the Bible over them. Don't ask us for evidence when (a) we've already given it, and there is plenty of it in these forums and elsewhere online anyway, and (b) you have no interest in even considering it.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Arguing with a creationist is EXACTLY analogous with arguing with a Holocaust denier;both have mastered the fine art of doublethink,which is built upon the useful ability to ignore facts and living in a permanent state of denial.

Such people are really quiet pathetic and should be ignored or quietly put down.

Doublethink is a word described in the fictional language of Newspeak and the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality.

Doublethink is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

[rjh4 is back]

Your last sentence is interesting, and reveals your close-mindedness very well. It says simply "you can show me all the evidence in the world of evolution, you could even build a time machine and take me back and make me watch it, but since it contradicts my biblical teaching, and therefore my faith, I will always find a way to reject it". If this is truly your attitude, I have no further wishes to discuss this with you, as you aren't in the least bit interested in discussing it properly.

…

No you aren't. You've just said that you ignore such facts and choose the Bible over them. Don't ask us for evidence when (a) we've already given it, and there is plenty of it in these forums and elsewhere online anyway, and (b) you have no interest in even considering it.

What I said in this thread was:

“The rest is an extrapolation/interpretation from what we observe to something we don't and would be based on one's presuppositions. As I stated in another thread, where such an extrapolation conflicts with the Bible, I will take the Bible.”

What I said in the other thread was:

“I am a young earth creationist and think that the fossil record (or at least the bulk of it as I would not rule out some of it being the result of local catastrophic events) is a result of the flood of the Bible. God and the Bible as the word of God are my starting point for my analysis of reality. Observational science is really good for explaining the universe that God created and I have not seen nor heard of a scientific observation that would necessarily contradict the Bible. To a very large degree, historical science, particularly as it relates to origins, is taking observations and extrapolating to the unobserved past and, therefore, the conclusions reached by scientists will reflect their own bias and presuppositions. So insofar as the conclusions/interpretations made by these scientists conflict with the Bible...I will go with the Bible. I think that this world view explains reality better and is more consistent than any other world view. Are there still questions that I can't answer? Certainly, but I think there are unanswerable questions for any world view.”

Neither statement says anything close to "you can show me all the evidence in the world of evolution, you could even build a time machine and take me back and make me watch it, but since it contradicts my biblical teaching, and therefore my faith, I will always find a way to reject it".

Neither statement says I would ignore the facts.

I think one of the problems here is a disagreement on what is a fact and what is an interpretation of the fact.

For example, you said:

“However what was recorded was the fossil record, which quite clearly shows the transition between various forms of organism, to the point that you can accurately trace back all the changes and see that we indeed did come from ape-like hominds, and they in turn came from smaller monkey/lemur like creatures, and they came from...etc etc.”

The existence of the fossil record is a fact.

Fossils of various creatures appear in certain layers of the fossil record. That is a fact.

Fossils of various creatures do not appear in certain layers of the fossil record. That is a fact.

Stating that the fossil record “quite clearly shows the transition between various forms of organism” is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.

Further stating that the supposed transition is “to the point that you can accurately trace back all the changes and see that we indeed did come from ape-like hominds, and they in turn came from smaller monkey/lemur like creatures, and they came from...etc etc.” is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.


Animals change. That can be observed. That is a fact.

Humans change. That can be observed. That is a fact.

Such changes can be defined as evolution and in this sense I accept that evolution occurs.

Stating that those changes we see demonstrate evolution in the sense of common descent or molecules to man evolution is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.

It seems to me like you and others here take all those things that I said were interpretations based on an evolutionary presupposition and you state them as fact. They are not fact. Sae has even suggested that they are fact like gravity.

We continuously observe that there is a force exerted by the earth on objects. That is a fact. That force is named gravity. Therefore, gravity is a fact. The things that I said were interpretations based on an evolutionary presupposition are not remotely like gravity.

If you cannot see the difference between facts and interpretations as I outlined them above, then there is not much more for me to say. Furthermore, based on the above analysis, it is in this sense that I say that when an interpretation/extrapolation/conclusion of scientists conflicts with the Bible, I will take the Bible.

If you showed me evidence of creationism, I'd accept it. It's evidence after all, and I accept evidence.

You say that…but you still have to filter that evidence through your world view. Facts are always interpreted in some way to explain what they mean…what ramifications they have. Let me give you an example. Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in a T-rex fossil. As the article stated conventional wisdom was that all soft tissue in a fossil decomposes. That would be particularly so after millions of years. So the presence of soft tissue in a T-rex fossil is a fact. It is also a fact that conventional wisdom was that all soft tissue in a fossil decomposes. So is this enough to sway your way of thinking. I doubt it. I think at most you would slightly change your view of things to say that now we know that the conventional wisdom was wrong and soft tissue can last millions of years in fossils.

Now I do not want to imply here that what I do is any different. The only difference is that I filter the facts through my world view. I just think my world view is more consistent and explains more than yours.

Lastly, there is the issue of the use of the word “kind”. I went back and reread your sentence and maybe we are using the word the same. But now I am just not sure what your point was when you said: “Because what we observe isn't that dogs all come from the same "kind" of dog, and that's the end of it.”

[Craveman]

The existence of the fossil record is a fact.

Fossils of various creatures appear in certain layers of the fossil record. That is a fact.

Fossils of various creatures do not appear in certain layers of the fossil record. That is a fact.

Stating that the fossil record “quite clearly shows the transition between various forms of organism” is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.

What are your views on this article?: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

I think it is just a matter of time before we find that one fossil that is going to link it all...

[rjh4 is back]

What are your views on this article?: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

My view is that the author of the article probably fails to even recognize his own presuppositions in interpreting the facts. Much of the article involves interpretation and it seems pretty clear that the authors presuppositions are evolutionary (common descent/molecules to man) in nature. Honestly, I think it is only when we recognize our own presuppositions and those of others can we really begin to understand why we have such diametrically opposed views.

[Tiberius]

Neither statement says anything close to "you can show me all the evidence in the world of evolution, you could even build a time machine and take me back and make me watch it, but since it contradicts my biblical teaching, and therefore my faith, I will always find a way to reject it".

Neither statement says I would ignore the facts.

What you do is a common creationist tactic. Claim that all "facts of evolution" are merely interpretations and thus denying them isn't denying facts but merely opinion. By denying evolution, you are denying the facts, plain and simple. Evolutionary theory is seen by you (but not by all) as a contradiction to your holy book, and you'd prefer to stick with a simplistic (and wrong) explanation of the world rather than admit that the Bible is perhaps more "metaphorical" than you imagined.

Stating that the fossil record “quite clearly shows the transition between various forms of organism” is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.

No, it's a prediction of evolutionary theory, not a presupposition. Darwin observed the differences of live animals on different islands of the Galapagos. He formed a theory about how animals evolved, and transitional forms in the fossil record was one of his predictions. Transitional forms in the fossil record is exactly what we found. If we hadn't, the theory would be wrong. The only way we found Tiktaalik (transitional form between fish and reptiles) is by looking back through the fossil record, and pinpointing the area where such a creature would have originated, and what layer of the geologic column it should be in. Lo and behold, on this prediction alone, they found the fossil. It's either a massive coincidence, or the theory works. Since the theory has made thousands of other predictions (all of which supported the theory or changed it to fit), mere coincidence doesn't explain it.

Further stating that the supposed transition is “to the point that you can accurately trace back all the changes and see that we indeed did come from ape-like hominds, and they in turn came from smaller monkey/lemur like creatures, and they came from...etc etc.” is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.

Again, see above.

Animals change. That can be observed. That is a fact.

Humans change. That can be observed. That is a fact.

Such changes can be defined as evolution and in this sense I accept that evolution occurs.

Yes, and the fact that many small changes ultimately add up to larger changes resulting in speciation is also a fact. It's been observed (type "observed instances of speciation" into Google to see for yourself...)

Stating that those changes we see demonstrate evolution in the sense of common descent or molecules to man evolution is NOT a fact. It is an interpretation of the fossil record, the fact, based on an evolutionary presupposition.

Again, we observe it. We make predictions about it, and we look back at the fossil record and see that it fits the theory. It's just another natural process.

It seems to me like you and others here take all those things that I said were interpretations based on an evolutionary presupposition and you state them as fact. They are not fact. Sae has even suggested that they are fact like gravity.

We continuously observe that there is a force exerted by the earth on objects. That is a fact. That force is named gravity. Therefore, gravity is a fact. The things that I said were interpretations based on an evolutionary presupposition are not remotely like gravity.

We continuously observe that there is a force of natural selection at work on the Earth. That is a fact. Organisms mutate, they change, nature selects the ones best adapted to their environment to survive. That is evolution. It is a fact!

As for the dinosaur fossil, all it shows is that science changes with new evidence. However the existence of 68 million year old tissue doesn't contradict evolution, and the very date completely contradicts young earth creationism...

[rjh4 is back]

We continuously observe that there is a force of natural selection at work on the Earth. That is a fact. Organisms mutate, they change, nature selects the ones best adapted to their environment to survive. That is evolution. It is a fact!

If that is all you mean by evolution, I agree wholeheartedly. I even said I agreed with evolution in this sense. Evolution in this sense is entirely consistent with creation. God created humans and various kinds of animals, plants, fish, and birds, all with a great potential for variation in their DNA. The evolution that we observe is a result of that potential for variation and the force of natural selection.
Where we disagree is that you think one form of life suddenly appeared and all life evolved from as opposed to God creating all the kinds from the beginning. Of course we also disagree on time because your view needs a lot of time to occur otherwise nobody would believe the theory is true whereas Biblical creation does not require a lot of time. My view is consistent with us not seeing, for example, dogs changing into anything but dogs, etc., whereas your view hopes to see such a thing someday.

Adrian, I don't expect that we will agree on this and that is ok.

[Tiberius]

Where we disagree is that you think one form of life suddenly appeared and all life evolved from as opposed to God creating all the kinds from the beginning.

Nowhere have I stated that I think one form of life suddenly appeared. I expect what happened was a natural process, panspermia or abiogenesis seem most likely.

Of course we also disagree on time because your view needs a lot of time to occur otherwise nobody would believe the theory is true whereas Biblical creation does not require a lot of time. My view is consistent with us not seeing, for example, dogs changing into anything but dogs, etc., whereas your view hopes to see such a thing someday.

I regret to inform you but we do see *organisms* changing; you even admit this. The fossil record shows this, and we've seen the same with bacteria in a lab. Creationists always seem to accept that 1.0 + 0.01 = 1.01, but then are surprised when you show that if you add 0.01 enough you reach 2. Microevolution you accept, but to not accept macroevolution is to simply deny the fact that many small changes add up to larger changes, namely those that result in speciation.

But since you've brought up consistency, let me list some things that your view aren't consistent with:

1) The oldest fossils are those of small undeveloped creatures. As you go up through the geologic column, you find more and more complex forms of life preserved. If these organisms were all created at the same time, why are they separated like this?
2) Nowhere in the fossil record do we see the sudden appearance of multiple forms of life. Indeed, the Cambrian "explosion" (which can be said to be the closest thing to this) took several million years.
3) All dating methods confirm that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that life first began around 4 billion years ago. The scientific estimate for the start of the universe is 13.7 billion years ago. How does this not contradict your view of a "young" Earth?

[Rob]

3) All dating methods confirm that the Earth is 6 billion years old, and that life first began around 4 billion years ago. The scientific estimate for the start of the universe is 13.7 billion years ago. How does this not contradict your view of a "young" Earth?

What makes you say 6 billion? That's around 1.5 billion years older than I was lead to believe.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

The earth is old, very old. Just not that old. (As far as I'm aware)
The rest of the post seems fine.