Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[leibowde84]

This isn't really an argument. What is needed is a strong correlation between reason and evolutionary survival, especially speculative reason. Response to stimuli, for example, will often do just as well as reason. When we touch a hot stove and quickly withdraw our finger, we do not reason about this. We do it as a response to stimuli. It is hard to see why we couldn't survive just as easily by always relying on response to stimuli and not reason.

I don't think that it was necessary for proto- and early humans to have reliable cognitive faculties to survive. These faculties could be severely faulty and yet, if they still operated in a way that aided our survival, they could still allow us to survive well without reliable rational inference. There seems nothing in evolutionary theory alone to give us reason to think they are probably reliable. Besides, it is especially on speculative and abstract reason that naturalism and naturalistic evolution rely. It is even harder to see how the naturalistic evolutionary account can give a strong reason why we would develop reliable reason when it comes to speculative and abstract reasoning that went beyond the nonapparent aspects of our environment (its molecular structure and so on).

Again, you keep on saying "I don't think it's necessary", but that is merely a straw man. No one in evolutionary science has every claimed that improvements must be "necessary" in order to make sense. And, our ability to reason makes it much easier to hunt, grow food, provide shelter, etc. It separates us from every other species.

 

[leibowde84]

Sure you know everything lol.

Stop trolling. Can you show at least a bit of respect and address my point. WE, meaning human beings, already understand how these things form in nature. So, why did you mention these things?

 

[leibowde84]

I'd agree, the very fact that we are the only species out of millions that could ever ponder these questions, demonstrates that it's obviously not the sort of thing 'evolution' tends to achieve.

We can see the advantage intelligence would have given dinosaurs also, who dominated for millions of years without ever 'accidentally' gaining what humans acquired in a geological instant.

creating any significant physical design improvement by a fluke mutation is problematic enough, far less sentience

Why would you expect other species to have sentience? Why would it be hard to believe at all that we are the first on earth?

 

[leibowde84]

Well, it was a spur of the moment example.

Basically I don't see this all happening by accident. But maybe that isn't what evolutionists believe. Does evolution claim this is all an accident? Looking for opinions here!

Evolution is the process. It doesn't speak to how it was planned or how it was initiated.

 

[Parsimony]

So you mean evolution starts once the first organism lived. But before that was abiogenesis?

Yeah, that's about right. Abiogenesis, if it occurred, would have been a very different process than biological evolution as we see it today. Evolution has the following requirements: (1) The entities in a population must be capable of reproduction, (2) The entities must have some kind of genotype-phenotype link which can be inherited by their offspring and (3) The total genetic content of the population must be capable of changing through the generations due to differential survivability, mutations, migration, etc. The basic, non-living chemicals (such as hydrogen cyanide, nitrogen, formaldehyde, etc.) present on the prebiotic Earth would have had none of these traits. Therefore, whatever caused abiogenesis wouldn't have been the same thing as biological evolution.

 

[averageJOE]

I read through these posts. Well most of them anyways. This isn't the first time a thread like this is attempted, threads to make arguments FOR creationism. And every time, every time, just like this one, they turn into evolution debates.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why would you expect other species to have sentience? Why would it be hard to believe at all that we are the first on earth?

what happened to the power of random mutation, natural selection, that denied all other species the superiority of sentience- over so many millions of years?

Yet it appeared with the flip of a switch in humanity?

 

[fantome profane]

what happened to the power of random mutation, natural selection, that denied all other species the superiority of sentience- over so many millions of years?

Yet it appeared with the flip of a switch in humanity?

You are making the unsubstantiated assumption that sentience makes a species superior to any non sentient species. This may be a part of your personal value system, but plays no part in evolution theory.

 

[leibowde84]

what happened to the power of random mutation, natural selection, that denied all other species the superiority of sentience- over so many millions of years?

Yet it appeared with the flip of a switch in humanity?

It developed over a very long period of time, but we are the most highly developed species. We did get lucky, but some species had to be the best, as species certainly don't evolve at the same rate due to various conditions. Why is that hard to believe?

 

[leibowde84]

You are making the unsubstantiated assumption that sentience makes a species superior to any non sentient species. This may be a part of your personal value system, but plays no part in evolution theory.

That's a gold point. I think it is supported by things like art, design, scientific discovery, understanding, etc. Though.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It developed over a very long period of time, but we are the most highly developed species. We did get lucky, but some species had to be the best, as species certainly don't evolve at the same rate due to various conditions. Why is that hard to believe?

In the blink of an eye, in a tiny population in one tiny corner of the planet- relative to the vastly greater period of time and space evolution had to work it's magic on e.g. Dinosaurs, of all shapes and sizes- with large cranial capacities, all over the world for 10's of millions of years..

Do you think sentience would have been a disadvantage for them? why did this lucky number never show up before in all those rolls of the dice?

Perhaps it was staggering luck for us, it's always possible I agree- but compounded with all the other lucky coincidences of Earth and the universe itself- I find that just a wee bit suspicious!

 

[leibowde84]

In the blink of an eye, in a tiny population in one tiny corner of the planet- relative to the vastly greater period of time and space evolution had to work it's magic on e.g. Dinosaurs, of all shapes and sizes- with large cranial capacities, all over the world for 10's of millions of years..

Do you think sentience would have been a disadvantage for them? why did this lucky number never show up before in all those rolls of the dice?

Perhaps it was staggering luck for us, it's always possible I agree- but compounded with all the other lucky coincidences of Earth and the universe itself- I find that just a wee bit suspicious!

What is your alternate theory to evolution, and what evidence do you have to support it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What is your alternate theory to evolution, and what evidence do you have to support it?

Like classical physics, the alternative's were found only through accepting fundamental flaws in the theory as such, not mere anomalous gaps to be dismissed with hypothetical explanations. And I'm no Max Planck! I'm just one of the ignorant masses who thinks the current theory is just to simple and attractive for it's own good.

But my money would be on a parallel to quantum physics of some kind, a deeper layer of biology underlying our superficial observations, specific to particular more functional outcomes as with physics-
Some ideas in Epigenetics I think are interesting, that might address the problem of sophisticated improvements in design being driven by chance alone.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are making the unsubstantiated assumption that sentience makes a species superior to any non sentient species. This may be a part of your personal value system, but plays no part in evolution theory.

well- you have to admit it kinda gave us a teeny bit of an advantage as a species over others no?

But it was your assumption not mine. I just make the observation that, 'superior' or not, we are the only means we know of, by which the universe is aware of it's own existence, can be consciously known, investigated, appreciated from within..

i.e. I make the assumption that a book written in French is primarily intended for people who speak French, not that they are inherently superior. So too a universe that can be understood only by humanity, is probably intended for us.

 

[God lover]

Evolution is the process. It doesn't speak to how it was planned or how it was initiated.

Yes! I totally agree

 

[God lover]

Yeah, that's about right. Abiogenesis, if it occurred, would have been a very different process than biological evolution as we see it today. Evolution has the following requirements: (1) The entities in a population must be capable of reproduction, (2) The entities must have some kind of genotype-phenotype link which can be inherited by their offspring and (3) The total genetic content of the population must be capable of changing through the generations due to differential survivability, mutations, migration, etc. The basic, non-living chemicals (such as hydrogen cyanide, nitrogen, formaldehyde, etc.) present on the prebiotic Earth would have had none of these traits. Therefore, whatever caused abiogenesis wouldn't have been the same thing as biological evolution.

That was a very informative post. Thank you. It has long bothered me that to get to a single cell with dna or rna.... would be impossible by evolution.

Biogenenesis is my favorite word of the week!!!

 

[fantome profane]

well- you have to admit it kinda gave us a teeny bit of an advantage as a species over others no?

I don't admit that, that is exactly the very thing I am denying. Sentience is one strategy for survival, not the only strategy for survival. And it is not necessarily the best strategy. Our intelligence so far has not given us an evolutionary advantage over ants. Ants are doing just fine in this world without our kind of intelligence. Same for beetles, roaches, mosquito etc. And billions of species of bacteria are doing just fine.

I know this is going to sound strange to you. But speaking strictly from an evolutionary point of view we humans are not superior to any other species. Our intelligence has been a reasonably effective survival strategy for us. But ants have a different strategy that has been effective for them. We don't seem to have an advantage over ants as a species.

But it was your assumption not mine. I just make the observation that, 'superior' or not, we are the only means we know of, by which the universe is aware of it's own existence, can be consciously known, investigated, appreciated from within..

And your value system tells you that this is important. I don't think it is important but I don't want to get into that debate with you. The point is that this is based not on any science or scientific evidence. This is just what you have decided has value.

i.e. I make the assumption that a book written in French is primarily intended for people who speak French, not that they are inherently superior. So too a universe that can be understood only by humanity, is probably intended for us.

The universe is not a book. The purpose of a book is to be read, to be understood. There is no reason to conclude that the universe has a similar purpose, or any purpose at all. You can choose to believe that if you wish, and I don't wish to get into that debate either. But the point is that this position is not based on science. And you can't draw scientific conclusions based on this belief.

 

[Skwim]

That was a very informative post. Thank you. It has long bothered me that to get to a single cell with dna or rna.... would be impossible by evolution.
Biogenenesis is my favorite word of the week!!!

Don't jump to conclusions. Here's a good video that clarifies the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, AND explains how abiogenesis started it all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't admit that, that is exactly the very thing I am denying. Sentience is one strategy for survival, not the only strategy for survival. And it is not necessarily the best strategy. Our intelligence so far has not given us an evolutionary advantage over ants. Ants are doing just fine in this world without our kind of intelligence. Same for beetles, roaches, mosquito etc. And billions of species of bacteria are doing just fine.

I know this is going to sound strange to you. But speaking strictly from an evolutionary point of view we humans are not superior to any other species. Our intelligence has been a reasonably effective survival strategy for us. But ants have a different strategy that has been effective for them. We don't seem to have an advantage over ants as a species.

I'm not talking about an abstract academic strictly evolutionary point of view, by which you could argue bacteria are the big winners here, I'm talking practical reality; would you trade with an ant?

me neither.

The universe is not a book. The purpose of a book is to be read, to be understood. There is no reason to conclude that the universe has a similar purpose, or any purpose at all. You can choose to believe that if you wish, and I don't wish to get into that debate either. But the point is that this position is not based on science. And you can't draw scientific conclusions based on this belief.

You could argue that point with many of our greatest scientists, who have remarked on how curious it is that the universe lends itself so well to our understanding- tests our curiosity and ingenuity to it's limits. as primary intended beneficiaries of a purposeful creation- this of course makes perfect sense- it's exactly what we might expect. What better way to appreciate anything?. For the same to have occurred purely accidentally however- would have to be chalked up to yet- one -more staggering coincidence.

You can choose to believe this, we all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge our faith, then it is not blind.

 

[outhouse]

You can choose to believe this, we all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge our faith, then it is not blind.

The problem is faith based on mythology spurs the imagination of many despite the mythology not even matching the imaginative claims of the BLIND and faithful.

Your trying to promote imagination because you don't have a single shred of evidence for mythology existing outside itself.


In biology the ignorance is filled with knowledge so we don't need faith or imaginative conclusions. There is no place in billions of years worth of evidence and millions of pieces of factual evidence that don't have any mythology guiding anything.