Challenges to Creationism

[Kirran]

So often, I find that those who don't believe in evolution will make threads or posts attacking evolution. Those of us who believe in evolution tend to then defend evolution, and it goes like that. Much more rarely do I see examples of creationists being asked to defend creationism.

So I'd like to offer up some challenges, essentially off the top of my head, and see how creationists respond to them. Anybody else is welcome to offer up challenges, as well as rebuttals and general comments.

I hope we shall have a constructive dialogue.

1) Why do humans, and other animals, suffer from diseases such as dementia, Parkinson's and diabetes?

2) Why are there so many similarities, in terms of genetics, in terms of morphology, in terms of ecology, between organisms in such a ranked way that they can be so easily placed into phylogenies (family trees)?

e.g. why are the two chimpanzee species so similar to one another, and then progressively less similar to humans, to gorilla species, to orangutan species?

3) Why do so many lifeforms discovered in the fossil record resemble those living today, but with increasing differences the further back you go (for the most part)?

4) Why do all organisms use the same molecule (DNA) to encode genetic information, and the same code within that medium as well?

5) Why have so many species gone extinct?

That'll do for now.

 

[Skwim]

So often, I find that those who don't believe in evolution will make threads or posts attacking evolution. Those of us who believe in evolution tend to then defend evolution, and it goes like that. Much more rarely do I see examples of creationists being asked to defend creationism.

This is because the advocacy and defense of creationism is essentially a one note song: Ya gotta have faith! What else is there to say? So creationists are forced to go on the attack. Therefore, don't expect any reasoned replies to your questions. Eventually the creationist will take the issue off topic and run god knows where with it. Not that this isn't amusing at times, but it's never productive.

 

[Kirran]

This is because the advocacy and defense of creationism is essentially a one note song: Ya gotta have faith! What else is there to say? So creationists are forced to go on the attack. Therefore, don't expect any reasoned replies to your questions. Eventually the creationist will take the issue off topic and run god knows where with it. Not that this isn't amusing at times, but it's never productive.

Well, I live in hope.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

6) Why would there exist leeches, mosquitoes, tapeworms, eye worms and other parasites that seem to serve no other purpose other than spreading disease and feeding off those whom "God" created to have a relationship with "him"?

 

[Ouroboros]

Much more rarely do I see examples of creationists being asked to defend creationism.

Probably because we only try once or twice and can't get any straight or reasonable answers... if we even get any.

 

[Kirran]

I think it would be nice to get some replies.

There will, somewhere in various creationist schools of thought, be answers to these questions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe the lack of replies speaks for itself?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I don't theists necessarily feel like they need to defend their faith to a non-theist. I'm sure there are many reasons to speculate why that is, but maybe that's a different thread.

 

[Skwim]

I don't [think?] theists necessarily feel like they need to defend their faith to a non-theist. I'm sure there are many reasons to speculate why that is, but maybe that's a different thread.

Not necessarily, but some do choose to do so. To some Christians evolution is a huge challenge to their faith and they want to step up to the plate and destroy the monster. Pitting their creationist belief against the findings of science, they're well aware that making a case for creationism on its own merits won't get them out the door, so they leave creationism behind and attack evolution the best they can. So very, very seldom will you ever see a creationist use the credentials of creationism to contest evolution. What does one say after using the best weapon in the creationist arsenal: "You have to have faith"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So often, I find that those who don't believe in evolution will make threads or posts attacking evolution. Those of us who believe in evolution tend to then defend evolution, and it goes like that. Much more rarely do I see examples of creationists being asked to defend creationism.
So I'd like to offer up some challenges, essentially off the top of my head, and see how creationists respond to them. Anybody else is welcome to offer up challenges, as well as rebuttals and general comments.
I hope we shall have a constructive dialogue.
1) Why do humans, and other animals, suffer from diseases such as dementia, Parkinson's and diabetes?

God created an existence with no fear, pain, challenges, grieving, which still exists today,, for Jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, learning, appreciation for life either- would you trade?

2) Why are there so many similarities, in terms of genetics, in terms of morphology, in terms of ecology, between organisms in such a ranked way that they can be so easily placed into phylogenies (family trees)?

the history of automobiles can be arranged in a very similar 'evolutionary tree' so this observation in itself is entirely consistent with intelligent design

e.g. why are the two chimpanzee species so similar to one another, and then progressively less similar to humans, to gorilla species, to orangutan species?

same again- similar cars do not suggest one accidentally created the other

3) Why do so many lifeforms discovered in the fossil record resemble those living today, but with increasing differences the further back you go (for the most part)?

the Bible and fossil record both describe sudden jumps, stages to the creation of life- contrary to the smooth gradual change that evolution originally predicted

4) Why do all organisms use the same molecule (DNA) to encode genetic information, and the same code within that medium as well?

That's a very common argument for creationism, if life was the sort of thing that nature would tend to acheive arbitrarily, why not countless versions? why one single platform inherent to the very fabric of creation? it is consistent with intelligent design that there are no more operating systems for life itself than are necessary- 1

5) Why have so many species gone extinct?

We are made in God's image, and so the primary beneficiaries of creation, with dominion over the animals, including the resources left to us by them.

That'll do for now.

c'mon give us some hard ones next time!

 

[outhouse]

God created

Unsubstantiated rhetoric

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Hello, Pirate.

First, a handshake for taking the challenge.

Second, tonight I am too tired to offer rebuttals but I certainly can and will.

 

[Kirran]

Thankyou for replying Guy!

God created an existence with no fear, pain, challenges, grieving, which still exists today,, for Jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, learning, appreciation for life either- would you trade?

So you're saying that for joy, love etc. to exist, we have to have diseases caused by the inefficient design of the human being, like Parkinson's disease and bone marrow cancer in young children?

Humans wouldn't have been able to experience joy if, for example, my grandfather hadn't lost his ability to live his life through Parkinson's, my grandmother hadn't struggled to recognise her own children due to dementia, my other grandmother hadn't suffered from a stroke and subsequently starved herself to death purposefully because she couldn't live with the after effects, and my mother hadn't had her breast removed because of cancer last week?

I honestly find this a flimsy argument. Suffering, fear etc. can easily be had without a certain proportion of the population suffering from this diseases at random. We have war, we have love and loss, we have famine. Why are genetic diseases and these other disorders necessary?

the history of automobiles can be arranged in a very similar 'evolutionary tree' so this observation in itself is entirely consistent with intelligent design

same again- similar cars do not suggest one accidentally created the other

Fair enough, I hadn't seen it from this angle.

But why would God need to be just modifying designs, if he can design from scratch to perfection just as easily, rather than adapting an existing design to a new niche it doesn't quite fit?

the Bible and fossil record both describe sudden jumps, stages to the creation of life- contrary to the smooth gradual change that evolution originally predicted

The Bible does, the fossil record doesn't really. We see a myriad intermediate forms (all lifeforms are intermediate forms, really), for example in the evolution of humans.

That's a very common argument for creationism, if life was the sort of thing that nature would tend to acheive arbitrarily, why not countless versions? why one single platform inherent to the very fabric of creation? it is consistent with intelligent design that there are no more operating systems for life itself than are necessary- 1

Well the universal genetic code is a pretty good indicator of common ancestry. And actually, I can tell you that DNA is not that great at storing information and passing it on faithfully, hence mutations (why would God allow mutations, when it's just a deterioration of a perfect design?), but also isn't really well-suited to the environments in which certain organisms, like Thermus aquaticus, live. It would have been better to use something better suited to those environments than just try and shove a round peg in a square hole.

We are made in God's image, and so the primary beneficiaries of creation, with dominion over the animals, including the resources left to us by them.

So why did God create dinosaurs, for example, only to destroy them? Or, for that matter, woolly mammoths? Neanderthals?

c'mon give us some hard ones next time!

Haha, OK, here's another one then.

Why aren't lifeforms perfectly adapted to their environments? If all life had been created through intelligent design by a perfect being, you would expect that each species would be perfectly suited to the environment in which it found itself, and couldn't be replaced by a foreign species. As an example, the introduced grey squirrel has largely displaced the native red squirrel in the British Isles. Why would God have created a sub-optimal species as regards being suited to its particular environment?

Again, thanks for the response!

 

[Altfish]

Another one for Guy...

Please explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes.

 

[rusra02]

So often, I find that those who don't believe in evolution will make threads or posts attacking evolution. Those of us who believe in evolution tend to then defend evolution, and it goes like that. Much more rarely do I see examples of creationists being asked to defend creationism.

So I'd like to offer up some challenges, essentially off the top of my head, and see how creationists respond to them. Anybody else is welcome to offer up challenges, as well as rebuttals and general comments.

I hope we shall have a constructive dialogue.

1) Why do humans, and other animals, suffer from diseases such as dementia, Parkinson's and diabetes?

Animals were not created to live forever, according to the Bible. People suffer illness and death as a result of inherited sin. (Romans 5:12)

2) Why are there so many similarities, in terms of genetics, in terms of morphology, in terms of ecology, between organisms in such a ranked way that they can be so easily placed into phylogenies (family trees)?

e.g. why are the two chimpanzee species so similar to one another, and then progressively less similar to humans, to gorilla species, to orangutan species?

The Bible says that God created animals and plants according to their kinds. Similar animals may belong to the same kind, especially if they can interbreed.

3) Why do so many lifeforms discovered in the fossil record resemble those living today, but with increasing differences the further back you go (for the most part)?
Examples?

4) Why do all organisms use the same molecule (DNA) to encode genetic information, and the same code within that medium as well?
They have the same Creator, who used the same medium for all living things.

5) Why have so many species gone extinct?
Since the Bible does not answer this question, we can only speculate. Some surmise these animals played a role in preparing the earth for human life.

That'll do for now.

I do not consider myself a creationist but I believe God created the earth and life upon it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do not consider myself a creationist but I believe God created the earth and life upon it.

What?

 

[Marisa]

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis

Ken Ham, the most prolific purveyor of creationism, teaches us why. As the statement above shows, any evidence which contrdicts the account of Genesis cannot be valid.

 

[rusra02]

What?

The term creationist is associated with fundamentalist "Christians" who involve themselves in politics and some believe God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The term creationist is associated with fundamentalist "Christians" who involve themselves in politics and some believe God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days.

That is Young Earth Creationist anyway.

 

[FearGod]

Another one for Guy...

Please explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes.

So it isn't surprising to you that all connections are correct as to be enough for you to think of a designer but only a longer wiring is an evidence for you that it was done by chance and evolution , it is like finding a long wire in a working TV while a short one can do the same job then you conclude that the TV wasn't designed because of the long wire.