Challenges to Creationism

[Kirran]

Am I wrong, but does it sound a bit Buddhist?

Sounds more Hindu than Buddhist to me. But it sounds even more Jewish than it does Hindu

But certainly, I think there's some commonality of thought there.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm not going to take the time to grab all of the individual quotes that I want to respond to from this thread, but I will at least address the idea that the fossil record shows evidence of larger jumps, instead of lots of very slow, gradual progressions.

When environmental changes happen relatively quickly, the affected organisms, by design of their environmental change, only have a short amount of time to adapt. They'll either luck upon the necessary changes, find migration patterns suitable to allow their phenotype to survive somewhere else, or they will go extinct. Because of this, what you'll find are fossilized remains of organisms that did not survive, and fossilized remains of those that did, albeit in a different form than the preceding parent species. The species that carry on the legacy of the predecessors will be those that exhibited rapid/drastic changes to their phenotype over those that went extinct. These rapid phenotypical changes give the appearance, at least to those who subscribe to creationist thinking, that these species burst onto the scene with all of their new features intact, as if having been created, but that line of thinking is incorrect as evidenced by the hypothetical example I just provided. Quick changes in the fossil record are understood and do not cause any concern or confusion to the sciences.

For all the hundreds of thousands of species that have gone extinct, one, or a handful, managed to produce enough genetic change quickly enough to adapt to their given changing environment. What you see, looking back over the eons by digging through the fossil record, are only those organisms who were successful enough to survive certain environmental changes while also producing enough offspring to eventually lead to a few specimens being preserved as fossils. The vast, vast majority of dead organisms throughout history have not been preserved and as such we will never know what all was here. It's unfortunate, really, that we will never have the whole story.

 

[Tumah]

Name them all. Otherwise, you're just making assumptions about God's will.

Job 38: v 1-2 KJV

1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

I would have brought Isa. 55:8 as a better statement here.
But keep in mind, I'm Jewish not Christian. So the Bible is the first word not the last word.
But here you are:

I would start on the bottom left and work your way up and to the right since more of those books are inclined to discuss issues like this. There are also another shelf and a half or so in the bottom right cabinet.

Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I would have brought Isa. 55:8 as a better statement here.
But keep in mind, I'm Jewish not Christian. So the Bible is the first word not the last word.
But here you are:

I would start on the bottom left and work your way up and to the right since more of those books are inclined to discuss issues like this. There are also another shelf and a half or so in the bottom right cabinet.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Wow!

Can you at least classify them into catagories or chunks of knowledge for me?

Edit: my quote was older.

 

[Tumah]

Wow!

Can you at least classify them into catagories or chunks of knowledge for me?

You mean on the bookshelf? There's not really very much that discusses individual topics. The lower left is basically books about introspection, character building and various areas of weltanschauung and philosphy (these are often interrelated in Jewish literature). Higher up are books on Hassidic thought. On top of that topics related to the times of the year. The second to the left is just a few different types of prayer books and my wife's English books. The middle right is books on the Bible some Sephardic thought, some Jewish philosophy/thought and responsa. The far left has the Talmud and commentaries on the Talmud, Maimonides's codification of the Law and some other discussions of Law. In the cabinet are various books with kabbalistic leanings.

What I'm saying is that I can't point to an individual book that discuses a specific idea. And obviously none of these works are going to discuss subjects like evolution because they predate the invention of the idea by centuries if not longer. But I've picked up enough over the course of my studies, that I can take principles that were derived from those works and apply them to discussion here.

Edit: my quote was older.

That's true.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

You mean on the bookshelf? There's not really very much that discusses individual topics. The lower left is basically books about introspection, character building and various areas of weltanschauung and philosphy (these are often interrelated in Jewish literature). Higher up are books on Hassidic thought. On top of that topics related to the times of the year. The second to the left is just a few different types of prayer books and my wife's English books. The middle right is books on the Bible some Sephardic thought, some Jewish philosophy/thought and responsa. The far left has the Talmud and commentaries on the Talmud, Maimonides's codification of the Law and some other discussions of Law. In the cabinet are various books with kabbalistic leanings.

What I'm saying is that I can't point to an individual book that discuses a specific idea. And obviously none of these works are going to discuss subjects like evolution because they predate the invention of the idea by centuries if not longer. But I've picked up enough over the course of my studies, that I can take principles that were derived from those works and apply them to discussion here.

My stepfather is a catholic with a collection of books similar to that (not that big though). He considers his bible to be a holy book, but the rest are interpretations of catholic thought and philosophy.

Do you consider all of the books on your shelf to be holy? Are they philosophical ideas about the mind of god? Are there competing ideas within the texts? How does it all come together?

I guess my main thought is along these lines is that of comparing two claims:

1. There is a god and he created the universe.

2. I know the mind of the god who created the universe.

Obviously, I don't accept the first claim, so I can't accept the second. But there are many Theists who claim 1, but harbor reservations about 2 because they just don't claim to know, they just trust in him, believe in his nature, etc.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at here? If you are claiming 2, even in part, you are privy to alot more knowledge than most others who believe in him.

I should also point out in fairness they you haven't claimed 2 either. I don't want to put words in your mouth. But you have suggested specific details that suggest your are claiming 2 in part, so maybe clarification might be necessary.

Understanding the path you took to get there through your sources is vital to that claim (if you are making it, of course - again, please correct me otherwise).

 

[Tumah]

My stepfather is a catholic with a collection of books similar to that (not that big though). He considers his bible to be a holy book, but the rest are interpretations of catholic thought and philosophy.

Where I come from, my collection is on the small side of average. I still don't have a ton of basic texts.

Do you consider all of the books on your shelf to be holy?

To varying degrees.

Are they philosophical ideas about the mind of god?

That depends on what you mean by the mind of G-d.

Are there competing ideas within the texts?

Inasmuch as they may be describing different paths to the similar goals.

How does it all come together?

By understanding the underlying, philosophical and/or esoteric aspect of a person, object or event, one can discern the correct way to perceive and relate to that person, object of event.

I guess my main thought is along these lines is that of comparing two claims:

1. There is a god and he created the universe.

2. I know the mind of the god who created the universe.

Obviously, I don't accept the first claim, so I can't accept the second. But there are many Theists who claim 1, but harbor reservations about 2 because they just don't claim to know, they just trust in him, believe in his nature, etc.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at here? If you are claiming 2, even in part, you are privy to alot more knowledge than most others who believe in him.

I should also point out in fairness they you haven't claimed 2 either. I don't want to put words in your mouth. But you have suggested specific details that suggest your are claiming 2 in part, so maybe clarification might be necessary.

Understanding the path you took to get there through your sources is vital to that claim (if you are making it, of course - again, please correct me otherwise).

It seems to me as though you are lumping all theists under one banner and then asking how can any one theist know more than another.
I hesitate to use the phrase, "know the mind of G-d". G-d's 'self' so to speak, is inherently unknowable. But we do have many traditions from prophets such as Moses and Rabbis from the Talmud about what is going on.

 

[FearGod]

Care to rephrase?

I mean it's the world's fault and not God's fault that some Africans starving with hunger and diseases.

 

[dust1n]

it certainly used to predict exactly that- , but if the evidence doesn't fit the prediction, the prediction can be changed- then it's not a falsifiable scientific theory.

Yes it is. If a particular prediction turned out to be wrong, and then changed to reflect the empirical evidence found, then the first prediction was falsified, replaced with the second. Evolution is falsifiable in theory, but if no evidence exists to falsify the claim, that doesn't mean it isn't falsifiable. It just means the theory is pretty sturdy.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes it is. If a particular prediction turned out to be wrong, and then changed to reflect the empirical evidence found, then the first prediction was falsified, replaced with the second. Evolution is falsifiable in theory, but if no evidence exists to falsify the claim, that doesn't mean it isn't falsifiable. It just means the theory is pretty sturdy.

claim- evolution is a slow steady process

falsification- Cambrian explosion


changing the prediction to whatever the observation = unfalsifiable

 

[Skwim]

No problem. When you turn 15, come back and read all the posts here and by then hopefully you'll be able to demonstrate that you can continue the debate in a mature fashion. And when you do, I'll be happy to answer.

Yeah, I figured my question would put you in a corner

that would have you grasping for an ad hominem* to extricate yourself. The last refuge of the truly desperate. Too bad it doesn't work.

I mean it's the world's fault and not God's fault that some Africans starving with hunger and diseases.

Yeah, but Tumah here disagrees. Believe it or not he says "G-d spreads disease and suffering to those who deserve diseases and sufferings."

.....WILL SUFFER AND DIE OF MALARIA

..BECAUSE GOD FOUND HIM DESERVING

​

* For your edification.
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.
Source:Wikipedia

 

[dust1n]

claim- evolution is a slow steady process

falsification- Cambrian explosion

Sure.

changing the prediction to whatever the observation = unfalsifiable

What? That makes no sense. If my first prediction doesn't jive with some observation, so I make a second prediction that does jive with some observation, then I went from changing my opinion because the original opinion is contradictory towards empirical observations.

I honestly don't even know what you are trying to get at.

It's unfalsifiable that one can change their prediction to match with an observation? What does that even mean?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure.



What? That makes no sense. If my first prediction doesn't jive with some observation, so I make a second prediction that does jive with some observation, then I went from changing my opinion because the original opinion is contradictory towards empirical observations.

I honestly don't even know what you are trying to get at.

It's unfalsifiable that one can change their prediction to match with an observation? What does that even mean?

I may be mistaken, but I think he is assuming that evolution is a dogmatic doctrine as opposed to a scientific theory.

As a consequence, he is attempting to find flaws in its predictions, not realizing he is focusing on the very facts that allow it to be corrected and improved.


TLDR - It is a fundamental failure at understanding what a scientific theory is.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sure.



What? That makes no sense. If my first prediction doesn't jive with some observation, so I make a second prediction that does jive with some observation, then I went from changing my opinion because the original opinion is contradictory towards empirical observations.

I honestly don't even know what you are trying to get at.

It's unfalsifiable that one can change their prediction to match with an observation? What does that even mean?

let me try to explain it better then

if you expand a prediction to include every possible outcome, then your predictions are literally unfalsifiable, that's all

e.g. if heat, cold, snow, rain, drizzle, drought, wind, calm, and every conceivable weather observation 'fits the prediction of climate change' the prediction cannot be falsified by any observation

likewise regarding the predicted pace of evolution, if everything from stagnant (horseshoe crabs) to instantaneous (Cambrian explosion) fits the prediction, then no observation falsifies it. you see?

 

[LuisDantas]

let me try to explain it better then

if you expand a prediction to include every possible outcome, then your predictions are literally unfalsifiable, that's all

e.g. if heat, cold, snow, rain, drizzle, drought, wind, calm, and every conceivable weather observation 'fits the prediction of climate change' the prediction cannot be falsified by any observation

likewise regarding the predicted pace of evolution, if everything from stagnant (horseshoe crabs) to instantaneous (Cambrian explosion) fits the prediction, then no observation falsifies it. you see?

That is the thing. You are misrepresenting the ToE, and apparently the very idea of a scientific theory in general.

Theories are far more specific than you seem to realize, and they are meant to be tested, confronted with facts, polished and refined as demanded by actual observed reality.

I am not sure why you think the ToE would have any trouble with the Cambrian explosion, but even if it at some point did, it just means that it can benefit from those data points and further its own predictions.

Despite what you seem to think, that period just does not work as a serious challenge to the ToE. It is at most an interesting detail to be studied and better understood.

In essence, you are complaining of a flaw that does not exist.


Feel free to google for "cambrian explosion evolution" for more elaborate explanations of why that is so.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

These animals represent some of the mediums through which G-d spreads disease and suffering to those who deserve diseases and sufferings.

The more I think about this, the more incensed I become.

About 3.2 billion people – almost half of the world's population – are at risk of malaria. In 2013, there were about 198 million malaria cases (with an uncertainty range of 124 million to 283 million) and an estimated 584 000 malaria deaths (with an uncertainty range of 367 000 to 755 000). Increased prevention and control measures have led to a reduction in malaria mortality rates by 47% globally since 2000 and by 54% in the African Region.

People living in the poorest countries are the most vulnerable to malaria. In 2013, 90% of all malaria deaths occurred in the African Region, mostly among children under 5 years of age.

Source: WHO | 10 facts on malaria

Did you catch that? 90% of all malaria deaths in the African region were deaths of children under 5 years of age.

Malaria, which is mostly transmitted by mosquitoes ...

Take a look at the symptoms of malaria: Malaria Symptoms: Chills, Fever, Fatigue, Sweats, & More

I find it totally unfathomable that someone could even begin to conceive that a child under 5 "deserved" this ... I find it totally unfathomable that, even if someone did deserve this, it would be a child ...

And malaria is just one of the many diseases this "creation of God", called the "mosquito", has in store for those who "deserve" disease, including infants:

Mosquito-borne diseases, infectious disease information, NCID, CDC

How can you believe what you have said? What delusion or dementia brings you to the conclusion that mosquitoes (and other blood sucking, disease spreading freaks of nature) were created to give disease to "those who deserve it" while those most vulnerable to these diseases are actually innocent children?

 

[Tumah]

Yeah, I figured my question would put you in a corner

that would have you grasping for an ad hominem* to extricate yourself. The last refuge of the truly desperate. Too bad it doesn't work.

I have no problem answering the question. But I see that you would prefer not to moderate yourself rather than have an adult conversation and answer to your charges. As I do have a problem with being harassed, as I said before, when you can moderate yourself and speak like an adult, I'll be more than happy to answer your questions as I've done for other posters on this thread.

The more I think about this, the more incensed I become.

About 3.2 billion people – almost half of the world's population – are at risk of malaria. In 2013, there were about 198 million malaria cases (with an uncertainty range of 124 million to 283 million) and an estimated 584 000 malaria deaths (with an uncertainty range of 367 000 to 755 000). Increased prevention and control measures have led to a reduction in malaria mortality rates by 47% globally since 2000 and by 54% in the African Region.

People living in the poorest countries are the most vulnerable to malaria. In 2013, 90% of all malaria deaths occurred in the African Region, mostly among children under 5 years of age.

Source: WHO | 10 facts on malaria

Did you catch that? 90% of all malaria deaths in the African region were deaths of children under 5 years of age.

Malaria, which is mostly transmitted by mosquitoes ...

Take a look at the symptoms of malaria: Malaria Symptoms: Chills, Fever, Fatigue, Sweats, & More

I find it totally unfathomable that someone could even begin to conceive that a child under 5 "deserved" this ... I find it totally unfathomable that, even if someone did deserve this, it would be a child ...

And malaria is just one of the many diseases this "creation of God", called the "mosquito", has in store for those who "deserve" disease, including infants:

Mosquito-borne diseases, infectious disease information, NCID, CDC

How can you believe what you have said? What delusion or dementia brings you to the conclusion that mosquitoes (and other blood sucking, disease spreading freaks of nature) were created to give disease to "those who deserve it" while those most vulnerable to these diseases are actually innocent children?

Leaving your ad hominem aside (just this once), try seeing the picture without your emotion getting involved.
We have a soul that needs to reach its complete rectification so that it can bask in its eternal reward. Currently, this soul has a number of impurities that prevent it from reaching its intended sphere of elevation, or alternatively, there are no impurities however, in order to reach an even higher sphere of elevation than originally intended, extra rectification is needed. Let's assume that there are three choices: Hell, starving African child, and regular American.
The first choice, Hell, has a downside - the soul knows the reason and purpose for his suffering. This inherently lightens the burden and can lead to a longer stay.
The third choice, regular American, has a downside - in order to accomplish the amount of rectification needed, he would have to remain alive for a long time because the suffering is administered in smaller doses. Additionally, there is the chance the the soul will acquire more impurities throughout life necessitating another round of rectification.
The third choice, starving African child has none of these down sides. Its relatively fast and leaves no time to acquire more impurities. The soul goes through 5 years of intense suffering and then goes on to its reward at the highest possible sphere it can reach, forever. Forever > 5 years.

Yes, its hard and difficult and sad. But we can remain positive about life with the understanding that there is a positive, beneficial reason for everything, the child that dies of disease, the adult that dies horribly, the family member or close friend. Its all for our benefit, even if at the moment we can't see what that benefit is. It hurts us, the people that are watching on - and that pain is part of our rectification as well. But at the end we will see that it was all necessary and every single person got exactly the best possible outcome for his individual circumstances.

 

[shawn001]

Do you fear losing someone you love ? do you fear the future ?

I just loss someone I love my dog. Its not fear its sadness for the lost. I don't believe in things because of fear. Fear doesn't make you think straight, that is a known fact.

No I don't fear the future or death. I would like to go in my sleep though.

"I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather... Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car."
Will Shriner

"I am not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens."
Woody Allen



"Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear."
Albert Camus:

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Leaving your ad hominem aside (just this once), try seeing the picture without your emotion getting involved.
We have a soul that needs to reach its complete rectification so that it can bask in its eternal reward. Currently, this soul has a number of impurities that prevent it from reaching its intended sphere of elevation, or alternatively, there are no impurities however, in order to reach an even higher sphere of elevation than originally intended, extra rectification is needed. Let's assume that there are three choices: Hell, starving African child, and regular American.
The first choice, Hell, has a downside - the soul knows the reason and purpose for his suffering. This inherently lightens the burden and can lead to a longer stay.
The third choice, regular American, has a downside - in order to accomplish the amount of rectification needed, he would have to remain alive for a long time because the suffering is administered in smaller doses. Additionally, there is the chance the the soul will acquire more impurities throughout life necessitating another round of rectification.
The third choice, starving African child has none of these down sides. Its relatively fast and leaves no time to acquire more impurities. The soul goes through 5 years of intense suffering and then goes on to its reward at the highest possible sphere it can reach, forever. Forever > 5 years.

Yes, its hard and difficult and sad. But we can remain positive about life with the understanding that there is a positive, beneficial reason for everything, the child that dies of disease, the adult that dies horribly, the family member or close friend. Its all for our benefit, even if at the moment we can't see what that benefit is. It hurts us, the people that are watching on - and that pain is part of our rectification as well. But at the end we will see that it was all necessary and every single person got exactly the best possible outcome for his individual circumstances.

OK, what threw me was the word "deserve", indicating punishment/reward; that a child could be so sinful in his/her actions to demand divine justice thus the child "deserves" this severe punishment.

However, the way you explain it here is very reminiscent of my studies in Buddhism many years ago (my journey from fanatical Christian to where I am now was a long and hard one, and I looked into many religions along the way; Buddhism being one of them ) -- the doctrine of Karma; not the Westernized Karma that says "bad things happen when we do bad things"; but the Eastern definition of Karma that says, "Everything we experience are for the purpose of teaching us and giving us an opportunity to remove our imperfections". This is more .. palatable ... than the first insinuation.

 

[psychoslice]

Why why why ?, its the way it is, that simple.