Challenges to Creationism

[Skwim]

I have no problem answering the question.

Sure you do. If you didn't you would have answered. Just look at all the effort you've expended on submitting excuses here rather than answering:

But I see that you would prefer not to moderate yourself rather than have an adult conversation and answer to your charges.

And another ad hominem *sigh*. Obviously things still aren't going well for you; however, I do see you picked up on my explanation of the fallacy and have used your new-found knowledge to alert NewGuyOnTheBlock below .

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.

No you won't be "happy to." You've backed yourself into a corner and are now doing everything possible (ad hominens---three so far---and now playing the wounded (harassed) participant) to avoid answering)..... FYI, asking questions that have yet to be answered is not harassment.

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. . . . . . . . .

 

[FearGod]

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:

I don't ever fear death.

I have faced death several times in my life, one when i was in a journey in the depth of the sea and i was 20 years old, a strong typhoon came up and the ship started to swing hardly, vomiting and screaming were everywhere around me and the seawater entered the ship, i went upstair and my tears dropped just when i imagined my mother hearing the news that i died, i don't think about myself as i was thinking of my mother at that moment, today i'm thinking about the feeling of my sons and what their future will be after i gone.

My father died smiling, while all of us were crying as he asked to see us knowing that he was going to leave earth, he gave us a hug and after hours he slept in peace.

 

[darkendless]

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.

I don't see someone suffering a debilitating disease agreeing with you. As a person with a parent who has a terrible non-smoking related lung issue, if you really believe that, you have not been affected by suffering. In the end when sadly my mother cannot fight her disease, I do not see how I will benefit from this. I am positive about life in the fact that my mother has outlived her life expectancy and that each day is a day won. When people of religious conviction bring up God's plan (those poor souls), I can think of nothing so ridiculous. Justifying suffering is a flaw in mainstream religion (the big 3 anyway).

Attributing suffering to a 'greater plan' or a 'lesson' is a weak argument.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

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


To varying degrees.

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

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

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.


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.

Thanks, but I feel we'll probably have to just diagree on the strength of these texts as evidence.

While tr bookshelf is impressive, it's not impressive in itself. For instance, I have a strong knowledge of the Star Wars extended universe, which has become rather vast. The breadth of my knowledge doesn't mean that any of that knowledge is implicitly true.

Plus, to consider this small piece of a specific religious philosophy as the whole of knowledge regarding god means dismissing quite a bit of religious knowledge outside of it. Do your beliefs contain a greater truth more so than others?

You trust these sources to explain the presence of natural evil as part of creation. The crux of the problem is that you have to claim that god is infallible and justify unnecessary natural evil in his creation at the same time.

I would accept "I don't know" as a more reasonable conclusion, but I believe your reconciliation of this dissonance comes not from the holiness of your texts, but from human minds who have rationalized this conclusion about natural evil as "we deserve it" or "it's good for us", because that's the only way faith can make sense of it and maintain the bookshelf contents are truth as a whole. It's feels like a very delicate structure to me.

 

[rusra02]

Considering that it makes a 15 feet detour, from the larynx, all the way down to the chest, around the aorta, back up to the brain. And there are two nerves, both taking this long stretch, but one making a little different loop. Right goes under subclavician artery, while left goes even farther down under the arch of the aorta.

In the picture here, it starts at the brain, superior laryngeal nerve, then it goes all the way down the neck, around the aorta, back up again to the inferior laryngeal nerve.


And the strange thing is, it does the same on humans, apes, horses, dogs, ... it's a crazy "design".

This reminded me of evolutionists claiming "junk" DNA and that the human eye has "design flaws" (none of which is true, of course). As to the giraffe, see here. These claims are simply part of the big lie of evolution, IMO.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

This reminded me of evolutionists claiming "junk" DNA and that the human eye has "design flaws" (none of which is true, of course). As to the giraffe, see here. These claims are simply part of the big lie of evolution, IMO.

In the spirit of the OP, what do you believe and why? Thanks.

 

[dust1n]

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?

No I don't see. None of it is instantaneous. The Cambrian explosion happened over the course of 20 million years. So not every conceivable outcome is predicted to happen in evolutionary theory. Adjusting your theory to be consistent with observable empirical evidence isn't skating them system. Sometimes people make a bad little hypothesis, and then have to start on over.

 

[dust1n]

This reminded me of evolutionists claiming "junk" DNA and that the human eye has "design flaws" (none of which is true, of course). As to the giraffe, see here. These claims are simply part of the big lie of evolution, IMO.

While there is a lot more about DNA going to presuming known, there are still huge portions of the DNA which appear to have no apparent coding function. Lots of stuff to learn about DNA.

As far as design flaws are concerned, you might not be familiar with cystic fibrosis, or muscular dystrophy, LNS...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No I don't see. None of it is instantaneous. The Cambrian explosion happened over the course of 20 million years. So not every conceivable outcome is predicted to happen in evolutionary theory. Adjusting your theory to be consistent with observable empirical evidence isn't skating them system. Sometimes people make a bad little hypothesis, and then have to start on over.

The period can be described as lasting millions of years, which in itself is a geological blink of an eye and difficult to account for, but within that, in the fossil record, highly 'evolved' organisms appear instantaneously, from utterly absent to covering the globe with zero intermediates. That's what the record shows- of course we are free to imagine that intermediates might have existed and propose reasons why evidence for this cannot be found- but this does not stand in lieu of that evidence.
'the dog ate my homework' does not earn a passing grade even if its true

similarly with changing predictions, this does not meant he theory is wrong, just that it does not demonstrate predictive ability.

I think sometimes people get a little polarized, perceiving that criticisms of evolution are meant as proof of creationism, I'm just pointing out that direct evidence is very scant in some crucial areas, where a lot of assumptions still exist

 

[Tumah]

Thanks, but I feel we'll probably have to just diagree on the strength of these texts as evidence.

While tr bookshelf is impressive, it's not impressive in itself. For instance, I have a strong knowledge of the Star Wars extended universe, which has become rather vast. The breadth of my knowledge doesn't mean that any of that knowledge is implicitly true.

Plus, to consider this small piece of a specific religious philosophy as the whole of knowledge regarding god means dismissing quite a bit of religious knowledge outside of it. Do your beliefs contain a greater truth more so than others?

You trust these sources to explain the presence of natural evil as part of creation. The crux of the problem is that you have to claim that god is infallible and justify unnecessary natural evil in his creation at the same time.

I would accept "I don't know" as a more reasonable conclusion, but I believe your reconciliation of this dissonance comes not from the holiness of your texts, but from human minds who have rationalized this conclusion about natural evil as "we deserve it" or "it's good for us", because that's the only way faith can make sense of it and maintain the bookshelf contents are truth as a whole. It's feels like a very delicate structure to me.

This all doesn't bother me. The challenges presented here were asking: how do creationists solve x, y, z that is found in nature and points away from a divine origin to the world. I've answered these challenges based on my religious texts. The challenge was not about proving one's religious texts' divinity or accuracy. That's all I've done here.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

If the T-Rex were still alive it would EAT human beings like they were going out of style. In my opinion we are only alive because our evolution/creation/whatever occurred beyond the scope of monsters like that. Therefore, we are not exactly the "primary beneficiaries of creation" - more like the "current luckiest".

 

[Tumah]

I don't see someone suffering a debilitating disease agreeing with you. As a person with a parent who has a terrible non-smoking related lung issue, if you really believe that, you have not been affected by suffering. In the end when sadly my mother cannot fight her disease, I do not see how I will benefit from this. I am positive about life in the fact that my mother has outlived her life expectancy and that each day is a day won. When people of religious conviction bring up God's plan (those poor souls), I can think of nothing so ridiculous. Justifying suffering is a flaw in mainstream religion (the big 3 anyway).

Attributing suffering to a 'greater plan' or a 'lesson' is a weak argument.

Your experience doesn't detract from my response: I know plenty of people who saw this idea as a great source of comfort in their trying times.

 

[Ouroboros]

No I don't see. None of it is instantaneous. The Cambrian explosion happened over the course of 20 million years. So not every conceivable outcome is predicted to happen in evolutionary theory. Adjusting your theory to be consistent with observable empirical evidence isn't skating them system. Sometimes people make a bad little hypothesis, and then have to start on over.

Also, new research shows that it wasn't as quick as they thought before.

From their work it appears that the basic genetic components for the organisms that seemingly sprang into existence during the Cambrian period were in place long before the fossil records show. In fact, there appeared to be evidence of a slow march of development for 200 million years before the sudden diversity became evident, which indicates that many such organisms were slowly evolving and only showed when conditions became ripe.

Read more at: Research team finds new explanation for Cambrian explosion

 

[Tumah]

Sure you do. If you didn't you would have answered. Just look at all the effort you've expended on submitting excuses here rather than answering:

And another ad hominem *sigh*. Obviously things still aren't going well for you; however, I do see you picked up on my explanation of the fallacy and have used your new-found knowledge to alert NewGuyOnTheBlock below .

No you won't be "happy to." You've backed yourself into a corner and are now doing everything possible (ad hominens---three so far---and now playing the wounded (harassed) participant) to avoid answering)..... FYI, asking questions that have yet to be answered is not harassment.

That's right. Thanks for teaching me what an ad hominem is.
Have a nice rest of your day.

 

[Tumah]

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.

I see. That was my mistake for not being clear than.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And here's a good one I have always liked - speaking specifically of the Bible's version of the creation story:

It mentions that God set two great lights in the sky - the Sun, and the Moon. However, it is NOW known that the moon produces no light of its own - it is merely a reflection of the sun's light. But beyond this, the moon's primary functions (at least as far as the benefit provided to Earth) have absolutely nothing to do with the light it reflects. The moon is the primary source of refreshment for our waters, and one of the primary drivers of wind - the refreshment of the land - due to the rising and falling of the sea as it attempts to "follow" the moon (tides). If God were attempting to "inspire" an account of the methods and reasons for creating the Earth, would he not want it to be accurate?

Calling the moon a "light" is sheer ignorance - there is really no way around that (think about it - what about the "new moon" phase? Oops... NO light).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If the T-Rex were still alive it would EAT human beings like they were going out of style. In my opinion we are only alive because our evolution/creation/whatever occurred beyond the scope of monsters like that. Therefore, we are not exactly the "primary beneficiaries of creation" - more like the "current luckiest".

Very true! and we'd still come off pretty poorly in a fight with lots of animals. thing is, even given hundreds of millions of years and massive cranial cavities... no single dinosaur species ever attained what humans did in the blink of an eye, sentience capable of exploring, appreciating, reverse engineering the universe-
so I mean primary beneficiaries in this sense, we alone can know, learn about, appreciate all creation,

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Very true! and we'd still come off pretty poorly in a fight with lots of animals. thing is, even given hundreds of millions of years and massive cranial cavities... no single dinosaur species ever attained what humans did in the blink of an eye, sentience capable of exploring, appreciating, reverse engineering the universe-
so I mean primary beneficiaries in this sense, we alone can know, learn about, appreciate all creation,

Though this is a biased perspective and assumption that we are the most intelligent. Having spent a lot of time with humans on this earth I have come to the conclusion we are not all that intelligent. Imagine what it would be like if we had the capabilities of just the height of our current species. Imagine if we had mathematical calculative abilities like that of savants as the normal? Or artistic abilities like geniuses as the normal? What if they were considered the slow or even down right disabled version of the norm? Its possible. In fact there have been scientists who have suggested we take actions to attempt to intentionally control our evolution down this path. Though its always been countered by ethical committees and rightly so but it is possible.

I think we are just a slight head above the rest and there is still time for other species to catch up to us. And I would imagine that somehwere else in the universe there is life that has far surpassed our measly scrap of mental capabilities.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Though this is a biased perspective and assumption that we are the most intelligent. Having spent a lot of time with humans on this earth I have come to the conclusion we are not all that intelligent. Imagine what it would be like if we had the capabilities of just the height of our current species. Imagine if we had mathematical calculative abilities like that of savants as the normal? Or artistic abilities like geniuses as the normal? What if they were considered the slow or even down right disabled version of the norm? Its possible. In fact there have been scientists who have suggested we take actions to attempt to intentionally control our evolution down this path. Though its always been countered by ethical committees and rightly so but it is possible.

I think we are just a slight head above the rest and there is still time for other species to catch up to us. And I would imagine that somehwere else in the universe there is life that has far surpassed our measly scrap of mental capabilities.

That's an interesting question- since our intelligence, as well as many other abilities, are no longer being naturally selected for in most of society, do you think the human race is doomed to devolve from this point, unless we intervene?
has this happened already?

not sure if we had this discussion before, but I don't think the numbers support other intelligent life in the universe, I think it is far too small- not to mention the 'great silence' of our galaxy, my money would be on being alone.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's an interesting question- since our intelligence, as well as many other abilities, are no longer being naturally selected for in most of society, do you think the human race is doomed to devolve from this point, unless we intervene?

There is no such thing as devolution. One may suggest that Tyrannosaurus Rex to common Chicken would be a devolution. But in reality that is false. The only way to devolve would be by removing genetic information and this usually does not happen.

has this happened already?

Many of our surviving weak due to compassion and technology has increased the amount of defective genes in our population yes but that would not be devolution. I have terrible eyesight for example. A thousand years ago I would be useless and probably dead. But now I have glasses and am just as functional as the next guy.

not sure if we had this discussion before, but I don't think the numbers support other intelligent life in the universe, I think it is far too small- not to mention the 'great silence' of our galaxy, my money would be on being alone.

What numbers? The only calculations I have seen is that it is supported that it is highly probable there is intelligent life in the universe. And the "silence of our galaxy" is a myth. We haven't really been capable of listening to the other side of our galaxy much less the one hundred billion galaxies in our known universe which is only a tiny fraction of the total universe. If you wanna bet that there is no other life out there then that would be like assuming that because you have seen one rock on the moon vs the entire galaxy. Actually even that isn't up to par.