What if creationism is true?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Ok, CotW, I believe most of your posts are reasonable. But before I can determine how reasonable they are, I would like to know what definition of "evolution" are you using. So can you help me out here? What is your understanding of Evolution?

Microevolution: The changing of one species to another species, but within the same kind of animal. A dog can reproduce another species of the "dog" kind.

Macroevolution: The changing of one animal to another kind of animal.

When you take away all of the scientific terminology, that is what it boils down to.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Oh, for heaven's sake. There never was an incompatibility to be overcome.

So there was always this "compatibilitly"? You believe that organisms just happen to be compatible with one another on small scales, and then both evovled and became even more compatible on a larger scale?? Is this the best you have?

But as I suspected, you haven't understood a word of the explanation, and still see an impassible problem where there is none.
You think I'm going to clog this forum with a full-length chapter on the evolution of reproductive systems in the Metazoa, which I'm supposed to write you for free? The information's all out there, C_o_t_W: get yourself an education.

How about addressing what I said instead of going on a rhetoric barrage. I am not interested in all of that. I only want answers to my questions, and so far you didn't give me the juice. The male and females reproductive systems are complex and compatible. I am trying to figure out how can a unguided and blind process orchestrate that kind of compatibility and complexity. A specified complexity, with a purpose. This strikes me not only as illogical, but absurd. We never see this kind of complexity anywhere in the world without an intellectual mind behind it, but yet when it comes to the subject matter, we are supposed to abandon our common sense and believe that blind and unguided things can create information, purpose, and complexity. No sir, I cant believe it.

OK, I know that won't happen. There's a name for understanding something too poorly to realise how poorly you understand it; but the condition has the huge consolation of rendering you, in your own head, invincible. No-one can out-argue you if you take care never to understand their arguments.

Um, Ok.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If I can't prove your grandmother is a witch, that doesn't mean your grandmother is a saint.

This isn't a good analogy because my mother could be anything. But when it comes to explaining absolute origins, there are only two options. Either God or some kind of intelligent designer created the universe, or we are here by some naturalistic means. Those are the only two options.

In fact, your grandmother may still be a witch. The validity of that statement is not contingent upon my ability to prove it. And because I know you're going to utterly fail at grasping that analogy...

The analogy wasnt that good, in fact, it fails, as I explain above.

Even if you were right and science had a supposed disability to prove the origins of everything, that doesn't mean that Goddidit. The validity of evolution is not contingent upon science proving everything.

As I mentioned before, either nature did it, or God did it. Nature cannot prove the origin of nature, just like the origin of man could not itself be a man. The problem is, you people are making it seem as if it is possible that nature can be the origin of nature, which is blatantly false. So if it is IMPOSSIBLE for nature to be the origin of its own domain, Intelligent Design wins by default, because it is the only option LEFT. I have said this like four times now, and no one addressing it. They dance around it, tip toe pass it, but no one addresses it. NATURE CANNOT BE THE SOURCE OF ITS OWN DOMAIN. It is impossible.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The building blocks of life have no life in and of themselves. Only when they come together in a certain way, does life come about.

 

[Iti oj]

Cotw.. you had to complaints about the male female reproductive syste. One was complexity. The other was combatibility. Id like to cover the combatibility aspect of it.... its kinda simple. Individuals who did not grow and a combatible manner died with out breeding ergo those that evolved in a combatqble manner would increse in the population not to mention that they could be effected by the same gene

 

[shawn001]

Call of the wild doesn't understand DNA

Or even mammals and more specifically hominids.

There is no amount of evidence he is going to except, not because of science, but because of his opinion.

I doubt he will ever except the billions of facts in evolution.

In no way does he understand macroevolution and the time it takes.

Call of the Wild, did the dinosaurs and man live together? 180 million years ago?

 

[camanintx]

But the Great Danes and Chihcuahuas should have the same common ancestor of a dog. To postulate anything beyond this is to leave science and resort to faith and religion.

Why do you assume that biology is limited by the labels we put on animals? Just because we don't apply the label "dog" to whatever came before dogs doesn't make it a different kind of animal. The Red Panda is also called a Firefox so does that make it a Bear kind or a dog kind?

Microevolution: The changing of one species to another species, but within the same kind of animal. A dog can reproduce another species of the "dog" kind.

Macroevolution: The changing of one animal to another kind of animal.

When you take away all of the scientific terminology, that is what it boils down to.

And what mechanism do you propose that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution?

 

[camanintx]

You have faith that life can come from nonlife. This has not be scientifically proven, and you still believe it. This is faith!!! You just admitted that there is no evidence for it as of yet, but you still believe that it occurred. This is an example of faith.

To believe that life can come from nonlife doesn't require any faith because it is a matter of fact. When the Earth was first formed, there was no life on it yet today it is teaming with life. There is the possibility that life came from somewhere else but that just raises the question where did that life come from. There is ample evidence, from the Miller-Urey experiments of the 60's to the Lincoln-Joyce replicating RNA enzymes of 2009, that natural processes can produce life from nonlife. Faith is for those who believe that God is required.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Call of the wild doesn't understand DNA

Or even mammals and more specifically hominids.

There is no amount of evidence he is going to except, not because of science, but because of his opinion.

I doubt he will ever except the billions of facts in evolution.

In no way does he understand macroevolution and the time it takes.

Call of the Wild, did the dinosaurs and man live together? 180 million years ago?

Yeah, that's pretty much the same conclusion that I've come to. There's a difference between having arguments on why you disagree with a point, and just saying the same thing over and over, and expecting that to be some kind of proof and expecting everyone else to just accept it simply because it's your opinion.

 

[shawn001]

Yeah, that's pretty much the same conclusion that I've come to. There's a difference between having arguments on why you disagree with a point, and just saying the same thing over and over, and expecting that to be some kind of proof and expecting everyone else to just accept it simply because it's your opinion.

He then misses out on the beauty of complex processes in nature and the history of life on earth, as well as the universe itself. He's denying his own "creators" work, by being in a state of denial.

 

[tumbleweed41]

But the Great Danes and Chihcuahuas should have the same common ancestor of a dog. To postulate anything beyond this is to leave science and resort to faith and religion.

Exactly!

And all domestic dogs have a common ancestor with the wolves.
And wolves have a common ancestor with coyotes, jackals and foxes.
And Canidae have a common ancestors with Ursidae and Pinnipedia.

All the way back to to a shrew-like mammal called Maelestes gobiensis. Who is also the common ancestor of cats and primates, among others.

 

[Vile Atheist]

This isn't a good analogy because my mother could be anything. But when it comes to explaining absolute origins, there are only two options. Either God or some kind of intelligent designer created the universe, or we are here by some naturalistic means. Those are the only two options.

No, there aren't. For one, there are literally millions of gods that humans have made up. Was it Yahweh or Osiris? Zeus or Odin? If you claim that all the gods are the same, why do they all have different properties and characteristics? Are you all-knowing? Do you have all the information out there to make such a statement that only two options are available? What about panspermia?

The analogy wasnt that good, in fact, it fails, as I explain above.

Actually no. I've identified literally millions of other options, so the analogy holds.

As I mentioned before, either nature did it, or God did it. Nature cannot prove the origin of nature, just like the origin of man could not itself be a man. The problem is, you people are making it seem as if it is possible that nature can be the origin of nature, which is blatantly false. So if it is IMPOSSIBLE for nature to be the origin of its own domain, Intelligent Design wins by default, because it is the only option LEFT. I have said this like four times now, and no one addressing it. They dance around it, tip toe pass it, but no one addresses it. NATURE CANNOT BE THE SOURCE OF ITS OWN DOMAIN. It is impossible.

Which God? Why don't you worship Endovelicus? Or the Great JuJu up the mountain?

Also, merely asserting that nature cannot be the source of its own domain is unacceptable because you have not provided a reason for why it cannot. Science already has a good guess based on evidence. Is it enough to say "for sure"? Probably not, no. But even if science failed in that regard, it does not prove your particular sky fairy correct.

 

[fishy]

The male and females reproductive systems are complex and compatible. I am trying to figure out how can a unguided and blind process orchestrate that kind of compatibility and complexity

It's really quite simple mate, only those creatures who achieved these compatible complex reproductive systems survived, those that failed to achieve it died. Natural selection, live if successful die if unsuccessful, as I said pretty simple.

 

[fishy]

This isn't a good analogy because my mother could be anything. But when it comes to explaining absolute origins, there are only two options. Either God or some kind of intelligent designer created the universe, or we are here by some naturalistic means. Those are the only two options.

Apparently those are the only 2 options available in your head, that doesn't mean they are the only 2 options. Here I'll give you a short synopsis of another.
Our entire universe is in fact one cell in the body of a creature like an octopus but with a million arms, it lives in an ocean of a substance that resembles in some ways mercury but is not mercury.
Now without evidence to the contrary this option is at least as valid as the two you propose as the only two. Do you see?

 

[Vile Atheist]

The male and females reproductive systems are complex and compatible. I am trying to figure out how can a unguided and blind process orchestrate that kind of compatibility and complexity

Because one can't evolve without the other. These is no evolutionary advantage to growing a set of gonads that is useless to the opposite sex of the species. In fact, it's a hinderance. If there were any mutations that led away from compatibility, natural selection would have killed them off. So the compatibility issue is dealt with. It's a bit of an oversimplification, of course. The changes are gradual. It's not like one day you wake up and your penis is suddenly a massive Great Bombard of a sperm cannon. Change in the structure and function of the gonads is possible only if there is a corresponding change in the female genitals. Anything else would not be selected for as it would be more difficult to produce viable offspring.

Complexity is simply the natural result of more genetic mutation that is regulated by natural selection.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because one can't evolve without the other.

So the evolution of my reproductive system depends on the evolution of my wifes reproductive system??? Absurd.

These is no evolutionary advantage to growing a set of gonads that is useless to the opposite sex of the species.

But in order to "grow a set of gonads" that are useful is presupposing the need to grow anything useful. As it goes through the selection process of deciding what is useful and what isn't useful, how was any reproduction taking place? Remember, natural selection selects, so before it found the right selection, how was there any reproduction?

In fact, it's a hinderance. If there were any mutations that led away from compatibility, natural selection would have killed them off.

Ok, so during this "killing off" process, how was there any reproduction? And whatever stage of reproduction that this process went through, there had to be compatibility on all stages, the first through the last.

So the compatibility issue is dealt with.

It has? Where, because I didnt see it. All you did was presuppose compatibility without explaining how things became compatible. That cant be the best you have.

It's a bit of an oversimplification, of course. The changes are gradual. It's not like one day you wake up and your penis is suddenly a massive Great Bombard of a sperm cannon.

And thats my point. On your view, it takes time. If it will take a million years before one gender develops the right system to reproduce with the other, how was there any reproducing of any kind during that million year stretch??? A male and a female have two different systems that are compatible. This compatibility had to be "fine tuned" as an initial conditon of the species. This is not something that could have happened over millions of years with wishful thinking.

Change in the structure and function of the gonads is possible only if there is a corresponding change in the female genitals. Anything else would not be selected for as it would be more difficult to produce viable offspring.

You already said that it takes time. And my question is, in that time, how was there any reproduction at all?? If I am building a car and I have built the whole car and all i need is the motor, and my friend takes a million years to build the motor, how will I ever get my car to run if I have to wait a million years for him to build the motor?? Obviously, I wont be driving the car for a long time. This is the same thing with the gender problem.

Complexity is simply the natural result of more genetic mutation that is regulated by natural selection.

You are begging the question. I am asking how can a unguided and blind process produce this much specified complexity and your answer is genetic mutation regulated by natural selection, which doesnt answer the question because before you can have genetic material you have to have cells and dna, and these are the two things that are IN QUESTION AS TO HOW AND WHY ARE THEY COMPLEX.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, there aren't. For one, there are literally millions of gods that humans have made up. Was it Yahweh or Osiris? Zeus or Odin? If you claim that all the gods are the same, why do they all have different properties and characteristics? Are you all-knowing? Do you have all the information out there to make such a statement that only two options are available? What about panspermia?

I am speaking in terms of INTELLIGENT DESIGN, and I think the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo-Christian God. Why I think the designer is this particular God is a different subject all together. The point is, like you said, there are millions of gods. But the fact of the matter is, all of those Gods, for the most part, implies intelligent design. So all of these gods fall under option #1. Remember, I said there are only two options, and intelligent design is option #1, and that covers any supernatural entity that is said to have created the universe. Now, option #2, and that is if you believe the universe was creationed by any naturalistic/materialistic means. That covers every conceivable cause that ISN'T supernatural. Now of course, we can get more in depth on specifics of #1 or #2, but these are the only two options. If there is any other option other than these two, please feel me in on it because according to my knowledge there can either be a supernatural realm, or a material realm. So as I said, there are only two options.

Actually no. I've identified literally millions of other options, so the analogy holds.

You've identified millions WITHIN the options, and each one of those gods are under one of those options. So no, the analogy doesn't hold

Which God? Why don't you worship Endovelicus? Or the Great JuJu up the mountain?

Which God is irrelevant. Regardless of which God did the creating, it is still the concept of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Also, merely asserting that nature cannot be the source of its own domain is unacceptable because you have not provided a reason for why it cannot. Science already has a good guess based on evidence. Is it enough to say "for sure"? Probably not, no. But even if science failed in that regard, it does not prove your particular sky fairy correct.

Um, please show me an example of something in this materialistic world that created itself or that can create itself...please show me. I find it laughable that people want to deny the existence of God so much that they allow themselves to believe absurdities, like things creating itself. If that is the best that naturalists have to offer, if that is the best logic that they can display, then I am rightfully sticking to theism.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yeah, that's pretty much the same conclusion that I've come to. There's a difference between having arguments on why you disagree with a point, and just saying the same thing over and over, and expecting that to be some kind of proof and expecting everyone else to just accept it simply because it's your opinion.

The fact that I see specified complexity and concluding that it came from an intelligent design is my opinion, absolutely. You see this specified complexity and believe it happened blind and unguided, and that is your opinion. So we both have opinions here.

 

[fishy]

I thought I might bump this Call.

It's really quite simple mate, only those creatures who achieved these compatible complex reproductive systems survived, those that failed to achieve it died. Natural selection, live if successful die if unsuccessful, as I said pretty simple.

Do you understand it?

 

[fishy]

Oh and this.

Apparently those are the only 2 options available in your head, that doesn't mean they are the only 2 options. Here I'll give you a short synopsis of another.
Our entire universe is in fact one cell in the body of a creature like an octopus but with a million arms, it lives in an ocean of a substance that resembles in some ways mercury but is not mercury.
Now without evidence to the contrary this option is at least as valid as the two you propose as the only two. Do you see?