I was suprised to notice that it seems to be the case
... although I think there is one thing none of us or anyone here bothered to introduce, which is a regretable (and definitly n00bish) mistake for being the base of any (serious) debate : TERMINOLOGY, offering a definition of the terms debated upon.
I think much of our disagreement comes from the fact that we may have not been talking about the same thing...
To that I'll agree; often arguments come down to two people using the same word for different things. ^_^
Oh, I would use, as a loose definition of Creation, the idea that LIFE was created by a sentient party (rather than chance.) This is the common thread to all Creationists. Many of them believe in the Biblical account which would place the Earth between 6,000 and 12,000 years old, as that account also indicates that God created the Earth, stars, sun, moon, and so on. In the most general sense, Creation can have an "empty universe" where live was simply created therein as a seperate act. The concept of Theastic Evolution (that Evolution occured, but was at the direction of God) is also a loosly Creationistic idea as it requires the direction of God to form life, and also implies that God was the source of the "first life."
Note that a LOT of people in this nation actually do believe in Theistic Evolution. It's because their parents and churches teach them that God created everything, but their schools teach them that Evolution occured, so the logical coorection for this to a preteen or early teenage mind is to combine them. And I know quite a few people, my own parents included, who came to this conclusion while in school.
The reason why this, in my book, is an argument against creationism is because in Genesis 2, it is clearly stated that man precedes woman, the latter being actually issued from the former. This seems inconsistent with the scientifical reality that embryos are neutral bodies.
I'm not sure quite why this is inconsistent to you. If God is this grand being that can see the future and so on, then is it so difficult to believe that this being would design redundancy into his creations? If the Y chromosome becomes corrupted in the begining life, humans default to the XX situation. This can even occur later in life (the "XY women" who have XY chromosomes, but lacking in that form of testosterone that causes the testes to move through that tube and come out.) Such people have Y chromosomes, but because of a genetic abnormality, they are women. Is it so impossible to believe that this is a case of redundancy in the case of an error? I mean, we're just humans, but we give paratroopers/recreational perachuters a second parachute in their pack, and often a third, emergancy chute besides. Is it so difficult to believe that an omnipotent being would create redundency along these same lines?
Yes, vestigial organs are what I was talking about, although I didn't pick appropriate examples for a use for them has been researched and found...
If a perfect God created men after him, there should be no room for useless organs.
Well, my sub-response here is that, as I said before, how do we know there are vestigal organs? Organs that have been called vestigal had functions that just weren't found until later. How do we know organs we call "vestigal" now do not, likewise, have functions that our science just has not yet discovered?
In regards to evolution, I would tend to partly agree with your statement, except maybe for the "quickly" adjective which calls for a definition... BUT I'm not convinced by your argument that such organs, that became useless, should completely vanish, as it would also require energy to achieve, unless they are directly written off the genetic coding from the start, which might (negatively) affect/influence other parts of the genome... ?
It depends on how much energy is used in their creation and drained by them. If Evolution is true, and the beings born without those organs had more energy/stamina, then they would be prefered, by Natural Selection, to reproduce. See, EVEN Natural Sellection is opposed to the idea of vestigal organs, and unlike Evolution (which I have qualms with), Natural Sellection is observed to occur, and over relatively short timespans (see white vs gray moths in industrial and post-industrial Britain for an example.) But Natural Sellection would favor those organs not being around.
And you say it might negatively influence other parts of the genome, which is correct, but that's also why I oppose Evolution. This would be an example of a mutation, and most mutations are harmful to life, yet that is EXACTLY what Evolution uses as its chief motive force! Something that is patently harmful to the genome, and the organism, 99.9999...% of the time. For every "good" or beneficial evolutionary mutation, there are thousands, millions, even billions of "bad" or harmful ones.
[QOTE]Anyhow, this is too complex an issue for me to treat and debate at my level of knowledge and understanding and I guess I better move on to another point.[/QUOTE]
That's alright, you have a keen mind and clearly think about things, which in my book already makes you more qualified to talk about this than a whole lot of other people.
You may be right that this does not necessarily contradicts creationism... however, in my understanding, it provides the following argument against it:
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food:
Now, granted men were supposedly immortal back then (before the forbidden fruit episode that is), what sort of perfect God would provide food that requires decades or centuries of improving not to cause diarrhea on a daily basis??
Actually, there's an interesting thing abot that, since you mentioned diarrhea. ^_^ Most people, when they eat beans, get cases of gas ("the farts"), however, not everyone does. Vegans and Vegitarians often do not. Likewise, such people often don't put out a nasty odor for which there is a need for deoderent. While babies are on breastmilk, their feces don't stink, but when they star being fed other types of food (namely meats), they begin to stink.
Basically my point here is that early humans likely lived a Vegan lifestile, Vegitarian at the outside. This is supported by your quote (which doesn't list meats as a valid type of food) and Leviticus which "finally" allows mankind to eat meats. (It should also be noted that the lifespan goes from 120 years to 80 years at that point...)
So basically what I'm saying here is that it may be that Mankind's diet has changed rather than the trees/fruits have chaned. Just a little "food for thought". ^_^ (It can also be noted that vegitarian people NOW tend to be more healthy in that they don't often die of cancers, heart attacks, or strokes while following what some have called the "Genesis Diet".)
Dinosaurs oppose Creationism for they simply are never mentionned in the bible.
This is actually debatable. See the Bohemoth in Job and the Leviathan, also in Job.
Of course, not all species and animals are actually named in the book... BUT, please consider the following quote, still from the Genesis:
And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
It would seem God intended for humans to be at the top of every living creature on earth. Which is to say at the top of the food-chain... and while it seems correct to assume so nowadays, thanks to our modern weaponery and technology making us the ultimate predators, it seems very unlikely in a more primitive context/environnment, especially if you add competition from super-predators such as the famous T. rex ...
But something else to add into your considerations is that IF the Bible is true, the world was at a state of peace. That is, Humans were vegitarians and didn't kill other animals for meat, and likewise other animals didn't kill other animals. I, personally, find this rather iffy, but...it is interesting to note that a lot of vicious animals are now believed to be not-so-vicious. For example, the T. Rex is now, by modern biologists/palentoligists, believed to have been a scavenger, finding animals that were already dead and eating them. They cite its eyes, short forarms, and ackward body as examples of something that was more likely to find dead things and simply "intimidate" other things into not attacking them, similar to Bears today (which are omnivores and also scavengers, able to eat plantlife or animals [omnivore] and prefering eating things that are already dead [never "play dead" if you see a bear, that's just saying "free meal" ^_^]...and bears are pretty big animals, before you say that something as large as a dinosaur couldn't live on plants.) For that matter, MANY dinosaurs are believed to have been herbavores or omnivores and scavengers.
Besides, there is no evidence that men and dinosaurs ever were contemporary... carbon dating has already been mentionned...
This is debatable, but I'm inclined to agree with you. Though it's kinda funny how popular thought always imagines "cave men" fighting/hunting dinosaurs. ^_^ I'm actually not sure if carbon dating is used for dinosaurs since the traces of C14 are low enough as to be unusable for any degree of accuracy (too many half-lives having passed.)
[QOTE]
OK I'm being really irritated right now because it's just been the second time that, for some unknown reason, Firefox crashed on me while writing this post and I had to rewrite paragraphs (recovery option not working) ... I'm going to finish answering this quickly and be off to bed <_< [/QUOTE]
I feel for ya man, that happens sometimes. That's why I always save things before hitting that post reply button too. ^_^
I wonder how you come to the conclusion that speciation is contrary to Evolution instead of an argument in its favor
Would you care to develop??
Well, this is my logic (note, Evolution is not concerned with logic, so this may not apply to it in specific); I would think whatever most greatly allows the species to continue to exist would be favored by Evolution. Speciation is defined as the point at which two otherwise identical species, which are believed to have originated in the same geographical region and from the same parent species, are simply unable to mate and produce offspring. Some cases are like when a bird species was separated by some geographical barrier (either mountains or sea or something due to a geographic event like an earthquake), and the females in one of the groups began to produce a certain kind of acid in their vaginal pathways. Only the males in that group who's sperm could survive reproduced, and natural sellection favored that side. Well, now if you bring males from the other group, they can't (or very few of them can) mate with the females with the higher acid content in their viginal pathways. Evolution says these are different species because that they cannot mate and thus the have "speciated."
...but otherwise they are identical in appearance and genetics, which would call them the same species. Further, as I said, this to me would be evolutionarily unfavorable because LESS matings can occur, which makes it HARDER for the species to continue living. A good experiment might be to remerge the groups and see if, in time, the change reverses itself. If it does, this would be a case of Natural Sellection and not Evolution. Because of these things, and that we haven't done that experiment, I consider speciation as a somewhat dubious thing, not supporting the cause of Evolution.
Speciation, as used by biologists, is macro-evolution, which is what creationists reject about evolution. And as far as speciation is concerned, cases have been observed (
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html ).
See my paragraph(s) above. Speciation isn't really macro-evolution either, as a new GENETIC species isn't seen to emerge, it's simply a case of an existing specie being split as to who they can mate with. This would be like if European Caucasions couldn't mate with Orential Asians. Would that make us different races/species? What if the process reverses if said people are put in a close proximity together and allowed to intermarry (as at least some individuals have the "right combination" to mate, as was apperently the case in the birds)? Would that once again make us the same species, or would it be said we had never becoe seperate to begin with?
Why do creationists accept micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution? That makes no sense at all... what would prevent changes at the "micro" level from resulting in changes at the "macro' level??
Besides, studies of fossils prove that macro-evolution occured (transitional forms).
Because micro-evolution can be seen relatively easily (bacteria, with their short lifespans and rapid reproduction, can demonstrate it relatively quickly...as in hours or days, not milinia.)
Macro-evolution has never really been observed to occur (and Evolutionists say it takes a looooong time, which is to say that unless we make observations for the next several thousand years we won't see it occur.) Also, while small changes (genetic ones) can make visible changes (eye color, hair color, skin color, ect), small changes do not tend to do things like give an extra arm or new organs, they tend to change EXISTING traits. That is, I may have genetics to have good muscle tone and low fat storage. Someone else may have genetics that make them taller (like 6 foot, 7 foot, ect.) But a small change won't give me an extral leg or make a person who grows to 50 foot tall and has reptilian scales or give someone wings (or, if you want to be silly, X-men like powers, which are supposed to derive from mutations...as cool as telekenisis, weather control, or rapid healing might be. ^_^)
NOTE: This is why I say the long timespan is a "convenience" to Evolutionists; it makes Evolution unfalsefiable (which technically makes a theory unscientific, all theories should have a way to prove them false.) That is, we take measurements for a thousand years and an Evolutionists can just say not enough time has passed. After a million years the Eolutionist can still say that. A billion years from now, his credibility will be a little stretched, but if Evolution still hasn't happened, he can once again say we just haven't waited long enough.
But what about transition forms? What about them?
One of the biggest opponents to Evolution is the lack of "missing links." This is actually a somewhat flawed opposition, actually. In true Evolution, EVERY being is a "missing link" or a "transitional form". For instance, if Evolution is true, me and you are "transitional forms" between...what was it, Homo Erectus? Or are we supposed to be the decendents of Homo Sapien? Either way, by Evolution, we are transitional forms between that and whatever comes next; humanity's future evolution that will be able to use telapathy, possibly be partially cybernetic, and able to brethe underwater (or whatever our future forms will be.) There aren't "missing links", or "intermediate" species.
That is, for the transition from primate to human, there wouldn't be a single speci that was furry, but walked upright and had only a medium length tail. Rather, there should be a solid chain of things that go from looking like slightly large chimpanzees all the way up to modern humans.
...and this is what the fossil record does not supply us with. There isn't a "solid chain" of individuals during different periods. There tend to be discrete species instead. Evolutionists have used the concept of "punctuated equilibrium", which is basically saying that there are "stable forms" which exist for long periods of time (and this is what we have fossils of), but that when they start to change, they don't stop/slow down until they reach the next plateu of stability, where they then stay for a while (and, again, we get fossils of.) Of course, to me, this is a cop out that contradicts what is supposed to be universal to Evolution (gradual change over time which happens at an essentially consistnt rate), but on the other hand, I could see it being true (Chaos Theory deals with just such things and the critical points at which they go over and later come back to equilibrium.)
...of course, a simplier explanation is that fossils only occur under certain conditions. ^_^
In either case, I haven't decided the best stance on it. On the one hand, there should be a solid chain of intermediate forms, starting from bacteria all the way to Humans (and all other modern life forms.) But, on the other hand, since fossils only occur under certain conditions (and note, a worldwide flood such as Noah's IS also one such condition), we'd only see "snapshots" of how things were at certain periods of history. This could be used to both support or oppose Evolution, in truth, and as such it would be better for us to say it's neutral or "circomstantial" evidence; something that can be used both ways but alone neither conclusively supports nor denies Evolution or Creationism.
And to conclude, back to the "morals" debate.
How is it different? Doesn't doing something "right" make you feel a "good person" and make you feel good that you are a "good person"?
As for for the second part of your argumentation, this is black or white thinking again: who said I
can't feel good about myself
unless blablabla ? Why do you bring self-loathing in the equation at all?
... I wish you'd consider that one may already feel satisfied enough about himself but wouldn't refuse EXTRA self-gratification. I do not
need to give to charities to feel good, but if doing so provides additional gratification, why shouldn't I take the opportunity?
Actually, not necessarily. When I do something I feel is right, I do it simply because I believe I should. There needn't be (and often isn't) any "good feeling" because of it or that drives me to do it. I just do it because it's the way I am to try and do what's right and good. If I feel good about it later, cool, if not, doesn't matter, I did what I was supposed to. -shrug-
And I actually didn't bring self-loating into it, I'm under the impression that people can simply help others and do good because it's right to do so (after all, that's the way I opperate), and that you don't do it because you want to feel good (or better) about yourself. Good feelings from doing right, to me, are only an added bonus if they occur; they are not (or shouldn't be) the driving reason behind doing right. It's self-lessness versus...well, selfishness. ^_^;
), and that you believe in Creationism...and, conversely, if you're an Evolutionist you must be an Atheist. I don't really see them as opposed by nature, more they're opposed by Humanity.
](/images/smilies/bang.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
