Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Evolution is more tenable than Creationism


Asimov

Recommended Posts

Greetings to everyone and welcome to what I hope will be an educational debate. Thanks to Bruce and the admin of Ex-C for hosting this debate and thanks to my opponent, Razor, for agreeing to take part.

 

Definitions[1]:

 

Biology: The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.

 

Paleontology: The study of the forms of life existing in prehistoric or geologic times, as represented by the fossils of plants, animals, and other organisms.

 

Anthropology: The scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans.

 

Introduction:

 

Evolution is the unifying theory in Biology. Without Evolutionary Theory, not much in biology would make sense. While many tend to have the idea that Evolution represents a ladder-like step from simple cells to bacteria to humans (goo to you), this is completely false and must be corrected. Evolutionary Theory posits that all life descended from a single common ancestor, and that life branches out into a bush-like family tree. For the biological evidences, I will present genetics (particularly ERV’s and Pseudogenes) as the forefront. For Paleontological evidence, I will present the fossil record and present fossils which are transitional and fossil lineages. For the anthropological evidence, I will present the compendium of hominid fossils the field of science has found that sheds all doubt as to where we came from and who we, as humans, are.

 

Biological Evidence:

 

The Biological evidence is particularly strong when one looks at genetics, which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Evolutionary Theory is the more tenable position. Endogenous Retroviruses being the first piece of evidence in this debate is something that cannot be explained away without ad hoc reasoning. A retrovirus is defined as

 

"...an RNA virus (like HIV) that produces reverse transcriptase by means of which DNA is produced using their RNA as a template and incorporated into the genome of infected cells."[2]

 

If the retrovirus were to infect a sperm or egg cell, then the infection becomes hereditary and is passed on to the subsequent offspring of the original host. Because the RNA virus copies its own viral genome into the host genome, the virus becomes a part of the offsprings own DNA structure. If Evolutionary Theory were true, then it would only be logical that related species (chimps, humans, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc.) would contain these insertions in the exact same place of their DNA. Scientists who study genetics have found these ERV's in a number of primates, including the ones listed above and Old world monkeys [3]. The only reasonable explanation is that we and other primates descended from a common ancestor.

 

Pseudogenes, the next piece of evidence in regards to Evolutionary Theory provides another example that, much like ERV's, shows that Evolutionary Theory is more reasonable than Creationism. Pseudogenes are

 

"...genomic DNA sequences similar to normal genes but are not expressed into functional proteins; they are regarded as defunct relatives of functional genes."

 

Because the pseudogene is the result of a mutation and all mutations are hereditary, what would follow would be that any offspring from the original mutation that survived would contain this mutation; including new branching species. Some recent evidence of this would be the studies that show that Cats (family) cannot taste sweet foods. All mammals contain a gene that allows the taste buds on tongues to send information to our brain regarding the taste of a certain food. Certain areas of human tongues can taste certain things. In Cats, the gene is still there, but it doesn't work. [5] Pseudogene.org provides a compendium of pseudogenes found in a number of animals, and there are hundreds per species [6].

 

In short, even now with the debate having hardly begun, I have already provided two inexplicable evidences not only for what is known as macroevolution (speciation), but for common descent.

 

Paleontological Evidence:

 

The fossil record contains an amazing amount of corroborative information regarding the history of life. From it, we can see the amazing transition of whales from land-roving creatures to the aquatic specimens we see today. There is also the early horse fossils to consider, not to mention transitions from reptile to bird, and reptile to mammals. Talkorigins states

 

"...we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba...." [7]

 

In regards to horse evolution, we have an entire 55 million years of fossils rangin from hyracotherium [8], the oldest known horse fossil, to the Equus [9], each having a multitude of transitional fossils in between. Each of these fossils have been found in different layers of the geologic column and not, as would be predicted by a single creation event, all together at once.

 

The fossil record is reliable, is observable and factual. While the evidence is indirect, it certainly is empirical and does coincide with the other evidence.

 

Anthropological Evidence:

 

For the last part of my 3-piece evidence, I will present one of the most complete fossil lineages available; humans. Anthropology has uncovered a 7 million year history of over 20 different hominid fossils [10]. This alone shows that humans are not a special creation. If one were to doubt the veracity of my claims, all they would have to do is look at the sequence of skulls provided by the Smithsonian Institute (Skull A is a Chimpanzee, Skull N is a modern human) [11]. Since the Chimpanzee shares 98.8 percent of our DNA [12], it is not that difficult to comprehend how our ancestors looked so similar to Chimpanzees 6 or 7 million years ago. If the genetic evidence corroborates the fossil evidence, it would require deception of the extreme type in order to have the truth be a 6 day creation event that happened only 6,000 years ago.

 

Conclusion:

 

In order for my opponent to refute my claims not only would he have to be able to explain how it is possible all this evidence contradicts his worldview but he would have to provide evidence for it. It is apparent from genetics, from fossils, and even from our own history that the Earth has been around a lot longer than 6,000 years. It is apparent that common descent is a more reasonable idea than separate creations. It is also apparent that Creationism is a failed idea not only in science but in philosophy. I would be very surprised if Razor is able to provide an argument that wasn't concocted before 1985, and that is not the fault of my opponent. Creationism simply has nothing to provide and unless Razor can provide something of substance that contradicts my claims, the debate will have already been lost to him. Thanks for reading everyone, thanks again to my opponent. I look forward to reading your rebuttal, Razor.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] - www.dictionary.com

[2] - http://www.counterbalance.net/biogloss/endret-body.html

[3] - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...ml#retroviruses

[4] - http://www.pseudogene.org/main.php

[5] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/25....sweet.gene.ap/

[6] - http://www.pseudogene.org/cgi-bin/search-r...t=1&output=html

[7] - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...termediates_ex1

[8] - http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/hyraco1.htm

[9] - http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/equus1.htm

[10] - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#tchadensis

[11] - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

[12] - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...1_chimp01m.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see that this debate thread is well behaved (especially from the debate opponents), so I moved it to Colosseum instead. I hope you don't mind Asimov. If you rather have it in Lion's Den I can move it back, but consider that I let more "bad" behavior pass in the Pit.

 

Hans

 

PS.

 

Maybe you should consider be a little more detailed in the Topic title.

"Debate scientific basis for Evolution, Creationism and ID" or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good idea...except I don't know how to edit the title... :)

 

Anyways,

 

This is a challenge to any Creationist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can change the title if you want. Just give me what you want it to be.

 

I'm just afraid the word "Debate" is so general that it will spin in four dimensions of subjects, just like the Knowledge thread... urgh.. ("Knowledge" is almost a bad word now. :grin: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can change the title if you want. Just give me what you want it to be.

 

I'm just afraid the word "Debate" is so general that it will spin in four dimensions of subjects, just like the Knowledge thread... urgh.. ("Knowledge" is almost a bad word now. :grin: )

 

Evolution is more tenable than Creationism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everybody, I was surprised to see that none of my more scientific minded Christian brothers did not take up this debate, however, I will do my best to defend creationism. I will readily admit that with the parameters being scientific, I am out of my field (the last several years of my life have been spent doing theology at Grand Canyon University, and none of that time have I spent reading science). This is to say, that the best I can attempt here and now is to try and show that the scientific evidence presented, does not necessitate evolution, or even make evolution “more tenable than creationism.”

 

Seeking to clarify:

 

Firstly, Asimov (I address in third person, because I am not exactly sure what the proper way to address my opponent is, but I will trust my opponent or the mod to correct me if I error on this point) stated that Evolutionary theory is not a “ladder-like step from simple cells to bacteria to humans (goo to you)….” This is not a huge issue, but I like to be clear on what is being discussed so I would like to point out the positive way that Asimov stated evolution: “Evolutionary Theory posits that all life descended from a single common ancestor, and that life branches out into a bush-like family tree.” I was under the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that this single common ancestor was essentially the very first proteins. If this is not the case, then I would ask, what is this common ancestor? Also, is it not the case that from this ancestor (whatever that is) that life, through natural selection, became more and more complicated? So evolution does seem to be a latter-like step from simple life to complicated life (though it certainly is a branching out that leads to all the different life forms we have on earth). I may show my ignorance of the subject here, but I like to be as clear as possible on what is being discussed.

 

Attempted refutation:

 

Asimov gave this scientific evidence:

“If Evolutionary Theory were true, then it would only be logical that related species (chimps, humans, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc.) would contain these insertions in the exact same place of their DNA. Scientists who study genetics have found these ERV's in a number of primates, including the ones listed above and Old world monkeys [3]. The only reasonable explanation is that we and other primates descended from a common ancestor.”

 

From this observed phenomena Asimov concludes that humans and primates descended from a common ancestor. The idea that God, when creating, used these RNA viruses used to form similar DNA patterns as those in the animals listed above, equally satisfies this observed evidence. I will probably be accused of using ad hoc reasoning at this point, therefore I think it useful to briefly define this term:

 

Ad Hoc:

adv.

For the specific purpose, case, or situation at hand and for no other: a committee formed ad hoc to address the issue of salaries.

 

adj.

1. Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose: an ad hoc compensation committee.

2. Improvised and often impromptu: “On an ad hoc basis, Congress has... placed... ceilings on military aid to specific countries” (New York Times). (1)

 

If the line of reasoning that I have taken is Ad Hoc, then so is Asimov’s. I looked at the observed evidence and I concluded God used similar DNA and RNA structures in different parts of his creation. Asimov looked at this evidence and concluded that we descended from a common ancestor. It is impossible to observe God using these RNA viruses in creating his creatures, but it is also impossible to observe the evolutionary process (natural selection) making new specious with this RNA virus. I assumed God and came up with one interpretation, Asimov assumed not God and came up with another, both lines of reasoning were for a specific purpose, case, or situation at hand and for no other: to show how God created (my case) and to show that God did not create (Asimov’s case).

 

In regards to the pseudogene, Asimov shows that cats have a gene that allows them to taste sweet things, but this gene is defective, and that several animals have this pseudogene as well. However, if the common ancestor had this defective gene then all would have this defective gene because as Asimov said: “…what would follow would be that any offspring from the original mutation that survived would contain this mutation; including new branching species.” Asimov did not claim that the original ancestor had this defective gene, and if it did not have this defective gene, then there is nothing about the pseudogene that connects any species to the original ancestor. At best, it shows that certain animals came from other animals (maybe even a different species). I also do not think that it shows even that by necessity, but I would be using the same reasoning found in the above paragraph (God using the same things in more then one of his creatures) and I will not restate it here. My point is that evolution says we descended from a common ancestor, and the pseudogene dose not show this because the common ancestor could not have had this defective gene, or we would all have it.

 

In regards to fossils, let me first discuss the horse fossils, and then I will discuss the others. By Asimov’s own admission, the horse fossils are of one specious. This does not demonstrate a new specious arriving from another specious. All the horse fossils show is the progression within one specious. The other fossils also do not show that one specious came from another specious. Just because all these fossils look alike, does not necessitate that they came from the same specious. There is no way to show (that I am aware of) that they are from the same specious over and above all were specious that at some time became extinct. And this goes as well for the bones that were found that look similar to humans. There is nothing to say that these specious came from earlier specious and that humans came from them, rather it just shows that there were probably other specious (similar to us and apes) that are no longer around today.

 

That concludes my post. Thank you all for taking the time to read my post, and I look forward to hearing from Asimov.

 

(1) www.dictionary.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, thats great. I went from a raging Calvinist to an Apologist. :dumbo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asimov's explanation is superior on at least one count. We don't know there is a God when we start out to explain the origin of species. Asimov's explanation accounts for the phenomena just as well as ART's, and it has the extra advantage of economy, since it posits one fewer entity. Since God cannot be demonstrated by the methods that we use to research biological phenomena, ART's recourse to God as an explanatory factor either is circular or departs from the scientific method into something else - metaphysics of some kind. But metaphysical speculation doesn't advance scientific research. Therefore ART's explanation of the phenomena just is burdened by a bigger, nonverifiable superstructure of assumptions. So why not simply jettison those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution snip from CoR

 

If there was a creator we should be able to look at the creations and determine what the design criteria and methods of creation were. What were the design goals? On the other hand - if we evolved then the final product(s) should reflect evidence of that process. So let's look at live and see what we have.

 

 

Eating - All life on this planet other than plant life kills other organisms for food. Even in the plant world many plants only grow in the dead carcasses of other plants, or on other living plants. Why would a designer create a world based on killing and eating? Why not have some machine or something that produces food? We live in a world based on life eating other life. To me this suggests evolution. In evolution the lower forms of life - plants - are powered by sunlight - and everything higher eats plants or eats each other. Species evolve based on their ability to kill and eat.

 

Sex - For those who think that mankind is higher than the animals there's nothing like sex to remind us that we are as driven by mating instincts as all the other critters that crawl on the dirt. If anything when it comes to mating we're pretty lame. If God created that - and then subsequently made it a mortal sin - makes you wonder what he had in mind. Because sex is required for reproduction and we are the descendents only of those who had sex that led to pregnancy - and that we do it like the animals - this looks like evolution to me.

 

DNA - Are we different than the animals? Are we created in God's image? Not if you look at DNA. Humans and Chimps have a 98% DNA match. And looking at all other life forms our DNA is extremely similar to the DNA of all other life on this planet, including the DNA of species long extinct. We have DNA that is left over from eons ago. We carry DNA that define what kind of fins we would have if we were still sea creatures. And the more we learn about DNA and the more we can trace it back and compare it - the more it points not only to evolution but exactly how we are all connected. Again - evolution wins.

 

When you look around and you see evolutionary processes at work everywhere and you see how life on this planet all ties together, it's pretty obvious how it is we got here. Evolution wins. If God created life would he have created us with an evolutionary DNA history that all ties together in a way that looks like evolution? Maybe God hates smart people and faked dinosaur bones to confuse those non-believing faithless scientists so he can punishing them in Hell for their intellectual arrogance. It appears that the omnipotent deity who chooses to remain hidden is hiding the secrets of creation by making it look like evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible to observe God using these RNA viruses in creating his creatures, but it is also impossible to observe the evolutionary process (natural selection) making new specious with this RNA virus
I'm not so sure that the second part is true. It certainly seems possible that we could watch the "evolutionary process" "make" a new species that involved a retrovirus. I'm not sure where exactly to find the info (someone here probably knows), but scientists have observed a hybrid flower turn into a species. I'm terrible at remembering details, but basically it was a hybrid flower that originally could not reproduce that started to produce, and therefore become a new species. So I don't see why we could not observe the same thing happen while a retrovirus is present.

If this is the case, then you have no real case because now it would be observable vs unobservable. It also means that Asimov's argument is not ad hoc, while yours is.

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to fossils, let me first discuss the horse fossils, and then I will discuss the others. By Asimov’s own admission, the horse fossils are of one specious. This does not demonstrate a new specious arriving from another specious. All the horse fossils show is the progression within one specious. The other fossils also do not show that one specious came from another specious. Just because all these fossils look alike, does not necessitate that they came from the same specious. There is no way to show (that I am aware of) that they are from the same specious over and above all were specious that at some time became extinct. And this goes as well for the bones that were found that look similar to humans. There is nothing to say that these specious came from earlier specious and that humans came from them, rather it just shows that there were probably other specious  (similar to us and apes) that are no longer around today.

 

That concludes my post. Thank you all for taking the time to read my post, and I look forward to hearing from Asimov. 

 

(1) www.dictionary.com

Dude, can I just say that maybe you should check up with Dictionary.com and find out exactly what specious means...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeking to clarify:

 

I was under the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that this single common ancestor was essentially the very first proteins. If this is not the case, then I would ask, what is this common ancestor? Also, is it not the case that from this ancestor (whatever that is) that life, through natural selection, became more and more complicated?

No, from this ancestor life became more varied due to many factors including Natural Selection. We don't know what the very first life was like, that part is more into the realm of biochemistry and biophysics as it examines the transition from chemicals to the first population of organisms.

 

So evolution does seem to be a latter-like step from simple life to complicated life (though it certainly is a branching out that leads to all the different life forms we have on earth). I may show my ignorance of the subject here, but I like to be as clear as possible on what is being discussed.

I don't know what you mean by complex. Complexity is relative to the beholder and quite vague except as a Creationist catch-word that they use in order to avoid actually arguing against evolution.

 

From this observed phenomena Asimov concludes that humans and primates descended from a common ancestor. The idea that God, when creating, used these RNA viruses used to form similar DNA patterns as those in the animals listed above, equally satisfies this observed evidence. I will probably be accused of using ad hoc reasoning at this point, therefore I think it useful to briefly define this term:

 

No it doesn't. Your reasoning isn't ad hoc, it's putting the cart before the horse. You presuppose a God exists and then hand-wave the evidence by saying "Oh he wanted it to be that way." Logic dictates that we make no more assumptions than needed when deducing something. Your statement isn't equally satisfactory, it is unnecessary and inconsistent with Science.

 

Let me explain a bit further. The Scientific Method suggests that we look at all the available evidence and then see what we can conclude from this evidence. You already have it in your head that God exists and that the Bible is true a priori, so you see what evidence fits those beliefs.

 

My line of reasoning fits the evidence and so far you haven't actually poked any holes in my argument. Since your argument is logically fallacious, my argument still stands as the more tenable position. Since you cannot actually provide evidence for your statement (that God just made it that way), my argument is the more tenable one. However:

 

I didn't assume not God, this isn't an argument about the existence of God. Evolution does not interject that a God could or couldn't have done this because of the very problem you face right now. What your assertion SHOULD be regarding is the evidence for Creationism. As stated in the OP, Creationism is the idea that the Bible is 100% literally true, that all events happened as they are depicted and that the Earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old.

 

Just a clarification for the above, the cases were not "Did God create" and "Did God not create". The cases were "Evolution is more tenable than Creationism". My opponent arguing that Creationism (as defined above) is more tenable than Evolution. Either this was a deliberate dodge or my opponent doesn't realise what he's fighting for.

 

Pseudogenes:

 

Areformedthinker, from your statement here:

 

"At best, it shows that certain animals came from other animals (maybe even a different species)."

 

It would seem that since I am arguing that animals come from other animals that you are in agreement with my position. Do you or do you not accept Evolution? If you accept that animals variate so that genes are inherited and that those variations over time create different species, then what's the problem?

 

Are you suggesting that God put the gene in there and then turned it off? How is this supposed to aid your position regarding Creationism? It doesn't. Since God can do anything, Evolution can be true and God can exist. You need to be refuting other than providing alternative explanations regarding your deity. You need to be providing alternative evidence for Creationism.

 

My point is that evolution says we descended from a common ancestor, and the pseudogene dose not show this because the common ancestor could not have had this defective gene, or we would all have it.

 

Thus shows your ignorance regarding evolution, areformedthinker. Just as all life theoretically has a common ancestor, all mammals share a common ancestor, and all cats share a common ancestor. We are talking about the Cat family (as I stated in my post). My point was showing that life does variate, and create new species.

 

"By Asimov’s own admission, the horse fossils are of one specious. This does not demonstrate a new specious arriving from another specious."

 

Of course it does. Each fossil found was a different species, related morphologically down the line. It also shows that Creationism is false, because of the ages of these fossils. If areformedthinker is suggesting that they all lived at the same time, then he needs to explain why they were found in different layers of the geological column, each dated at different ages, and each found to contain morpholigical characteristics that ONLY Equistrians have.

 

And this goes as well for the bones that were found that look similar to humans. There is nothing to say that these specious came from earlier specious and that humans came from them, rather it just shows that there were probably other specious (similar to us and apes) that are no longer around today.

 

My opponent seems to suggest that if we find animals from millions of years ago that contain the same morphological structure as us that we aren't related to them.

 

This would be easier to deal with were it not for the genetic evidence that links us all together as primates...which falsifies Creationism.

 

Conclusion:

 

My opponent seems confused, so I will allow him to rewrite his response if he so wishes. He is supposed to refute my reply, but he is not actually refuting it. The original topic was

 

"Evolution is a more reasonable and evidential theory than Creationism, that fits what has been observed in the areas of Biology, Anthropology, and Paleontology."

 

None of this concerns God, it concerns the evidence for the belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not remember who mentioned it, but I did look up specious and it was not the word I thought it was, I should have used the word species. My error. I will have my reply late afternoon Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not remember who mentioned it, but I did look up specious and it was not the word I thought it was, I should have used the word species. My error. I will have my reply late afternoon Sunday.

No sweat... I figure it was pretty late in the day when you posted.

 

 

 

 

I still think it was a funny mistake to make. :HaHa:

[/off-topic]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry it took so long for me to post the response. Once again, I feel out of place in the scientific parameter of the debate, therefore in the interest of finishing out as quickly as possible I will not accept Asimov's offer to let me redo the first post, but will move on.

 

I don't know what you mean by complex. Complexity is relative to the beholder and quite vague except as a Creationist catch-word that they use in order to avoid actually arguing against evolution.

 

I did not mean complexity in anyway that had to do with proving God. I just thought that it was agreed that our (humans) brains (for example) functioned on a higher level (we are self aware, we can do science, unlike a squirrel) and that required a more complex brain: More things within the mind itself coordinating together and working together to produce such results.

 

No it doesn't. Your reasoning isn't ad hoc, it's putting the cart before the horse. You presuppose a God exists and then hand-wave the evidence by saying "Oh he wanted it to be that way." Logic dictates that we make no more assumptions than needed when deducing something. Your statement isn't equally satisfactory, it is unnecessary and inconsistent with Science.

 

Let me explain a bit further. The Scientific Method suggests that we look at all the available evidence and then see what we can conclude from this evidence. You already have it in your head that God exists and that the Bible is true a priori, so you see what evidence fits those beliefs.

 

I must admit that, I was not, and still am not entirely sure how to respond to this. I think that I see what you are saying though. There is this evidence that you provided, and I came at it assuming God and said that this is how God works, when in fact I was positing something based on an unneeded assumption, and therefore, was logically incorrect. You came at the evidence with no assumptions (which I am not sure is possible) but giving you the benefit of the doubt, no assumptions, and concluded that this could happen apart from God being Creator and therefore, evolution is more tenable then creationism.

 

However, I think the evidence itself demands something more be assumed. If there is no God as creator, then the evidence leaves us very much determined by the science. In other words life is then ordered and controlled by the scientific processes and laws that remain consistent. Almost, I suppose, like a physical determinism. This leaves no room for what we plainly observe in life. One thing that I briefly mentioned above, is self awareness. This "I" behind our thoughts requires more then a body determined by scientific workings. The things that spark and fire in our brain would do so in a fashion that is orderly and in a way that the physical science would allow it to. Thus our thoughts (if that’s all they were) would be confined to certain things because they could not go beyond what the physical science dictates. Further more, we would not be rational beings, but simply acting and reacting in a way accorded by our material makings. There is no room for the heights that humanity has soared in bravery and honor, or to the depths that it has gone in hatred.

 

Areformedthinker, from your statement here:

 

"At best, it shows that certain animals came from other animals (maybe even a different species)."

 

It would seem that since I am arguing that animals come from other animals that you are in agreement with my position. Do you or do you not accept Evolution? If you accept that animals variate so that genes are inherited and that those variations over time create different species, then what's the problem?

 

Are you suggesting that God put the gene in there and then turned it off? How is this supposed to aid your position regarding Creationism? It doesn't. Since God can do anything, Evolution can be true and God can exist. You need to be refuting other than providing alternative explanations regarding your deity. You need to be providing alternative evidence for Creationism.

 

I meant that the God explanation could account for the pseudogenes, but I do not believe that variations over time create different species. As to the second part, I am not suggesting that God put the gene in there and turned it off. We do not know everything, and perhaps one day we will discover a reason as to why those genes do not work, maybe a reason that aids the creatures with such genes. Or, perhaps those defective genes are a result of the fall which affected all creation (in the Christian world-view).

 

Of course it does. Each fossil found was a different species, related morphologically down the line. It also shows that Creationism is false, because of the ages of these fossils. If areformedthinker is suggesting that they all lived at the same time, then he needs to explain why they were found in different layers of the geological column, each dated at different ages, and each found to contain morpholigical characteristics that ONLY Equistrians have.

 

What I meant was, that they continued to be equestrians. Are they not from start to finish (with all the different changes) equestrians. I am not suggesting they all lived at the same time. There is nothing in the account in Genesis that demands it be 7 24 hour periods of creation. The Hebrew word translated as "day" in Genesis is very loose in its time frame. The days in Genesis, could be millions of years long (I do not personally believe this, but it is well within the creationism mindset to think this way).

 

I look forward to reading the next post by Asimov, again, sorry I was so late posting this response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I briefly mentioned above, is self awareness.

 

What are the objective criteria to determine whether a species is self aware? A list would be preferable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was, that they continued to be equestrians. Are they not from start to finish (with all the different changes) equestrians. I am not suggesting they all lived at the same time. There is nothing in the account in Genesis that demands it be 7 24 hour periods of creation.

 

 

Mmmmm, could please clarify as to what kind of creationist are you

 

Creationist Classification

 

If a day isn't necessary refer to a seven period, then it means that this god did a poor job of communicating.

 

Islamic creationist raise the point that in the Quran it says the "universe started with smoke". This they say supports to idea of the big bang theory. Would accept this as a possible evidence for Islamic Creationism?

 

My question to you is that why should one believe that the Bible God is the creator of the universe and not Allah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is no God as creator, then the evidence leaves us very much determined by the science.

 

No it doesn't. The Scientific Method is one epistemic system, and can only go so far.

 

This "I" behind our thoughts requires more then a body determined by scientific workings.

 

No it doesn't.

 

Thus our thoughts (if that’s all they were) would be confined to certain things because they could not go beyond what the physical science dictates.

 

You're looking at it backwards. Physical Science dictates nothing, it only makes observations and formulates theorems based on what is observed and tested. Just because we are confined by physical law doesn't mean science is constrictive. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Further more, we would not be rational beings, but simply acting and reacting in a way accorded by our material makings.

 

How is that not rational? Acting irrationally is acting against what would be a predicted response from external stimuli.

 

Define material.

 

There is no room for the heights that humanity has soared in bravery and honor, or to the depths that it has gone in hatred.

 

Please, don't muddy the waters with your poetic diatribe.

 

I meant that the God explanation could account for the pseudogenes, but I do not believe that variations over time create different species.

 

So? Your belief is irrelevant. Variations over time create species, it's been observed.

 

Not only that, but logic works against you!

 

Variations are accumulative. A variation is a mutation.

 

Let's say a mutation = 1 step.

 

Are you saying that it is impossible to walk great distances 1 step at a time and reach another city 3000 miles away? I don't believe that small steps over time could equal large changes over large time (ie - speciation).

 

Let's say you have population A living in Geographical location 1.

 

Half of population A (pop. B) splits off and moves to Geographical location 2. They are the exact same species.

 

You are saying 2 million years later with no cross-flow of genetic information between pop 1 and pop 2 would not create to distinct species?

 

As to the second part, I am not suggesting that God put the gene in there and turned it off.

 

Yes you are.

 

We do not know everything, and perhaps one day we will discover a reason as to why those genes do not work, maybe a reason that aids the creatures with such genes. Or, perhaps those defective genes are a result of the fall which affected all creation (in the Christian world-view).

 

We know why is turns off. We can physically manipulate genes TO turn them off. We do this with flowers to make them a certain colour in the laboratory. We can turn fruit flies gay. Mutation turns them off.

 

What I meant was, that they continued to be equestrians.

 

Well...I shouldn't have used that term, because it means someone who rides horseback, but I couldn't think of a proper word.

 

The Hyracotherium was a distinctly separate species, part of the family Equidae. It is a lineage of Equidae, following from Hyracotherium to Equus.

 

If you want transitions such as reptile to bird, then I also listed an entire lineage of half-bird half-reptile animals.

 

There is nothing in the account in Genesis that demands it be 7 24 hour periods of creation.

 

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...%201&version=31

 

Please tell me how evening and morning does not constitute a 24 hour period of creation?

 

Regardless, if you make a concession in this regard, then what is your problem with evolution and why are you even arguing?

 

And then you say it's not what you believe? Well then why bring it up? What exactly do you believe regarding Creationism? As Pritishd asked...and I even defined Creationism in context to this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how people have quippy answers "There is nothing in the account in Genesis that demands it be 7 24 hour periods of creation." which they never think about those answers, but those are the bumper sticker answers they're taught to give.

 

But then you take their answer and re-research it, show them why they're wrong, and then they just come back with a different bumper sticker - often Changing the subject to something else.

 

Do they not see their dishonesty? That puts THEM in SIN, no?

 

 

 

I love the ones who say "well, it doesn't mean THAT"... funny, it sure LOOKS like those are words that would describe what they say it doesn't mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MQTQ,

 

I actually do believe the day in Genesis (yom) does refer to a literal 24 hour period, or at least what we think of as a day (because the Hebrews probably did not think 24 hour period) that is sun up/ sun down. However, in defending a creationist view, I am not bound to a 24 hour period, because many creationist think that God created over millions of years, and the word yom in itself does not demand it be 24 hours. If I were to defend the literal 24 hour period, I would be doing so exegetically from the Bible, and an exegesis was not pertinent to the debate perameters.

 

I bow my knee to one thing alone, and that is Christ and his scriptures, I do not bow to science. I do believe that one of my brothers who knows more of science would fare better then I in this particular arena, and show science to show the glory of God.



			
		
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the objective criteria to determine whether a species is self aware? A list would be preferable.

 

1.) Having an inner monologue (I think this is sufficient). Although, this is not objective since I cannot know whether you have an inner monologue. However, if communication is possible between two people, then each person needs to be able to think and have an inner monologue.

 

Now to respond to some of Asimov’s post:

 

How is that not rational? Acting irrationally is acting against what would be a predicted response from external stimuli.

 

Then if somebody reacts differently then expected according to the stimuli, then there must be something behind it that allows this reaction to go against the natural physical response.

 

You're looking at it backwards. Physical Science dictates nothing, it only makes observations and formulates theorems based on what is observed and tested. Just because we are confined by physical law doesn't mean science is constrictive. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

My point is if we look only at the evidence assuming nothing, then we are left with a physical determination, thus, if we are more then physically determined machines (which seem to be necessitated by the inner monologue) then we must assume something that the pure physical evidence cannot give.

 

What causes the brain to fire? If it is simply physical laws that govern this then how is that we can have an inner monologue. There has to be something aside from the physical that causes us our brains to work, if there is not, and then we are simply machines responding as the physical dictates. If what causes our inner monologues is not physical, then science is left with no explanation for (for science is bound by the material world) as to what causes our thoughts, and something else must be assumed.

 

Please, don't muddy the waters with your poetic diatribe.

 

Let me put it differently then heroism and hatred (on a side note: part of rhetoric entails using pathos as well as logos, but point taken). If we simply react as the physical stimuli dictates then it is possible to say that if a homeless man is doing all he can just to live, and he finds a baby abandoned in a dumpster, then he should leave the baby there because helping the baby, does not fill his stomach, or benefit him in anyway.

 

I must go to class, but I will respond to the rest when I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then if somebody reacts differently then expected according to the stimuli, then there must be something behind it that allows this reaction to go against the natural physical response.

 

Something like what, areformedthinker? Do you not think that predictions can be wrong? There are a million variables to consider when expecting a certain reaction and not all of them can be accounted for. You can't selectively point to things we don't know everything about and then say "there! there's God!"

 

Besides, you're now changing the subject FROM evolution to a philosophical discussion.

 

My point is if we look only at the evidence assuming nothing, then we are left with a physical determination, thus, if we are more then physically determined machines (which seem to be necessitated by the inner monologue) then we must assume something that the pure physical evidence cannot give.

 

Like what, areformedthinker?? You can't assume anything beyond which we cannot sense experience. You use these words....physical...material...they are meaningless because these words are vague!!

 

What causes the brain to fire? If it is simply physical laws that govern this then how is that we can have an inner monologue. There has to be something aside from the physical that causes us our brains to work, if there is not, and then we are simply machines responding as the physical dictates. If what causes our inner monologues is not physical, then science is left with no explanation for (for science is bound by the material world) as to what causes our thoughts, and something else must be assumed.

 

What are you talking about? You're not explaining how physical law cannot account for thinking, all you're doing is making unsupported assertions. We ARE machines. We use our senses to gather information about our environment, and our thoughts are the products of the input we receive.

 

There is nothing aside from the physical law that causes our brains to work, you are just using wishful thinking.

 

Let me put it differently then heroism and hatred (on a side note: part of rhetoric entails using pathos as well as logos, but point taken). If we simply react as the physical stimuli dictates then it is possible to say that if a homeless man is doing all he can just to live, and he finds a baby abandoned in a dumpster, then he should leave the baby there because helping the baby, does not fill his stomach, or benefit him in anyway.

 

So? Your point is lost, who's to say that physical stimuli wouldn't cause the homeless man to take the baby in? How is that irrational? Humans are social beings and we care for each other. It's called empathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MQTQ,

 

I actually do believe the day in Genesis (yom) does refer to a literal 24 hour period, or at least what we think of as a day (because the Hebrews probably did not think 24 hour period) that is sun up/ sun down. However, in defending a creationist view, I am not bound to a 24 hour period, because many creationist think that God created over millions of years, and the word yom in itself does not demand it be 24 hours. If I were to defend the literal 24 hour period, I would be doing so exegetically from the Bible, and an exegesis was not pertinent to the debate perameters.

 

I bow my knee to one thing alone, and that is Christ and his scriptures, I do not bow to science. I do believe that one of my brothers who knows more of science would fare better then I in this particular arena, and show science to show the glory of God.

 

You're just backpedaling. Debate with what you believe in, or you shoot yourself in the foot.

 

Science doesn't show the glory of God, because God does not exist. Stay on topic, and stop evangelising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a comment that a friend made about your argument:

 

"He's basically saying I think, therefore God is".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.