Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Re: the prairie dog study:
There is another study I read about somewhere that dealt with a type of monkey in the jungle (Indonesia maybe?) This species of monkey had three different "alert" calls--one for a predator in the air (eagle, hawk, etc.), one for a predator in the trees (snake, cat), and one for predators on the ground (humans). Pretty neat, eh? Sorry I don't remember the source.
Note that I for one didn't claim that humans are unique in their use of language 8)
Portalstar--thanks for the welcome

Whether it's the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe, or the evolution of either one of these, whatever, to me it's all the same thing: God is not responsible; it's all a bunch of accidents. At least a few on here have been gracious enough to admit neither opinion can be proved. Here's my problem with evolution: It's a theory, far from a scientific fact. Factual Science is: observe data and evidence, form conclusions. With evolution, a conclusion was made, and scientists now spend their time trying to find the evidence. (And yes, the majority of scientists are evolutionists. [And they still can't prove anything] The institution of science, if compared to a country, would not resemble a free democratic society, but a dictatorship. Conform, don't introduce new ideas, stick to the plan.) Evolution is a theory that, every time faced with non-conforming facts produces more and more theories, more and more conjectures, hypotheses, guesses, and on and on and on and on. (Evolution reminds me of a little white lie I once told. I thought that would be the end of it. Instead it led to another [larger], and another, and another, etc.) Someone said something about ?'finding a fossil that doesn't conform to the geological (as interpreted by evolutionists) column'. Fossils are continuously found in wrong (according to the evolutionary geologic column) sediment layers, and are then discarded as accidents, or chance. (I thought that's what the whole theory was based on?)

Here's a quote from someone earlier: "The fact is - there is a wealth of evidence supporting evolution and none disproving it", a crafty statement containing the words Fact, Evidence, and Evolution. It should read "…a wealth of evidence interpreted to support the theory of evolution." However, it is a true statement (as implied), but so are all of the following:
- There's a wealth of evidence supporting creation and none disproving it.
- The fact is - there's no evidence that proves evolution.
- The fact is - there's no evidence that disproves creation.
Man has been around for millions (no I'm not kidding, according to evolutionary theory) of years, yet a fact which no one can contend is: civilization sprang up instantly (less than 10,000 years ago). That is a fact. The genius of these civilizations, the great pyramids and the Mayan calendar system, are only rivaled (I use this term loosely considering the accumulation of knowledge and technology at our fingertips) in the last century.

Of the majority of evolutionists I'm convinced of one thing: If confronted by the direct audible voice of God they would squeeze their hands tightly over their ears while loudly chanting, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA………..

Here's another wonderful thing about the hypothesis of evolution: where does it lead? You start with a single cell, billions of years of radiation-induced-mutations-and-sheer-chance later you have, humans. Eventually the evolution of our brains and abilities will allow us to control the weather; technology will have us communicating telepathically with anyone in the world by means of a miniature brain implant (maybe not an implant, just another evolved advantage); we'll be flying around in space, traveling to other solar systems, eventually to other galaxies - and this is all very soon according to the evolutionary clock. And of course, the natural course of evolution will have us traveling through and communicating across the entire universe; technological and medicinal advancements will have us living for eons; we'll be, hey, like Gods. How wonderful! Man will obviously be able to create life by this time. So we'll be able to create any kind of life we want, plop it right down on some planet and watch it grow and evolve and ponder its existence; and eventually watch it sit around and debate its origins across some electrical or fiber optic media. (Ah, to be your own favorite comedian!)

According to evolution of species, man defines right and wrong. Everything not against the law is OK. Whatever preferences someone has are fully acceptable; this is just part of the evolutionary process. Homosexuality is a ?'naturally' evolved instinct or desire. (Soon to be fully lawful at the current rate) And of course, the only thing wrong with pedophilia (yes, just like all those perverted catholic priests) is that it's against the law. If it were not against the law it would be perfectly acceptable as it's just the next evolutionary step for said individual. In other words, it's natural. Nothing is wrong unless it breaks the laws defined by man. I'm glad I know pedophilia is wrong no matter what humanoid is making the rules!

Here's a really good one: A global flood would fully explain the evolutionary-geological column (fossils and sediment layers), yet is fully rejected. Well, in Darwin's time uniformitarianism is the default evolutionist's position - a position which denies catastrophes of any kind. Instead, Darwin's claim is that everything evolved by slow, very slow, yet steady and consistent changes over time. A position later changed as evolutionists now accept catastrophes such as localized flooding, earthquakes, meteorites, etc. Yet a global flood is denied, even though there is more than enough water contained in earth's atmosphere and surface to flood the planet. So now we're on Mars; this dry desolate planet with no water. And we have these rovers out sampling the soil and rocks searching for signs of water. Now here's the really good part - we're searching for water why? Because scientists (evolutionists) BELIEVE THE PLANET WAS ONCE DESTROYED BY A GLOBAL FLOOD!!! ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God bless ?'em.

In case you want to nip-pick, dissect and attack everything I've said, feel free. Call me names, insult my intelligence (If I had any [just get that started for you there]), blah, blah, blah. But I can save you a lot of time by letting you know I've already been here: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Printable.shtml, here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html, and everywhere else. Lot's of emotion, dogma that bleeds from sentence to sentence, but in the end, a couple of facts (that aren't disputed) expounded upon by hypotheses after hypotheses, conjecture after conjecture, and on and on and on and on and on.

Pretentiously presumptuous, predictable pedants, please provide presumptive, predestined, prefabricated, preconceived, prepackaged, puerile, proximate, predatory parlance promptly, per proposed preamble. -Not that I care.

The statement you quoted does not seem to be an attack against secularism. Rather, Washington is defending the secularist nature of the constitution, and saying that he would not have supported it if it interfered with peoples ability to practice thier religion freely. In any case, it is a red herring.

Defender, not bad except that you fall into the trap of treating evolution and progress as synonymous terms. They are not. Evolution does not imply progress toward some Jardinian "Omega." It simply refers to adaptation by mutation. This is is a common mistake also made by the opponents of evolutionary theory.

So, you are basing your argument that mankind is different from animals on the premise that we have morality, self-awareness, and intelligence, and then submitting this as evidence of divine inspiration.

First of all, I'd point out that sentience is largely a construction - it's not like there's a big black line between us and apes, who are just as capable of self-identification etc etc etc as we are. I'd argue further that language, which has obvious evolutionary benefits, and a larger brain, which offers the same story, allows for more advanced consciousness in us than, say, squirrels. More likely still, the unusually long maturation rate for human young allows for a fairly fluid sense of identity largely instructed by outside influence, which in turn can lead to more questioning and divergence in self-definition. This breeds self-awareness in the sense I believe you use it. All of this is neatly tucked away in the confines of evolution, and in no way supports divine creation.

If you are implying that our above average intelligence and sentience is evidence of some fundamental divide - an attribute that we possess that separates us from all other animals, and in turn, is evidence that God wanted us to be different - I have to disagree. The problem is that I could just as easily rephrase the statement from the framework of a Lemur: "If Lemur-Rah didn't want us to be so awesome, why did he give us this bitchin' prehensile tail?" There is no catagorical separation between a Lemur's prehensile tail and our larger brains - they are both evolutionary adaptions that allow us to survive and thrive in our respective evolutionary niches.

I find the idea that morality is somehow evidence of divine inspiration to be particularly lacking. It seems abundantly obvious to me that morality is not restricted to humans - in fact, it is ubiquitous to every social animal, from a pod of whales to a troop of monkeys. It is a survival mechanism designed to keep the social order we depend on for survival intact.

Now I'm being confronted by a Hobit!!!

Only on Able2Argue!!!!

God bless you, Bob!!!

Yes, well, gives me something to do before second breakfast, eh?

Well, neither is EXISTENCE, Micah.

And perhaps the universe is not matter either.

The stuff of the universe is made up of molecules - which are made up of atoms - which are made up of sub-atomic particles - which are made up of quanta.

And the vast majority of each of those things is - space. Nothingness - except EXISTENCE.

So why not simply assert that we do not know what the nature of EXISTENCE and REALITY is - and we do not know how to account for the fact that it appears to all of us TO BE?

Why make the guess that a god is necessary for it to be?

There is no logical reason for a god to be needed.

That is not to say there is no god - but there certainly is not a necessity for one as you are arguing.

Do you see that?

i understand your point....i understand what you are saying....my heart tells me otherwise though....

i feel like keanu from the matrix thats been freed and can only battle for the rest to be awakened...

how can i deny my heart? i can't...my heart tells me there is a creator and that creator is Jesus....

There is your problem, in a nutshell. The heart is NOT an organ of cognition.......the brain is.

I can understand your dilemma, Micah.

Let's not push this for now.

We'll talk more in other threads.

Phoenix is correct that your "heart" cannot tell you anything. That is, as I am sure you realize, an expression used when the logic of a situation is so unappetizing, it has to be avoided at all costs.

Peace to you, Micah.

f.

P.S. - I loved The Matrix.

Computers do not have hearts, humans do.

SETH used to say "You create your own reality through your thoughtsand ideas. Relativitly speaking I think this is correct in most cases. But things are fragmenting fast out there.

Phoenix,

Up to last week I would have agreed with your statement.....

""The heart is NOT an organ of cognition.......the brain is""

.......however it seems that some workers on cognition (e.g. Maturana) now see the brain as only part of the story with the endocrine system playing an equally important role. So even if the "heart" is out, the "guts" may be in !

Hobitbob,

I agree with you that "evolution" and "progress" are not synonymous, but as I said earlier it is no longer thought that random mutations alone can account for the pace of evolution. This "problem" which sometimes delights creationists is being dealt with using the new methods of "dynamic systems theory" but at the expense of taking a step "up" from the level of traditional logical rhetoric towards a more abstract mathematical coherence. The situation becomes similar to that arrived at in physics in which "quantum theory" is successful (predictively), but eludes "normal rationality".

fresco-I agree on the "guts". Have not read up on Maturana, but I certainly could see a connection. When a person has a "gut feeling" his brain is making connections that are expressed somatically.

Agreed. Also,

Defender-
"The institution of science, if compared to a country, would not resemble a free democratic society, but a dictatorship. Conform, don't introduce new ideas, stick to the plan."

This is not true. Any scientific theory, or even scientific LAW when contracticted -even once- is bunk. They have to either modify the theory or discard it completely. The more continually confirmed with evidence the theory is, the stronger it becomes, but all it takes is one example of inconsistience at any time for it to be broken.

There are new ideas being introduced all the time.

Phoenix,

Maturana actually goes further and defines "life" as "cognition"....this seems to echo Piaget's views on "life" and "intelligence" (organizational schemata) but I havn't found any cross references yet.

No one is arguing with your heart, Micah. You can be religious if you wan't, it is your choice. The problem comes from when you try to make the world around you form to your beliefs (when it doesn't.)

Right, but where does that leave Jesus? I don't think that argument is helpful to biblical creationists at all.

I started a conversation with you earlier about this, but left it behind because I hadn't time to do the reading. I'm going to mention it again, with the same guilty plea.
Fresco, you have a way of intelligently complicating a situation that I find fascinating. You site a wealth of evidence (you've read) for the existence of nonexistence (which I cannot directly argue with, having not read it.) Evidence for existence = everything we know. Evidence for non-existence = that none of the evidence we have is confirmed by some other source of evidence than personal experience that it exists. You are so strange to me, I imagine you must get up in the morning, pour your coffee into your mug upside-down and get back into bed. If you have these beliefs, how do you conduct your day-to-day interactions? Why even bother to read?