Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
However, an evolutionist will interpret the evidence in one way. A creationist will interpret the evidence in another way.

Please give an example of an item which you consider to be evidence for creationism, and explain how it should be viewed such that it supports creationism.

I agree. Real life, what is the way this evidence is interpreted by creationists? (and what evidence are you looking at specifically?)

0 Replies

BBB has just started a relevant thread.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=87540&highlight=

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

BBB has just started a relevant thread.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=87540&highlight=

Interesting article.
Hmmm, I wonder why religious folks get flustered when some new evidence shows up in favor of evolution...
There surely is plenty of evidence in favor of Creationism, so there shouldn't be a problem in the first place?

Real life, help me out to better understand this dilemma by answering my previous post.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Have already answered each of your questions on this very post.

Baddog, I'm a bit confused too... Let's try to settle the confusion.

When you use the word "invent", do you refer to the idea as to why things are the way they are? Such as: Why is an atom an atom? etc...

I use the word "invent" as it's meant in the (related) definition of creation. [The act of making, inventing, or producing.]

As the definition of creation clearly considers invent(ing) to be an act [to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experimenting] it is reasonable to deduce that anything "imagined, ingeniously thought and experimented" (acted) was done by a being, an entity, a "someone" so to speak.

[Hint: Read my earlier posts on this thread and responses to.]

0 Replies

baddog, so why would the universe/earth/evolution have to be someone's Inventions? Do you believe that everything in existence was invented?

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

baddog, so why would the universe/earth/evolution have to be someone's Inventions?

Because they were created.

Quote:

Do you believe that everything in existence was invented?

A good question! I think yes.

0 Replies

OK, c_logic, let's start at the beginning.

Do you believe that the universe had a beginning?

If so, what caused this beginning?

(Do you believe that it is possible for anything to be 'causeless' ?)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

OK, c_logic, let's start at the beginning.

Do you believe that the universe had a beginning?

I don't know about c_logic, but I would prefer if you just answered the question I asked (and c_logic repeated). It seemed like a very reasonable question, given your claims of alternate interpretations.

Here's the whole thing again:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
However, an evolutionist will interpret the evidence in one way. A creationist will interpret the evidence in another way.

Please give an example of an item which you consider to be evidence for creationism, and explain how it should be viewed such that it supports creationism.

Please make an honest attempt to answer, if you can. Thank you.

0 Replies

It may surprise you, Ros, but creationism has to do with creation.

That means going back to the beginning.

Creationism has always stated that the universe had a definite beginning.

Science has caught up to that, finally, and the general consensus now is that the universe had a definite beginning (although there still are some who postulate that the universe is eternal, i.e. no beginning no end. Philosophically many eastern religions agree with this and some still try to shoehorn science into such a position, but it is increasingly difficult to do.)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It may surprise you, Ros, but creationism has to do with creation.

That means going back to the beginning.

Come on RL, that's not an answer to the question.

You said:

real life wrote:

An evolutionist will interpret the evidence in one way. A creationist will interpret the evidence in another way.

And all I asked was that you...

rosborne979 wrote:

Please give an example of an item which you consider to be evidence for creationism, and explain how it should be viewed such that it supports creationism.

It's a fair question don't you think?

I honestly don't understand how you can interpet any physical evidence such that it supports or implies specific creation, and I just wanted you to give me an example. Is that too much to ask?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

c_logic wrote:
baddog, so why would the universe/earth/evolution have to be someone's Inventions?

Because they were created.

Would it be fair to say that even though they were created, it's possible they were created by a "process" and not some sort of a being/entity?

baddog1 wrote:

Quote:
Do you believe that everything in existence was invented?

A good question! I think yes.

But how do we explain the intelligent creation paradox, the thing I mentioned earlier?
i.e.
Everything in existence had to be invented by a being/entity who is the ultimate creator...
How can this creator be the ultimate creator, if it too had to be created/invented by an entity?
This leads us to an infinite regression.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't know about c_logic, but I would prefer if you just answered the question I asked (and c_logic repeated). It seemed like a very reasonable question, given your claims of alternate interpretations.

Agree - It's a fairly simple question. There should be no reason why we need to start at the beginning. If there's plenty of evidence on "earth" as we concluded (evidence that's interpreted differently by Evolution proponents and Creationists) there should be no reason to go beyond and figure out the secrets of the universe itself.
It's like saying: "I don't want to go to the grocery store next door to get bread... Instead, I will attempt to get bread by driving 100 miles to the Milk factory."

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

But how do we explain the intelligent creation paradox, the thing I mentioned earlier?
i.e.
Everything in existence had to be invented by a being/entity who is the ultimate creator...
How can this creator be the ultimate creator, if it too had to be created/invented by an entity?
This leads us to an infinite regression.

That also leads to the rejection of "Occam's razor," entia non sunt multiplicanda . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

c_logic wrote:
But how do we explain the intelligent creation paradox, the thing I mentioned earlier?
i.e.
Everything in existence had to be invented by a being/entity who is the ultimate creator...
How can this creator be the ultimate creator, if it too had to be created/invented by an entity?
This leads us to an infinite regression.

That also leads to the rejection of "Occam's razor," entia non sunt multiplicanda . . .

Why do folks assume that our perception of space, time and causality is representative of reality?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Why do folks assume that our perception of space, time and causality is representative of reality?

Uh, because to assume anything else means that we don't know sh*t about anything. And how does that help.

It's one thing to be open to the possibility that we don't know sh*t, but it's quite another to make the assumption that we don't know sh*t.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
Why do folks assume that our perception of space, time and causality is representative of reality?

Uh, because to assume anything else means that we don't know sh*t about anything. And how does that help.

It's one thing to be open to the possibility that we don't know sh*t, but it's quite another to make the assumption that we don't know sh*t.

Sorry, I know you believe you understand what you think I wrote but I'm not sure you realize that what I wrote was not what I meant.

What I meant was that, although we function very well according to our perceptions of physical reality, the true reality may be known and viable only to whatever power, entity or force drives the universe.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Why do folks assume that our perception of space, time and causality is representative of reality?

Uh, because to assume anything else means that we don't know sh*t about anything. And how does that help.

It's one thing to be open to the possibility that we don't know sh*t, but it's quite another to make the assumption that we don't know sh*t.
Sorry, I know you believe you understand what you think I wrote but I'm not sure you realize that what I wrote was not what I meant.

What I meant was that, although we function very well according to our perceptions of physical reality, the true reality may be known and viable only to whatever power, entity or force drives the universe.

Maybe.

And maybe Keanau Reeves really is Neo, and this is all just a Matrix.

Or maybe you're God and this is all your dream.

Maybe maybe maybe, how many maybe's might there be...

Where were you going with this?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

c_logic wrote:
But how do we explain the intelligent creation paradox, the thing I mentioned earlier?
i.e.
Everything in existence had to be invented by a being/entity who is the ultimate creator...
How can this creator be the ultimate creator, if it too had to be created/invented by an entity?
This leads us to an infinite regression.

That also leads to the rejection of "Occam's razor," entia non sunt multiplicanda . . .

Which is a similar idea to what I mentioned previously about god being the "middleman". Why have god as the middleman if that doesn't really solve any phylosophical issues regarding reality/existence?
The main reason, I think, is because it's an appealing thought, not because it makes sense: the Wishful Thinking Fallacy.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

Would it be fair to say that even though they were created, it's possible they were created by a "process" and not some sort of a being/entity?

Sure it would be fair to say that your scenario could've happened. Of course then the question moves to who created the "process"?

c_logic wrote:

But how do we explain the intelligent creation paradox, the thing I mentioned earlier?
i.e.
Everything in existence had to be invented by a being/entity who is the ultimate creator...
How can this creator be the ultimate creator, if it too had to be created/invented by an entity?
This leads us to an infinite regression.

This is the ultimate paradox. I think that neologist said it best: "What I meant was that, although we function very well according to our perceptions of physical reality, the true reality may be known and viable only to whatever power, entity or force drives the universe."

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Why do folks assume that our perception of space, time and causality is representative of reality?

I personally don't have that assumption. I'm open to the idea that reality may be something that human beings will never be able to grasp.

The fact is that we don't really know what's "out there". Therefore I don't agree when people claim they do know (by saying that god exists and that he created everything, which is a statement of fact).

However, when it comes to Evolution itself, it's a completely different topic that is not as complicated. It may be a bit difficult to visualize and grasp because of the nature of the process (slow and not very noticable in a person's lifetime [the exception being micro organisms]).
As I said before, it's a "local" issue that doesn't require the knowledge and understanding of the "outside world", and there's too much evidence in favor of evolution.

I think we're to proud to even consider to have descended from Monkeys/Apes. How else can one pick a theory with no evidence backup over one that has rock-solid evidence?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know