|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Yeah - Vedic creationism postulates a perpetual cycle of multiple universal creations and dissolutions (and living beings adapted to live on every planet ...)
Without elaborating on that right now, I'll shift gears and just note that the list of scientific skeptics has certainly grown impressively since the first time it was posted on this forum (in the late/great thread - "Alternative Challenges to Evolutionary Theories of Origins" ...)
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| What alternative is there to evolution? Creationism? |
To me it seems obvious that there must have been a creation event at some point, simply because the complexity and incredible design of living things points towards intelligence and planning.
| Quote: |
| If so, how many creations were there? |
I think what you're referring to here is the apparent distinction between different types of creatures in different strata? And that each strata represents a new collection of species and thus "creation"?
Firstly I think there has been plenty of manipulation of data to fit standard evolutionary theory, when it comes to dating rock and placing creatures on a timeline. In many cases palaentologists may be only half aware or fairly unaware of their own bias. The point is they belong to a club, a self-sustaining establishment that approaches all evidence with a certain set of limiting assumptions.
Imagin if they approached evidence with the possibility of a creator-as science always used to do in previous centuries. How different would their conclusions be? The most obvious and logical conclusion would be that the universe appears to have been created with a purpose.
Anyhow, to confuse the situation: I believe there has been a limited amount of a certain type of evolution happening since creation, by which creatures have diversified and changed (to a limited degree).
This much is obvious. We know for example that all the 20-30 species of modern felids must have descended from a single ancestor, because they can all interbreed to a certain extent. No creationist insists that God made Lions and Leopards separately. Its just that they have diverged and formed genetically spearate populations and species via geographic separation and niche exploitation.
But here is the important distinction: no new genetic material has been created in the process. Each species has simply concentrated or re-combined a certain portion of already-existing dna. And the dna of all modern felids was present in the first-created ancestral felid.
This is creationism, and it holds up entirely to the evidence.
What doesn't hold up is the idea that everything developed from an original cell via mutation and selection, gaining masses of new genetic information in the process. That is not what we observe, it is imaginative theory only. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| What alternative is there to evolution? Creationism? If so, how many creations were there? |
Maybe God created all the plants and animals in six days, as the Biblical Creationists would have us believe.
Or maybe we were all shaped from natural selection, as Darwin would have us b elieve.
Or maybe God allowed us to evolve like all other animals, but gave us extra shot of intelligence somewhere along the line, as Alfred Russel Wallace would have us believe.
Or maybe we inherit acquired acquired characteristics, as Lamarck would have us believe.
Or maybe Evolution takes place in intermittent stressful events, as Gould & Eldridge would have us believe.
Or maybe we evolved in a Human Kingdom which is separate from the Animal Kingdom, as the Baha'i Faith would have us believe.
Or different species evolved from different primal ancestors, as Schwabe & Warr would have us believe.
Or maybe God created life in installments, as Cuvier would have us believe.
Or maybe evolved, but in a way completely different from the way described by mainstream science, as L. Ron Hubbard would have us believe.
Or maybe we are all immigrant ET's, as Hoyle & Wickramishinghe would have us believe.
Or maybe God started the whole thing at some unknonw point in time, planting false evidence of earlier times, as Philip Henry Gosse would have us believe.
Or maybe we were always here, as the proponents of Jainism would have us believe.
Or maybe life was not created by an individual, but by a committee, as Richard B. Hoppe would have us believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A lot of maybe's but the evidence doesn't point toward macro-evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| It's an interesting view of science you have there, Junior. In your view, the discovery of more evidence giving a fuller view is somehow seen as a weakness. |
Its significant in that it topples what has been a foundation stone for evolutionist theory-building. |
And that is the beauty of science, we can disprove it, just like Einstein kicked Newton's butt and improved our overall knowledge of the Universe...
But no let's stick to some books written 2.000 odd years ago by storytellers furthering their own believes, with the only claim that the truth was given to them from something we cannot prove exists. Yes, we can also not prove that something doesn't exist, I can give you unlimited examples of what does not exist, purple dragons, spaghetti monsters, zombies, elves, magic, etc ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Juregen wrote: |
| just like Einstein kicked Newton's butt and improved our overall knowledge of the Universe... |
Both of them were creationists.
Einstein:
| Quote: |
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views..
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." |
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Juregen wrote: |
| just like Einstein kicked Newton's butt and improved our overall knowledge of the Universe... |
| Junior wrote: |
| Both of them were creationists. |
So what's your point, that an Evolutionist can't correct another Evolutionist?
Lamarck believed that acquired characteristics can be passed on from generation to generation.
His view is no longer accepted.
Kropotkin believed that songbirds chirp out of merriment, and he used this as an example of cooperative behavior among animals.
It is now believed that songbirds sing in order to stake out their territory.
Konrad Lorenz believed that the the cavemen created the domestic dog by crossing a wolf with a jackal.
It is now believed that a dog is a wolf, plain and simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954
Some creationist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Some creationist. |
He did not believe in a "personal" God (as in one humans can relate to) but he was still a deist.
| Pucciniphile wrote: |
| So what's your point, that an Evolutionist can't correct another Evolutionist? |
My point was that two of the worlds greatest scientists were people who assumed and believed in creation.
Juregen was trying to slam creationism yet he didn't realise that the greatest achieving scientific minds he was referring to were on my side, not his. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| What alternative is there to evolution? Creationism? If so, how many creations were there? |
It's a legit question, and Junior will probably give you an answer from the creationist perspective.
I'll assume by "evolution" you mean the standard idea of Darwinian evolution from an original single-celled organism to the plethora of life we see today. So just limiting ourselves to scientific alternatives by prominent scientists, we see that there are disputes about the standard story. You can check out the theories of Lynn Margulis and the late Stephen Jay Gould, just to name two examples, both of whom reckon that factors besides the Darwinian mechanism (random mutation + natural selection) have had a significant role in the development of life.
It's a mistake, in my opinion, to look at this issue as a simple dichotomy of young earth creationism vs. neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. It's a false choice. It's also an oversimplification of both the religious and scientific perspectives. |
I think there's a difference between arguing the pros and cons of different versions of the theory of evolution and outright denying it. One does not actually have to deny creation to believe in evolution - many Christians subscribe to the view that the universe was created and that evolution ensued in due course, all part of God's plan.
To be clear, what I want to know is how you account for the, as Junior put it, "apparent distinction between different types of creatures in different strata? And that each strata represents a new collection of species and thus "creation"?" if you don't accept evolution, particularly macroevolution. The central question is 'how did we get here?' and, furthermore, if you don't deny the fossil record completely, 'how did all those other collections of animals that used to exist get here too?' Accepting microevolution is really just a hedge that intentionally leaves that question unanswered; nor does saying you have a more sophisticated, nuanced view than those who might literally accept the Genesis story answer it. Evolution gives a coherent answer to the question; do (macro)evolution deniers have any coherent alternative?
The only alternatives I see are either to deny the fossil record in its entirety - not just nitpick at the dates of this fossil here or that fossil there - or embrace the idea of multiple, successive creations. Is there any other, less odd, view? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| My point was that two of the worlds greatest scientists were people who assumed and believed in creation. |
The argument from authority!
Argumentum ad verecundiam!
No argument with a Creationist is complete without it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| I think there's a difference between arguing the pros and cons of different versions of the theory of evolution and outright denying it. |
Evolution is a massive umbrella term that encompasses many different ideas, theories and processes. Its a bit like asking someone if they accept history or geography.
Its a very fluid term. Some people simply define it as "change". To others it is the belief that humans were once apes. Everyone seems to have a different opinion of what it means.
I accept certain segments of the theory but not others. Overall, evolutionism is a deceptive lie, made all the more subtle by the fact that there are elements of truth woven into it.
| Quote: |
To be clear, what I want to know is how you account for the, as Junior put it, "apparent distinction between different types of creatures in different strata? And that each strata represents a new collection of species and thus "creation"?"
The only alternatives I see are either to deny the fossil record in its entirety - not just nitpick at the dates of this fossil here or that fossil there - or embrace the idea of multiple, successive creations. Is there any other, less odd, view? |
There are reasons for this.
Maybe the rock strata were laid down much faster than evolutionists think. Floods are known to deposit masses of silt very quickly. Within hours.
This is also evidenced by the fact that some fossils span several strata (each of which is claimed to represent millions of years).
And the selection and order of creatures buried in the deluge forms a logical order of its own, dependent on what would sink first, what creatures were less mobile, what creatures were most capable of escape, etc.
Some modern species may not be represented in the fossil record simply because they were far less common or widespread previously.
Remember that many modern species are also found alongside ancient species. But then they just get labelled "living fossils" or some other face-saving explanation.
In most cases the rock is dated by the fossils found in it. By virtue of this circular reasoning, nothing is allowed to challenge the evolutionists family tree.
If you find a bunny in the cambrian, they simply say that the rock must not be cambrian.Simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I liked the album better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
