A honest question to all creationists

by bohm 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  HappyGuy

  overwhelming concensus of scientific opinion

  This is the kind of smug, know it all, holier than thou, dishonest statement that I was talking about. Evolution is not supported by an overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion. It IS supported by an overwhelming consensus of opinion by adherents to the church of progress who blindly accept the theory of evolution because they are too cowardly to question it or too simple minded to do their own research and form their own opinions.

  Even if the theory of evolution did have a "consensus" of 'scientific' opinion, that wouldn't make it correct. Einstein said on several occassions that having numerous people advance a wrong idea does not make the idea correct.
• 

  HappyGuy

  A "proud" evolutionist?

  That is an odd thing to say.

  I am a proud mathmaticsist. I am a proud historyist. I am a proud geologyist.

  Makes no sense.
• 

  journey-on

  Science and religion need not be seen as conflicting or mutually exclusive.

  More than one person has recommended this book to me: The Science of God by Gerald L. Schroeder.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  Assuming the bible never talked about evolution or creation. It was completely neutral on the issue. Yet you knew all the arguments you do now both for and against evolution and creation. Would you then believe that the species on earth came about by an evolutionary process, or by creation? Second question: Assuming the bible never mentioned Noahs ark and the global deluge. It was completely neutral on the issue. Yet you knew all the arguments you do now both for and against a global deluge. Would you then believe that there had been a global deluge a couple of thousand years ago?

  bohm, somehow I think you are putting the cart before the horse. The bible supplements evolutionary thinking

  And secondly the bible is the bible because it deals with man's origins and his place - it would not be seen as an authority if didn't, imo.
• 

  agonus

  "...these things are not mysteries at all. They were built by advanced humans who knew far more about a great many things than we do."

  While agnostic on evolution (I'm not a scientist), THAT much we can definitely agree on.

  www.secretsun.blogspot.com
• 

  HappyGuy

  Assuming the bible never mentioned Noahs ark and the global deluge. It was completely neutral on the issue. Yet you knew all the arguments you do now both for and against a global deluge. Would you then believe that there had been a global deluge a couple of thousand years ago?

  LIke I said, I don't believe the bible.

  I have seen evidence that there was a very strange global event in the recent past. No one knows what it was. The evidence is a very thin sediment layer that is completely unlike all the layers both above and below it, found everywhere on earth. Something happened, which was a total aberration, all over the world, at the same time. No one kows what it was. Deluge? Volcanic activity? Huge asteroid?

  Perhaps the global deluge story and the abberation in the sediment layers are related somehow.
• 

  TD

  I do have a problem with the way most people who believe evolution talk to those of us who don't believe it. You act as if evolution is an established fact in the same way that gravity is an established fact. It is not

  HappyGuy,

  With great respect, some of it is probably just miscommunication. Some aspects of evolutionay theory are proven. New species do come into existence via natural process.

  For example Fouquieria burragei is a hexaploid hybrid that sprang into existence in the Baja peninsula from a random crossing between the tetraploid F. diguetii and the diploid F. splendens. It is fertile, unique among this genus in morphology, breeds true in the wild and because of the chromosome number, is separate and distinct, making it a new species. I have one I've cultivated from a cutting growing in my front yard.

  But this is not what most advocates of creation mean when they use the term, "Evolution."

  I try very hard to be respectful and I very much hope I've not offended anybody here. At the same time though, it is so, so frustrating to try to discuss the subject only to find out that the person "debating" you has no real interest in or knowledge of biology anyway.

  This is the kind of smug, know it all, holier than thou, dishonest statement that I was talking about. Evolution is not supported by an overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion

  I can assure you that you cannot attend a lecture in botany (At least) without having the evolutionary relationships of the species under discussion taken as a given from the start.
• 

  HappyGuy

  Agonus' post and my remebering the aberration event that is present in the sediment layers leads me to make a hypothesis about UFOs, the UFOs that cannot be explained away as weather balloons, or gas, or bats, or whatever.

  We know that on several occasions the earth has experienced an extinction level event of the dominant life forms.

  In the recent past, an unknown global event occurred as evidenced in the sediment layers, what this event was no one knows, other than to say that it was global and left a very strange sediment layer which is very thin and totally unlike the sediment layers above and below it. It is a kind of elastic "clay", very strange material, known to earth of course but very strange.

  Perhaps this event was an extinction level event, only humans living at the time predicted the event and evacuated the earth, so humans were not made extinct. And the Noah's ark story is really the story of one evacuation ark which was allowed to return to earth to keep life on earth going and the majority of the evacuees went elsewhere in the galaxy. Of course the 'ark' would have had to have been made of many vessels, perhaps a mother ship and smaller craft.

  So the UFOs are the descendents of our human ancestors. And the Noah's ark story is not so far fetched after all?

  Granted this is a HYPOTHESIS, so please don't try to debate me over this, I don't claim this as fact.
• 

  HappyGuy

  ID,

  your example is not an example of Evolution as I understand its proponents to mean it.

  Two existing species mated and created an offspring which is not sterile. I find that difficult to believe. I will take your word for it. But, that is not evolution the way I understand that term.

  I don't see how your example 'proves' that a species can mutate and poof out pops a new species. Your example is a very different case. I have posed this problem to many people and no one has given me an example where it can be proven that species A mutated and then we had species B.

  "Proving" certain aspects of evolutionary theory as being correct does not make the theory as a whole established fact. And it does not give you the kind of absolutism that evolutionists claim when they dismiss people like me out of hand who believe that there is a First Cause and that there is some sort of underlying design to the material universe.

  I don't believe the Bible creation story. I also do not believe that complex life forms can spring from simple life forms due to the problems inherent in the example I gave about the human eye.
• 

  HappyGuy

  I can assure you that you cannot attend a lecture in botany (At least) without having the evolutionary relationships of the species under discussion taken as a given from the start.

  An unproven "given" being propounded by people who blindly accept the dogma of the church of progress.