How to Argue for Creationism

by cofty 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Old Navy
    Old Navy

    Quote from James Mixon:

    Evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys, it states that both have a common ancestor.

    Interesting thought. Is this similar to the "chicken or the egg" enigma?

    Quote from ScratchMe 1010:

    10. making some kind of remark about something that will be happening "soon" where non-believers will be _______ (destroyed, proven wrong, disappointed, humiliated, gone to hell, whatever other nonsense), and they will be vindicated and rewarded for being right all along.

    Hmmm. That definitely rings of WTBorg Cult Inc. indoctrination mind-dirtying. Being wrong about something isn't necessarily a bad thing; unless it stimulates bad behaviors. Being right about something isn't a big deal; certainly not worthy of any "reward" or elevated status. Judgment shouldn't play any part in the critical thinking process of evidence evaluation. But "man" does it anyway. Ego and all that. Which raises another question...

  • Old Navy
    Old Navy

    Quote from Cofty:

    What a strange old sailor you are.

    That seems to be a common trait amongst those of us who lack the Rh factor. But we bumble along anyway, eventually getting to where it was that we were headed.

  • WhatshallIcallmyself

    "Interesting thought. Is this similar to the "chicken or the egg" enigma?" - O.N.

    No. 'Monkeys' were around long before Humans. The common ancestor of both existed long before that.

    " is Creation [obvious] to those who comprehend." - O.N.

    Have you seen creatures pop into existence? Has god popped down and shown you how it is done? If not, you have no way of comprehending any such thing. All you have done is shown that you think that because something is 'complex' in your mind then your favourite god must have made it for....reasons...

  • venus
    WhatshallIcallmyself, You say: 'Just because something is complex creationists introduce God.'
    No, it's a matter of vision--limited or higher.

    One says: Matter created life,

    The other says God created life …what is the difference?

    Creationism says “From the more comes the less,” and evolutionism says “from the less comes the more” [as implied by Natural Selection which is “the process ultimately capable of generating complexity out of simplicity,” God Delusion, Richard Dawkins] Thus both agree that something comes from something—a fact that can have no beginning or an end.

  • venus

    The way of the nature is such that it can be interpreted in both the ways—either in favor of evolution or creation. That is why we find scientists from all avenues belonging to both the groups—evolution and creation.

  • cofty
    One says: Matter created life - Venus

    No they don't. There was no agency involved.

    The other says God created life …what is the difference?

    Again - there was no agency involved. They could hardly be more different.

    The way of the nature is such that it can be interpreted in both the ways—either in favor of evolution or creation.

    No it can't. Evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt supported by mountains of evidence published in millions of peer-reviewed publications. Creationism is superstitious myth supported by absolutely nothing.

    we find scientists from all avenues belonging to both the groups—evolution and creation

    Although one might think that being a biologist or geologist or astronomer is required to prove a recent creation or intelligent design, creationists apparently disagree, as the list includes numerous of the following:

    • mathematicians and statisticians — fields consisting almost entirely of a priori reasoning rather than scientific observation
    • assorted medical professionals, including dentists, veterinarians and plastic surgeons
    • engineers
    • and even a couple of philosophers.

    A large percentage of those signatories who do have a research record are retired.

    Three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology. The number of biologists actively researching biological issues even remotely related to evolution can be counted on one hand.

    Some of the listed scientists are academics, almost all at evangelical Christian universities.

    Even the actual scientists frequently work in fields completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

  • venus

    A survey taken by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in May and June of this year and reported by David Masci in the Los Angeles Times, found that 51% do believe in God and 41% do not. These numbers haven’t changed much over the last 100 years either, despite the numerous discoveries in evolution and biochemistry over the years.

    The same poll found that 41% of chemists believe in God while scientists in the fields of biology and medicine were much less likely to believe in God (32%).

  • cofty

    Belief in God is totally unrelated to the fact of evolution. Once again you are off-topic.

  • venus

    No, evolution and creation both are a matter of faith.

    Scientist is a role he assumes later in his life because of his interest and corresponding studies he pursues. However, primarily a scientist is a human being with his likes and dislikes, or even prejudice—as symbolized by James D Watson, whose co-discovery in 1953 of the structure of DNA is one of the landmarks of 20th-century biological science. Yet he had to put his Nobel Prize medallion up for auction because he publicly aired his prejudice which obviously went against his own discovery. In other words, he wanted to believe what he liked to believe! (

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    Old Navy

    "As in Mathematics, where certain relationships and identities are "obvious,""

    as in 2+2=5.

    That's not the Mathematics of Newton or Einstein. That's the math from .. what is it?... almost there...yes... from Oceania.

Share this