Challenge to Creationists

by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty

    So we won't be doing that topic then.

    I think telling someone to 'grow a pair' is insulting and you have done that - Ucant

    Was it you I told to grow a pair? What was the context? Do you have a link? Maybe you needed to grow a pair.

  • DJS


    I think they were mistaking you for me. I resemble that remark.

  • Ucantnome

    I believe it is an insult that questioned my masculinity and had nothing to do with ridiculing belief

  • cofty

    I confess - I did it. Two years ago.

    It was on the big tsunami thread. Ucant spent pages preaching about his loving god and fellow christians but refused to address the question about why his god drowned a quarter of a million men, women and children. After multiple attempts to get him to deal with the actual topic of the thread I said...

    "Grow a pair and deal with the question.

    Your evasion speaks volumes about christian faith."

    As I said above context is everything. It was not an insult is was a valid observation about moral cowardice.

  • Ucantnome

    I didn't spend pages preaching I made a comment and you wanted more. I declined for good reason and you talked about moral cowardice and then insulted me

  • Sanchy

    I'm agnostic and do not pretend to have the ability nor the knowledge to prove for the existence of a creator. Having said that, here are my two cents:

    -Can one currently actually present certain proof as to whether a creator exists (or existed) or not? If not, it would be wise for all here to avoid a dogmatic attitude (like the humble and discreet GB cough, cough)

    -One of the fundamental reasons (knowingly or unknowingly) for many having faith (and it must be faith due to reasons outlined in my first point) in a creator sparking and guiding the biological processes is based IMO on the second law of thermodynamics, aka "entropy". In a universe with ever increasing entropy, what caused a reverse to occur in allowing for an ever increasing order in the biological chain, leading to the existence of ever more ordered and complex organisms? A fundamental law that we all have engraved in our human conscience of "disorder not leading to order" is inherently broken if one accepts that no "order" existed before current "order" as exists now. (of course there's the whole close and open system explanation, but that one does not completely convince me for various reasons)

    -Does this disprove evolution? Not really. In fact, its quite clear that evolution has led to the seemingly infinite variety of species we see today. Even JWs believe in a form of evolution as stated in an earlier post. However, how do we reconcile the theory with the possibility of a creator? and..does the account of Genesis contradict the evolutionary theory in its entirety?

  • cofty

    Hi Sanchy welcome to the conversation.

    Can one currently actually present certain proof as to whether a creator exists (or existed) or not?


    To be pedantic the word proof belongs to mathematics. In every other area of life we make judgements based on the balance of evidence. We can show beyond all reasonable doubt that every living thing evolved from a common ancestor. The evidence is overwhelming.

    Remember too that the burden of proof is on creationists. Positing an intelligent creator is an extravagant claim that demands extraordinary evidence.

    the second law of thermodynamics

    This is one of the most common objections to evolution. It is based on a simple misunderstanding. Entropy will decrease in a closed system.

    Take a look at this article about the work of physicist Jeremy England who argues that from the perspective of the laws of physics the emergence of life is inevitable - "as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

    does the account of Genesis contradict the evolutionary theory?

    There is a position known as "theistic evolution" that is scientifically and intellectually reasonable. It is the sort of position advocated by Francis Collins and Ken Miller. the latter wrote the book "Finding Darwin's God". The key to theistic evolution is that you are not allowed EVER to insert god to help evolution over any difficult hurdles. It posits that god set the starting conditions and has not tinkered since then. It accepts that there are naturalistic answers to every question in the history of life. It is not the same as Deism as it believes fully in an immanent theistic god. The usual arguments from design or complexity are not an option for theistic evolution.

    Apart from that every other attempt to reconcile creation and evolution turns out to be bad theology and even worse science.

  • cantleave

    The Earth is not a closed system so the 2nd Law is irrelevant

  • Sanchy

    The evidence is overwhelming

    Its true Cofty that the evidence to certain evolutionary processes leading to variety in species as exist today is "overwhelming". However, the evidence as to what sparked or started this process is lacking and indeed open to many theories and interpretations .

    Remember too that the burden of proof is on creationists

    Although I agree that the burden to prove a creator falls upon creationists (an admitted seemingly impossible feat as I mentioned previously) it can also be said the burden to prove life can come from inanity also falls upon non-believers. Many ideas and theories and experiments have thus far been concocted, however the concept remains not fully proven.

    Entropy will decrease in a closed system.

    Exactly... it will slow down per se in closed systems; however, it seems to my humble mind that it has not slowed, but rather done a 180 and gone backwards within our supposed closed system to the point of reversing itself and creating order beyond any order existent in our known universe. The good ol' "a watch will not create itself" analogy comes to play.

    Having said this, I will read the link you sent me, it looks interesting. Thanks for that.
  • Vidqun

    Let’s first look at the autogenous hypothesis: Specialized internal membranes that derived from a procaryotic plasma membrane evolved into organelles characteristic of euchariotic cells. The nuclear envelope, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi complex and organelles bounded by single membranes evolved this way.

    Don’t you see a problem with this hypothesis? A very rudimentary, basic structure (plasmamembrane) turns into a highly complex structure, then differentiates into unique, specialized organelles. This is contrary to nature and cannot be demonstrated.

    Now for the endosymbiotic hypothesis: This seems to be Cantleave’s first choice. This hypothesis proposes that forerunners of eucaryotic cells were associations of small, symbiotic procaryotic cells living within larger procaryotic cells. The focus here is mainly on the origin of chloroplasts and mitochondria. Chloroplasts are believed to be descendants of photosynthetic procaryotes. The proposed ancestors of mitochondria are believed to have been oxygen-requiring heterotrophic bacteria (heterotrophs obtain food by eating other organisms or their byproducts). It has been suggested that photosynthetic procaryotes and oxygen-requiring heterotrophs gained entry into the large procaryotic cell as undigested prey or internal parasites.

    In the case of invagination of food, it would be stored as an inclusion or it would by broken down by enzymes. The organism is not normally assimilated into the predatory cell. What about the notion of internal parasites? These do not get assimilated into the host either. They live off the host but does not become part of the host.

    Some questions: 1) How did these get past the capsule, cell wall and cytoplasmic membrane? 2) How did they survive inside the host long enough for them to be assimilated by the host? Again this is contrary to nature. 3) We cannot demonstrate the process in a lab in favourable conditions. What are the chances of this process taking place in unfavorable conditions outside?

    Cantleave poses the question: Why would two systems of reproduction occur within a single cell unless these organelles have a different ancestry from the nucleus? Your answer is: Different organisms were assimilated into a single organism. I answer, because they were designed that way.

Share this