Religions > Atheism > Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iainpenis angled at 100 degrees" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2005 10:11:06 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
Pyroclastic wrote:
view, an emphisis on christian
WHY I OBJECT TO BIBLICAL CREATIONISM: It is malinspired, incorrect, and
useless.
1. It is MALINSPIRED, because the theory of evolution is correct:
a. It is a proven fact than life adapts to it's environment over
numerous generations.
b: Even without ANY fossil record, it is a hypothetical fact that
complex life can be forged naturally by environmental pressures of
millions of generations of an population of molecular replicators, and
that is it quite probable.
c: With point B in mind, the fossil record can be traced and compared
to environmental dynamics throughout the Earth's history -- and has,
very thoroughly.
2. It is INCORRECT: The Earth is not 6000 years old, this is quite
clear. Mankind's ancestors are not a single couple of Homo Sapiens
called Adam and Eve, because the number of generations doesn't match
migration patterns at all. The sky is not a former part of the sea,
although to a guesser, it might look like it(they meet in the horizon),
implying that biblical creationism is an elaborate wild guess evolved
from earlier creation myths, refined over centuries into folklore, and
finally, literature.
3. It is USELESS: Much has been gained from our knowledge of evolution
and in fact, it is actually so proven that if you chose to ignore it,
much of what we know about biology would become inexplicable once
more(even by creationism). "You can't take the benefits of science -
medicine, technology, chemistry, etc. - then deny results the same
methodology leads to, like evolution. It's a package deal." -- Bob
Dog.
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
06 Feb 2005 07:06:29 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:56:00 +1100, (John Wilkins) wrote:
<cubist@aol.com> wrote:
Hiero5ant wrote:
"Mark Isaak" <eciton@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in message
news:suaa019lltl4lpgt1tg2ppdcfdtom4me47@4ax.com...
On 4 Feb 2005 23:55:42 -0800, wrote:
Not as much as *I* am! I was born about 10,000 years ago, and there
ain't nothing in this world that I don't know. I saw Peter, Paul and
Moses playing ring-around-the-roses, and I can whup the guy who says it
isn't so.
You're not a Tom Waits fan, by any chance?
Val Doonican, more like
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Cates" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
06 Feb 2005 09:43:50 AM |
|
|
On 6 Feb 2005 02:20:03 -0800, wrote:
Hiero5ant wrote:
"Mark Isaak" <eciton@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote in message
news:suaa019lltl4lpgt1tg2ppdcfdtom4me47@4ax.com...
On 4 Feb 2005 23:55:42 -0800, wrote:
Oh yeah, I'm curious as to how many of you have actually studied
the
Bible beyond a surface level? If you haven't studied it in at least
a
college level course, then you haven't studied the Bible as much as
I
have studied Evolution, and probably shouldn't be making claims
about
something you have no real knowledge of.
Well, I have read the entire Bible. Also the Apocrypha, Koran,
Enuma
Elish, Gilgamesh epic, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Zend Avesta,
Kalevala, Prose Edda, Mabinogi, Iliad, Odyssey, Hesiod's Theogeny,
Shah Nama, Rig Veda, Mahabharata, Ramayana, various Upanishads,
Kojiki, Kumulipau, Popol Vuh, Huarochiri Manuscript, Mwindo Epic,
and
creation myths from at least a hundred additional cultures. So I
consider myself qualified to discuss creationism. Are you
qualified?
"Well, I attended Julliard, I'm a graduate of the Harvard Business
School,
I travel quite extensively, I lived through the Black Plague and I
had a
pretty good time during that, I've seen The Exorcist 167 times and it
keeps
gettin funnier every single time I see it, not to mention the fact
that
you're talking to a dead guy!!! Now whatta you think? Do you think
I'm
qualified?"
Not as much as *I* am! I was born about 10,000 years ago, and there
ain't nothing in this world that I don't know. I saw Peter, Paul and
Moses playing ring-around-the-roses, and I can whup the guy who says it
isn't so.
I'm just a lonesome traveller, the great historical bum. Highly
educated, through history I have come. I built the Rock of Ages, it
was in the year of one. And that's about the greatest thing that man
has ever done.
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Chez Watt Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
05 Feb 2005 02:37:44 AM |
|
|
This from the guy who defines "Microevolution (adaptation
caused by Natural Selection), and Macroevolution (new species)"
Oh yeah, I'm curious as to how many of you have actually studied the
Bible beyond a surface level? If you haven't studied it in at least a
college level course, then you haven't studied the Bible as much as I
have studied Evolution, and probably shouldn't be making claims about
something you have no real knowledge of.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Fiat lunch!
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Chez Watt Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object toin creationisim? |
14 Feb 2005 12:43:12 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
This from the guy who defines "Microevolution (adaptation
caused by Natural Selection), and Macroevolution (new species)"
Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
Oh yeah, I'm curious as to how many of you have actually studied the
Bible beyond a surface level? If you haven't studied it in at least a
college level course, then you haven't studied the Bible as much as I
have studied Evolution, and probably shouldn't be making claims about
something you have no real knowledge of.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
03 Feb 2005 04:58:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it. Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance. By definition a Hypothetical claim
is something that is unproven.
Well, as you snipped the sentance in question, we can't see the context
Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists
ascribe to a 10,000 year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth. The
Bible itself traces time back to beyond 6000 years (2000 years after
Christ, and at least 5000 years before him).
Most? 60%, 80%?
Forthly your point about
it being useless is moot, the Bible was not written to explain where we
came from... it does that... but that wasn't the purpose.
The question was not why do people object to the bible, it was why do
they object ot creationism
The simple
fact is that your arguments are not well laid out, and even if they
were well laid out they are not valid.
I suspect they were
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
03 Feb 2005 12:25:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it. Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance. By definition a Hypothetical claim
is something that is unproven. Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists
ascribe to a 10,000 year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth. The
Bible itself traces time back to beyond 6000 years (2000 years after
Christ, and at least 5000 years before him). Forthly your point about
it being useless is moot, the Bible was not written to explain where we
came from... it does that... but that wasn't the purpose. The simple
fact is that your arguments are not well laid out, and even if they
were well laid out they are not valid.
You might gain something from the penultimate paragraph below. You might!
.....The bible is a religious book, possibly over 2000 years old,
translated dozens of times, made up from early parchments, the safe
keeping and the accuracy of which, when taken over thousands of years,
must be treated with extreme scepticism.
Printing of books and bibles for general distribution did not start until
six hundred years ago, before that religious documents were translated and
hand written
by scribes and monks who added or subtracted whatever suited them, either
on ethical or religious grounds, or for purely personal gratification, or
under pressure from the warlord of the time who used religion and the fear
of it's god to subjugate the population in the absence of rule of law. We
humans do that, you know.
Only in religious books do we read about miracles. The bible projects
it's own set of beliefs; therefore quoting from this same book to justify
what is already in it is painfully ridiculous.
It could be said that the bible is not a revelation, but a mental trap
Bob
Humanist Brit.
Hong Kong
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
07 Feb 2005 09:41:06 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:25:50 +0800, bob young
<alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
Bob
Humanist Brit.
Hong Kong
Happy New Year, Bob! (I know I'm a day or so early)
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
03 Feb 2005 04:59:31 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance.
That looks like a sentance to me, but according to you, the two words do
not belong in the same sentance
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
02 Feb 2005 03:50:19 PM |
|
|
In article <1107379617.286706.221940
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, said...
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN,
It's as 'proven' as any other science you care to name. (Hint:
The contradiction between evolutionary theories and a narrow
interpretation of Genesis does not of itself cast doubt on the
scientific worth of those theories.)
because according to scientific rules and methodology
you MUST be able to reproduce something to prove it.
Right. To prove that a particular river cut a particular gorge,
we must rebuild the mountain and recarve the canyon. Quite
sensible.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
02 Feb 2005 11:20:59 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6b1526bda8717c98974e@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <1107379617.286706.221940
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, said...
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN,
It's as 'proven' as any other science you care to name. (Hint:
The contradiction between evolutionary theories and a narrow
interpretation of Genesis does not of itself cast doubt on the
scientific worth of those theories.)
because according to scientific rules and methodology
you MUST be able to reproduce something to prove it.
Right. To prove that a particular river cut a particular gorge,
we must rebuild the mountain and recarve the canyon. Quite
sensible.
There's an even simpler _reductio ad absurdam_. To prove that a particular
suspect murdered a particular victim, we must get him to murder the victim
all over again. To prove that an aircraft cash had a certain cause, we have
to crash it all over again. This principle would make forensic
investigations so much more interesting.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
02 Feb 2005 04:22:47 PM |
|
|
In article <1107379617.286706.221940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> writes:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
Well, that definition briskly tosses out much of geology,
in particular vulcanology, seismology, and paleontology;
virtually all of astronomy and cosmology, great
swathes of anthropology, much of the interesting
material of linguistics ...
[posters should feel free to expand upon this embryonic list]
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iainpenis angled at 100 degrees" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
03 Feb 2005 07:31:15 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1107379617.286706.221940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
T.Arsenal@gmail.com writes:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according
to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
Well, that definition briskly tosses out much of geology,
in particular vulcanology, seismology, and paleontology;
virtually all of astronomy and cosmology, great
swathes of anthropology, much of the interesting
material of linguistics ...
[posters should feel free to expand upon this embryonic list]
Forensics, paleobotony.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rump Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
05 Feb 2005 01:19:51 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1107379617.286706.221940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
T.Arsenal@gmail.com writes:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according
to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
Well, that definition briskly tosses out much of geology,
in particular vulcanology, seismology, and paleontology;
virtually all of astronomy and cosmology, great
swathes of anthropology, much of the interesting
material of linguistics ...
[posters should feel free to expand upon this embryonic list]
History..........
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
02 Feb 2005 07:51:30 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2005 13:26:57 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN
As much as any observation can be considered proven, evolution is
proven. Allele frequencies DO change in a breeding population over
time - there's no question about that.
because according to scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
Sorry, no, science doesn't abide by your rules.
Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance.
Evolution is a fact - there's nothing hypothetical about it.
Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists
ascribe to a 10,000 year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth.
The error, compared to the real age of the Earth, 4.5 billion years,
is just about the same.
The simple
fact is that your arguments are not well laid out, and even if they
were well laid out they are not valid.
Yes, that's true - about YOUR arguments.
--
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
02 Feb 2005 03:50:27 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2005 13:26:57 -0800, wrote:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
Science doesn't prove anything.
Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance.
Yes they do. A hypothesis is the first stage of explaining observed
facts.
By definition a Hypothetical claim is something that is unproven.
Correct.
Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists ascribe to a 10,000 year old
earth, not a 6000 year old earth.
They are new earth creationists. They have never presented a
scientific theory. And 10,000 years for the age of the earth is
neither scientific nor biblical
The
Bible itself traces time back to beyond 6000 years (2000 years after
Christ, and at least 5000 years before him).
5,000 at a maximum according to genealogies - more like 4000.
William
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: What exactly is it that evolutionists object to in creationisim? |
02 Feb 2005 04:16:50 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2005 13:26:57 -0800, wrote:
First of all, you cannot call Evolution PROVEN, because according to
scientific rules and methodology you MUST be able to reproduce
something to prove it.
which can be done with evolution. bacterial resistance is evolution.
Second of all, the words Hypothetical and Fact
do not belong in the same sentance. By definition a Hypothetical claim
is something that is unproven. Thirdly, most "new earth" theorists
ascribe to a 10,000 year old earth, not a 6000 year old earth.
wow. big difference between that and the scientific evaluation of 4.5B
years.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution?
Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution?
Re: What, exactly, is it that creationists object to in evolution?
1. CAN YOU FIND A MORE EXCELLENT OBJECT FOR YOUR LOVE THAN JESUS? If you search through the whole creation, could you find any like him? Are riches, honors, pleasures, or other relationships comparable to Jesus, whom you ought to love supremely? Shou
George Berkeley: What allows an idea to represent a material object?
"Pledge fight to return to S.F. courtroom; Atheists object to 'under God' phrase"
Parents object to newborn tests because of religion
Object off Alaska coast may be WWII sub Family of USS Grunion commander undertake undersea investigation
| Which Celestial Object is It?
Family Members Object to Rosa Parks' Will
NEWS FLASH: Pussies object to vagina!
Massachusetts Democrats Object to Stem Cell Research Ban
As shyly as Ramzi blesses, you can object the socialism much more never.
Liberalism Is A Real Mental Disorder. ==> CRIMINAL Aliens Object to Being Called ILLEGAL
OT: What is this mechancial object
|
|
|
