Why the Christian/Judeo/Islamic God?

Of course it hasn't. Do you not even understand the timescale upon which evolution is supposed to operate? Mankind as we know it hasn't even existed long enough to guarantee witnessing of evolution! There is some evidence in, for example, the hoatzin, which is "the only member of the genus Opisthocomus [...] which in turn is the only extant genus in the family Opisthocomidae." (from Wikipedia). I would see this as evidence that "kinds", as I would interpret that word, aren't just placed as is on the Earth. Why "Create" a dead end? Or, to put it another way, why not Create more dead ends? If "kinds" simply appeared, why are so many so similar?

I doubt I'll persuade you that this even implies evolution since you're so set against it. But OK, let's flip this: how about you offer some evidence of creation? Because so far the only "evidence" you seem interested in providing is the casting of doubt over the theory of evolution. That wouldn't be evidence in favour of creation even if evolution and creation were the only two possibilities, and since they aren't, I think we need a little more than "I haven't seen proof of evolution so it must be creation!!!!!!!" please.

 

Also:

Citation please?

 

Also also, you CAN see evolution in action, in a little show called Pokémon.

 

Evidence of creation? Very good. Intelligent design seen in every thing, big or small. From a molecule to the human organism.
How does it give evidence of creation? Well, we've never seen "intelligence" without an intelligent creature; no intelligence without consciousness. This is duplicated in us humans, so we ourselves are best examples how things are first designed and then created. Some scientists were as "naive" ( but I call it reasonable) as to say: such thing as computer needed a designer to design it; how much more so a far more complex thing as human brain could not appear without a designer.
In "wild nature" things don't "just happen"; they are all subject to complicated laws, partly known to us, partly still unknown. But the more we learn about all these laws, the more we marvel at this "wisdom". Now WHOSE wisdom is it? Intelligent energy? But we know, "intelligent energy" means intelligent creature directing energy in a wise and crafty way.
...Birds' migration and other complex behavior called "instinct" looks much like a cunning program flashed into their brains. It wasn't birds themselves, who obtained that program. It was some intelligent creature, who created the bodies of birds along with this "program", which would define the limits of their lives, and also fill it with "meaning". This creature obviously knew, which creature would play which role in what we call today "ecosystem".
Another, very well known fundamental law: any machine or system, when left unattended, gradually deteriorates and breaks down sooner or later. But our universe does not! Our earth would not, if it wasn't for men and their conscious activities. Even human pollution meets strong resistance of the ecosystems. Now who is looking after our universe that it doesn't fall apart?
... Of course, all this seems too simple to some. But who told that truth must be complicated? I think I heard the opposite...

 

That's a pretty weak argument, dude.

Any creation leaves an impression. You dig a hole, it looks different from a hole that was made by a meteor, or one warn by weather. We can see the evidence left by its creation.

Nothing is created spontaneously. That truly would defy every physical law. A watch implies a watchmaker, but nowhere in that does a watchmaker imply a god. A watchmaker is an artisan, not a miracle worker.

So yeah, basically that's not good enough. Simply stating how things are doesn't evidence that they came to be the way you say they did. Sorry, kitten.

 

Dear Hoatzin. It's a pleasure to exchange views with another person, especially with one having a different opinion. So, I'd be very thankful if you took trouble to tell me, which of my arguments you consider to be weak, and why. In the above post of yours I don't find any disprove to any of my "weak" arguments.
You see, I bothered to bring out a number of facts, each of them worth attention in my opinion, and when taken together they may even be conclusive to some students. To others, like you, they may look "insufficient" and "weak"; well, that's just normal. But again, it would be fine to hear your opinion on the subject. If it should be criticism of my arguments -- ok, but then it should be well founded criticism.

"Simply stating how things are" is a starting point of every serious study. In case of "evolution vs creation" issue it tells much. Our present can tell and does tell us much about the past -- you are powerless to disprove this common fact.
...Another reason in favour of creation I want to mention, is its superiority over evolution in that, as an explanation of the present and past, of the Ultimate Cause of all things, it gives a precise and exact answer, which explains everything. If you forget for a moment your resentment of creation, you'll be prompted to admit, that as a scientific explanation of events and facts, otherwise unexplained, creation is as simple an explanation, as it is universal. And no need to resort to "magic" in such case: "magic" will be just some powers and properties , for some reasons yet unknown to us.

...However, I'm not so unreasonably optimistic, as to think, that something convincing to me will necessarily convince everyone. Furthermore, as is seen in the situation with the evolution teaching, one can be faithful to a certain view simply for his personal motives, which go beyond scientific discussion. This is nothing new and quite within personal freedoms of conscience. My interest here is just to hear some new arguments in favor of alternative opinions. Just tell me why you so strongly believe in the possibility of evolution, and also why the reasons in favor of creation don't seem good enough to you.
One reason you already mentioned: you are sceptical about "petitioning empty sky". I guess, you may have seen many people addressing their prayers to God above, and that without any visible result. Well, that may only show, that they don't know much about God, his ways and the help he provides for us humans in case we pray him. And still, there are many, who'd happily tell you, how much God has done for them in responce to their prayers.
If you have your personal questions to God, then you need your personal study of His Word and you need to build your personal relationship with Him. That worked for millions before you, it may work for you as well.

 

Yeah, I so can't be bothered with this, really. You'll believe whatever you want to and you'll believe that it's proven scientifically if you want to. You're not offering anything more than rhetoric, you're not offering any evidence that what you're saying is true, you're just saying that it's an obvious explanation, not even saying why it's so obvious. I was always told to interrogate the falsely obvious, but I doubt I'll persuade you. You believe so much that is unproven and unprovable, and I wouldn't care if you weren't arguing against something that is disprovable.

That's something I'd ask, actually. Are you proposing a model for creation which could ever be proved wrong? As in, regardless of whether you believe it, would there be any evidence that you could ever imagine that would disprove it? Because if God Himself turned up and made a bunch of new species before our very eyes, those of us who support evolution as a theory would have to admit defeat. Would anything have the same effect on you and creation? Not saying that this means you're wrong, but it does mean that no-one has to attempt to disprove your theory.

So yeah, basically you can win. I don't have as much time to waste on this as you do so you win, okay? Creation is totally proven scientifically as a result of me not being arsed to disprove it. Evolution is bunk for a similar reason; I'm tired and lazy and can't be bothered to spend yet another post arguing for it, only to have my case politely declined without any real explanation.

Enjoy your victory, you've earned it. Blessed are the meek, etc.

 

Thank you for bothering to reply anyway.

A fish evolving into a "higher" species with all intermediate forms presented -- that could be viewed as proof of evolution. Or another similar, but clear case of evolution would do.

And yes, I do have as much time as it takes to spend to make sure about things, that effect my view of my life and that of others, view of our future and our past, what is more important -- of our present and very near future.
...We spend a lot of money and effort to make sure we look ok. We make sure to have some material provisions for the future -- actually, we spend 8 hours of our waking time for it almost every day! Some 3 hours for taking food -- and that's about it! But those questions above have more impact on the quality and contents of our life. After all, almost everyone agrees, that "money's not everything". Don't you see an inconsistence?

I appreciate your principle to question false obvious, i do the same. But what do you do , when you find there was more to it, than just "false obvious"?

 

How could you ever be presented with that though? The odds against it are astronomical.

I'll admit evolution isn't proven, but it's at least disprovable. I'm not convinced that you'd ever be happy with evolution. You've already denounced it for being depressing, long before you decided I need to explain the factual aspects of it.

I would say that the "kinds" of animals we have now probably have grown from common ancestors. So many animals have similar qualities but aren't compatible. It's hard to imagine that a wildcat and a domestic cat aren't related, yet they have very limited success in propagating together. I would suggest that, in a million years time, you'd have very different species, that couldn't mate at all.

I can't prove it, but I don't think there's any proof that one species can't evolve into two different "kinds" as you put it. No-one can prove a negative as you know, so it's foolish to call it impossible really.

Not really. No-one really benefits from philosophising, because before you embark on it, you have no idea what you're missing!

What do you mean, what do I do?

It's not really about being "more than" just the false obvious. Barthes is more talking about received wisdoms, things which we learn are related or assume are "common sense", so much so that we rarely bother to check. It's "common sense" to many that immigration = crime, but it's not true. So many people won't be persuaded by any amount of evidence because of good ol' common sense.

So no, it's not a case of there being "more to it". It's a case of what was obvious either being true or not, whether two things correlate, and if they do whether a causal effect can be identified. So, in this case, I think it is "falsely obvious" that a world implies a world-maker, just because a watch implies a watch-maker.

 

aguest you should find some information on speciation and then get back to us.

 

How did this turn into a creation/ID versus Evolution debate?

I think the watchmaker is best used for a Evolutionary creationist. When someone uses the watchmaker arguement, I can't see it, as you pointed out, to say that something came from nothing...that all animals and plants and fungi and etc were created by a guy tinkering with a watch. What I could see it as explaining is how life was first formed from abiotic molecules. Yes, it even could have happened naturally, but at least this way the watchmaker didn't pull things from his butt to create life, he "breathed" life into "dust".

 

I'm not saying creation couldn't have happened. But it's totally unprovable. Anything you find that seems to prove anything can just have been created to look that way (see the Biblical literalist's explanation of dinosaur fossils; apparently God/Satan put them there 6000 years ago and made them look millions of years old JUST TO FUCK WITH/TEST US).

But yeah, the watchmaker thing mainly ignores the insistence by just as many that God's motivations aren't like humans (except when they are). And it always reminds me of the old saying "Science attracts analogies the way statues attract pigeons". Extend that metaphor as far as you want, really.

 

Oh it won't take long. As per evolution, species developed from one another. Amoebas and the like, which then evolved into more "sophisticated " things -- as you no doubt heard at school.;-) The author of it Charles Darwin "foretold" there would be abundant evidence thereof in the fossils. That is, an abundance of remains of intermediate species: kind of half-fish half-reptile, half-quadruped half-bird and the like. But there were and still are none. As years passed, he was much disturbed over the complete lack of such evidence. Of course, not so much as to abandon his much beloved theory.
...They used to think archaeopteryx was such species -- a bird with some characteristics of mamals; now it is clear archaeopteryx is a bird, although very different from modern birds. They used to think coelacanth was such half-fish. But it is still a fish after all, not half-reptile. So, these two could serve as evidence if taken in a long row of many other similar cases. But there are none to put in a row.
As per Bible, "God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living thing that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good." -- Genesis 1:21 -- Notice, too, it said :"God got to see it was good". It was good enough from God's viewpoint. So, no evolution was needed to develop these into more advanced things.
Then God proceeded to create other kinds of creatures:
"24And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25 And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good." As with birds and fishes, they were created "according to their kind".

Nevertheless, strange as it may sound to you, I am interested in seeing the factual aspects. I believe in God and the Bible, so I'm much interested in what facts people can present against it. You know, I once didn't believe in these. But then I received convincing evidence; however, I don't want to turn fanatic, as we humans have an unfortunate tendency.
I read recently an article, highlighting a rather original concept, that would "make evolution work". The idea was, that the intelligent agent, directing evolution, was energy itself. Energy, which modern physics view "as foundation of everything", has (per that theory) such properties to it -- intelligence and evolution. This intelligent energy , therefore, encouraged molecules to unite into proteins and so forth. ...
...Well, that would be cool, you know! I would love to believe in something like this: we humans then could learn to use this aspect of energy, as we learned to use different "types" of energy for our needs. For example, there would be no need for modernization as we know it today, which takes a lot of designer work and headaches; instead, we could harness, amplify and direct the evolving influence of energy to create the fittest models of devices, starting from some basic outline. Or I don't know what else. I'd love to believe in it -- but there is no substantial proof to intelligent energy, I'm afraid. When you see any "intelligent" energy, you deduce that it is, most likely, some intelligent creature using energy for his/her immediate needs.
You must forgive my scepticism in this regard: there's been a good deal of mischief and manipulation about supernatural things. But wise man learns his lesson.

 

Actually it's widely believed that the archaeopteryx is evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, so reptiles, rather than mammals. I'm interested though; you say that "it is now clear". Can I ask why that is so clear to you? And similarly "but it is still a fish after all"; what are you basing that on? You've managed to cite the Bible, maybe you could cite your other sources?

I assume, incidentally, that you are aware that "an abundance of intermediate species" was never very likely, given the time frame. We based our understanding of dinosaurs on the very few specimens that died in the right way to be preserved over hundreds of millions of years for us to observe them. There may be thousands of species from those periods that just never got fossilised, just as the few specimens we have of a T-Rex or a stegosaur or whatever could well be complex flukes, not resembling their fellows at all. It's unlikely, but possible.

Not saying that proves anything, just throwing it out there. The absence of an abundance of intermediate species is actually totally inconclusive.

As well as being incredibly skeptical of anyone throwing around the word "energy" as you are, I have to call you on this; pretty much all the "types of energy" are actually one and the same. They are perceived as heat, light, sound, etc. by our senses, but they have the same origin in physics.

As for "intelligent energy", I have no idea, and neither do you. How do you think you have become aware of it?

 

Archaeopteryx, according to all its visible characteristics, is a bird. Although, a very special bird. Enough to know basics of biology to make this conclusion. The same is true about coelacanth. The former cannot be found alive today; the latter is live species. So it is no problem to see, that it is a very-very old, but fish. What interested scientists was very special shape of its fins, reminding human palm. Nevertheless, it is still a fin and a fish. It isn't a fish with a palm! And Archaeopteryx is not a dinasaur with beak and birds' wings. It is a bird, although similar to other creatures of its time period.
I mean, there is generally a lot of similarity between different species even without those two. Compare skeleton and general anatomy of all creatures living today -- you will find no less similarity between them, than there is in those mentioned above. In that regard they are NOTHING OUTSTANDING. My conclusion is: those two persent NO MORE evidence of evolution, than the rest of those known to us hundreds of millions forms of life, living today.

I know you will again recall my dead adherence to my line of reasoning. But hey, what is science after all? What is it, if not a hard work to find system and consistency in the experimental materials and known facts?
Facts are known to me just as they are to you, they are available to the public today through internet, books etc.; but what is left up to us, and in that regard we are equal with scientists, is this hard work to find system and consistency and chain of conclusions, which would in the end shed light on things and show us the picture of truth, as it is. No need to describe this "truth" -- you know it when you find it. ...And don't you underestimate the role, which the study of evidence plays in science. Einstein, reportedly, made a few of his important statements after a thorough study of ... the works of others available at the time! And as this study is so important, how accurate and how precise must we be in our conclusions! That is why I am so critical of interpretations of factual materials.
Another reason, very strong in my eyes, is that logic is the way our mind functions. We must keep up with it, if we want to use our mind effectively. This principle is also known as "intellectual honesty". It means, when your logic in the end brings you to some unexpected, even unwanted, results , it would be honest thing to accept your results. That would let you preserve sound mind and sound judgment. No need to tell more about it, I guess.

 

Although, I must admit it, you seem right in your conclusions about me and my logic. Even if you "produce" a creature looking much like "intermediate link", I will have to tell you that it looks like a complete species in itself. That is, because I am so set against evolution.
But , instead of giving you "citations", I'm offering something much better and cool: let's try to place ourselves into the shoes of those scientists, whom we love to quote on these matters.

And here is one problem we shall face, when trying to reproduce one piece of the full picture of evolution's early stages: evolving species must at one point reach the shape when it is , say, half way from fish and halfway to complete reptile or whatever "superior" kind known to us today. It is even in this "extravagant" shape, that it has to face a non-trivial task of getting used to new environment! It has no choice but to make it its home henceforth. Now fishes are 100% fit for survival in their environment. But will this intermediate hybrid be as fit for survival?... Let's see, what general problems it will have to cope with.
...Ok, evolution tells us, there would be no birds or beasts to cope with; these would develop later from this new one and its offspring. The same is true of flying reptiles. But still, survival in that new environment would mean getting used to new food, coping with new kind of bacteria and microflora and I know not what other dangers and issues and potentially harmful factors. With that maimed kind of body, too. Learn how to find shelter, even learn how to make a "nest"! This knowledge cannot be imprinted into their instincts just by a random mutilation of a gene; this program is too complex even to develop! Blind chance (which is a basic engine of evolution) just cannot make it...
...True, I'm generalizing here and in "reality" it would go "more gradually". But I just described a dramatic change such transition implies. Evolution based on blind chance cannot make it; however "gradual" be the process , the change implied is still too dramatic and complex. If it is not "intelligent energy" of some sort, then I don't know what can make it.

You see, as we try to go a single bit beyond the surface of this "theory", trying to make a thought experiment , visualize one single fragment of what this theory implies in more detail, we immediately face a good deal of problems, each one of which could in the mildest words be called "tough enough" . Or, is it again only me?;-)

The best answer to this non-trivial problem will be a humble "we don't know for sure"; just as you said about intelligent energy. But there seem to be too many "we're not sure" in this matter, don't you think so? Too many for a good theory, pretending to explain things. In theoretical physics theories were brushed aside, which were much more truth-like. So, I just suggest that people be more scientific, if they must needs cope with science.

 

yeaaaaahhh...

All I was getting at was that speciation is observable, can be observed, and has been observed.

Not exactly sure what Darwin's personal doubts, archaeopteryx, and Bible quotes have to do with that.

 

So you openly admit you would not accept evidence of evolution not on scientific or logical grounds, but purely because you don't want to?

Could you not have said this, like, 40 posts back? I could have been doing something productive with this time, like masturbating.

Not necessarily, actually, but go on.

Well, since you mention it, yeah, most amphibians haven't changed anywhere near as much as humans have.

You know that evolution, as described by pretty much every theory, involves a huge amount of dead animals that "didn't make it", right? Evolution would be impossible if every mutation was beneficial and everything survived. But that's not how the theory goes.

It's not just you; a lot of people haven't got a clue.

Science doesn't need to give in just because it's not sure. You're being quite selective in your choice of what you can't be sure about. Science doesn't get to be, so instead of dealing only in absolute 100% certainty and discounting everything else, it has to deal in degrees of certainty. Virtually nothing is certain or proven, but there are plenty of things which are more certain/proven than others.

Basically, this is the whole purpose of evidence - like those "citations" that you didn't think it would be fun enough to provide? - to provide the degrees of certainty necessary to proceed without the kind of absolutes that religion provided right up until the 20th century kicked in.

Also, I'd like to ask, when you say:

"In theoretical physics theories were brushed aside, which were much more truth-like."

Which theories are you referring to, specifically?

 

Well yes, there would be. I know you've clarified that you won't believe any evidence that conflicts with your disbelief of the theory, but seriously, why don't the similarities between dinosaurs and birds strike you as weird? I mean, once someone suggests it, a T-Rex and a penguin could be frickin' cousins!

 

Ha-ha-ha. Really, we ARE cousins at least -- for we all have the same heavenly Father, you see. That might also account for some similarity. A good deal of similarity, one would say.
...In my opinion it makes sense exchanging views with somebody who is convinced. Such one may show deep study and insight; is it not interesting? Unless he's a fanatic; but such people usually can't bear questioning their faith and would not partake.

It is also a good effort to develop our thinking abilities. A mind that doesn't question is a weak mind. But we all have this problem of taking for granted what it would be a good thing to question and study first. Such discussions, with people expressing their well backed opinions, can help one check once again things he's felt sure about. That is, you are asking me questions I should have asked myself, but I cannot because of that weakness. So, thank you for bothering, that helps much.

With faith in God it is vital to daily prove one's faith to be live thing, not turning into fanaticism... You know this effect, when husband and wife stop seeing anything new in one another. Does it mean, they have studied one another perfectly? Impossible, for every man is endless like universe; they've just got bored and fed up. But that state means the end of their love, if not paid immediate attention to... It is the same with faith in God: it must be live relation, living every day with it in mind.

...Of course, we believe in what we prefer to and are ready to present convincing evidences...
But it makes real difference, when you see, WHY a person believes in what he/she believes. In reality, motivation is first, and evidence is secondary.

And what an interesting study it is for oneself! ...Sometimes we believe in something related to our childish dreams. ...Or, it may be our view of how things must be in our opinion, as opposite to what they are at present... Or, we are creating a small corner of alternative reality, where our soul could find some rest... Or, our faith can even be motivated by some old grudge we have long forgotten about, but which formed a certain frame of mind...
I think, at this point one may be greatly surprised to see, on what trifles his faith, perhaps, is based, while he may be spending a lot of effort and money in connection with this faith of his.