KAG and nferyn

by the nature of ur posts i am either very confused of confusing! Either way, i think i will throw in the towel here cos the "i dont know what u r implying ' answer is , exasperating. but let me point out a few contradictions

[There is no necessity in evolution it is a function of mainly random genetic variation and selective pressure by a changing environment.

Evolution is not random; monkeys didn't evolve from rodents

Really?

That should be, evolution doesn't necessarily lead to complexity, variation isn't random

There is no intention or direction in evolution.

That should be, evolution doesn't necessarily lead to complexity, variation isn't random, and selection helps to weed out the bad mutations in the population, while promoting benficial/neutral ones.

KAG thanx for the link, here are some selected quotes from the article on the BBC website

Mankind has evolved over millions and millions of years from single-celled, water-bound organisms, to primitive primates, and then to apes. Venturing out of the forests, early man started to walk on two feet and exposed the scalp to the harsh rays of the Sun.

so walking on four feet somhow protects one's scalp from the sun? (note here the picture of evolution drawn here, single celled --- >early man)


Our prehistoric ancestors were very attracted to someone with thick hair as a potential mate. The likelihood is that the person with the thick hair had the genes for thick hair as well, and therefore passed this natural Sun protection to his or her offspring, thereby increasing their chances of a long life in which to procreate.

this is an example of the all-powerful natural selection process. there is nothing here to suggest any beneficial trait was enhanced that lay outside the hardcoded combination of genes already inherent in the animal ( in other words non-mutative within-species traits). anybody who knows a little about genetics will agree that genes have meticulous mechanisms to ensure no errors creep into the genetic code. so there is a very big jump in logic between that primordial amoeba and nferyn

If, however, the person displaying a thick head of hair did not have the genes for thick hair, this is not to say that he or she is less of an attractive offer. Hair is made of protein, predominantly one called keratin. Rich sources of protein include meat and eggs. If a person had thick hair, it meant they had a protein rich diet, and the only people with a protein rich diet were the best hunter-gatherers. They also had the best overall health since their diet was good. They made brilliant mates since it would mean that the offspring would be well fed.

is this  science or somebody's overactive imagination. by this thinking bald individuals should have been weeded out long ago. and african hair that in not as groomable as europian hair should also have been weeded out. dark skinned individuals should also have an advantage over light
this is the kind of reasoning the whole ToE is based on. Judge for urself

nferyn:

4get_me,

If you think that science is intended to answer questions about ultimate purpose, you'll have to wait very long, as it's not going to happen. Science only answers what and how questions, not why questions.

If you're looking for mechanisms on how life started, we're reasonably close to finding that out, but purpose is non-exisent as far as science is concerned.
The creation stroy, as portrayed in Genesis, contradicts so many established scientific knowledge that anyone believing in it's literal truth either is ignorant or deliberately ignores 90% of our scientific knowledge.

nferyn, I'm surprised that you're admitting in this thread that science does have limitations. I don't have to wait for a very long time to find purpose in life - I already have in Christ, and it makes sense. Call it bias, call it blind faith, a 'myth' perhaps if you please, or write it off with any other clever skeptic axiom. The bottom line is you just admitted, that -

"Science only answers what and how questions, not why questions"

I knew miles ahead that it would come to this. But believe me, even science is asking questions of why as much as they're asking about what, how, when, where, which. And let me offer you that it is that question you're ignoring that is informing the noise you're making here about "creationist bias." Evolution does not offer man the answer as to the why of existence. And that is the reason you will wait for a very long time indeed if you're trying to use science to explain the why of non-scientific phenomena outside Christianity.

The natural world and natural history are the things science can study. The why questions science asks are proximative, not ultimate. Ultimate purpose and meaning can only be answered by philosophy and/or religion, whichever one people may fancy.

When religion tries to explain natural phenomena, it either has to adopt the methods of science or stay mute. It is quite obvious that attempts to reconcile both when religion contradicts the findings of natural science are doomed to fail if one takes a literalist approach.

Scientfic creationism in it's many forms is simply false.

TV01:

Morning KAG,

I quite agree with "interpretations" possibly being wrong. But if the Bible itself is wrong, that effectively nullifies it and all it's claims. As a matter of integrity, if one come to the conclusion that the Bible is untrue, why not simply place your faith elsewhere?

That is simply not true. There are bits in the Bible that are wrong, but that does not nullify the message within it, nor does it render Jesus' sacrifice. I have to say though, that the all or nothing attitude in regards to the Bible is nothing short of perplexing, that and what can only be viewed as a form of Biblatory.

No, I am not, or perhaps I am but don't know it, or maybe I will be! I'm not a scientist or expert in any field and I don't feel the need to become one. Faith and the Bible are essentially simple things. That's not to say I despise or shun intellectual or scientific discussions, especially where the Bible is concerned, and whilst I try to keep abreast of things, I'm more about living my faith than proving it.

You believe there's a possibility the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth?

I'm a Christian. A Bible believing Christian. A fundamentalist if you like. I believe in the divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility and immutability of the Bible as Gods word. Could there be errors in translation ? maybe, but I don't see that as affecting the essence of the Bible, or the Bible as being God's revelation.

There could be errors in translation, and there could be errors in the original texts, but the Bible is not infallible, nor is it inerrant. The Bible is arguably a collection of works written by men inspired by God.

Lets abandon the "mythical/allegorical" thing is a bit of a mute point.

No it really isn't, I'm of the opinion that it's the best explanation for christians. A literal reading of the Genesis accounts contradict most of science (geology, astronomy, physics, biology, archeology, etc). So either God has decieved us, the bible is wrong, or it's not literal and it's an allegorical tale with a message.

I can't speak for others, but I live my faith by what I know from reading, researching or what has been revealed. Some of my positions are literally by default. So for example I used to tithe as I was taught. I now understand it is not a Christian notion, so I stopped. I hope this speaks to the "geocentrist" question as well.

So you pick and choose what you're going to interprete as literal?

The Bible records Moses as the inspired author of the Torah. To deny that is to deny Biblical Christianity. To a Christian, "believing God" is righteousness. A half truth is a lie.

Where does the Bible say Moses wrote the Torah? Surely, you are not suggesting that realising that Moses couldn't have authored all of the Torah, suddenly means giving up the gift of salvation?

Quote:
By the way, some of the strongest and most fervent christians I have met accept evolution.

Creation & ToE are mutually exclusive.
Believe God or don't believe God.

[/quote]

No they are not mutually exclusive. Many christians believe God used evolution as his means of creation, so they DO believe in God.

[quote]Romans 3:4 - Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."

God bless

What you don't seem to understand is, that it would make God a liar too. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution, overwhelming evidence for an old Earth, and overwhelming evidence for an older Universe. Except it was God's intention to deceive mankind, or the word of God which was penned by man is not an history and science book.

xkape:

KAG and nferyn

by the nature of your posts i am either very confused of confusing! Either way, i think i will throw in the towel here because the "i don't know what you're implying ' answer is , exasperating. but let me point out a few contradictions

It's probably a mixture of both.

Really?

Evolution is not random.

KAG thanx for the link, here are some selected quotes from the article on the BBC website

Mankind has evolved over millions and millions of years from single-celled, water-bound organisms, to primitive primates, and then to apes. Venturing out of the forests, early man started to walk on two feet and exposed the scalp to the harsh rays of the Sun.

so walking on four feet somhow protects one's scalp from the sun? (note here the picture of evolution drawn here, single celled --- >early man)

I would reckon there's less chance of over exposure to the sun. So if the hypothesis is right, when a full head of hair occured, it became a selceted trait.

Our prehistoric ancestors were very attracted to someone with thick hair as a potential mate. The likelihood is that the person with the thick hair had the genes for thick hair as well, and therefore passed this natural Sun protection to his or her offspring, thereby increasing their chances of a long life in which to procreate.

this is an example of the all-powerful natural selection process. there is nothing here to suggest any beneficial trait was enhanced that lay outside the hardcoded combination of genes already inherent in the animal ( in other words non-mutative within-species traits). anybody who knows a little about genetics will agree that genes have meticulous mechanisms to ensure no errors creep into the genetic code. so there is a very big jump in logic between that primordial amoeba and nferyn

But mutations still, and will always happen. Infact you have mutations your parents didn't have, that's one of the things necesaary for evolution, mutations.

If, however, the person displaying a thick head of hair did not have the genes for thick hair, this is not to say that he or she is less of an attractive offer. Hair is made of protein, predominantly one called keratin. Rich sources of protein include meat and eggs. If a person had thick hair, it meant they had a protein rich diet, and the only people with a protein rich diet were the best hunter-gatherers. They also had the best overall health since their diet was good. They made brilliant mates since it would mean that the offspring would be well fed.

is this science or somebody's overactive imagination. by this thinking bald individuals should have been weeded out long ago. and african hair that in not as groomable as europian hair should also have been weeded out. dark skinned individuals should also have an advantage over light

Why, why, and why?

this is the kind of reasoning the whole ToE is based on. Judge for yourself

no it isn't.

@nferyn,

Thanks for smoothening things off. My basic questions are simply what science has failed to provide an answer to (and you have admitted that it perhaps may not be able to do so for a very long time to come) - that is the question of the why of existence. Scientific interpretations have not always been the same, so philosophy and religion should not be clobbered just because some people feel that science is superior to every other field of learning and experience, which clearly is not the case.

thx 4get_me,

I agree with everything you said in the last post, except maybe for one addition: when it comes to the natural world, science is vastly superior to any other intellectual endeavor at determining truth. Other fields of learning don't even come close.
The ultimate [i]why [/i]is very much a function of our temporal human existence and cannot be decoupled from it. [i]Why [/i]is a question that is only relevant to us humans. Maybe [i]why [/i]isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things

nferyn:

thx 4get_me,

I agree with everything you said in the last post, except maybe for one addition: when it comes to the natural world, science is vastly superior to any other intellectual endeavor at determining truth. Other fields of learning don't even come close.
The ultimate why [/i]is very much a function of our temporal human existence and cannot be decoupled from it. [i]Why [/i]is a question that is only relevant to us humans. Maybe [i]why [/i]isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things

@nferyn,

I'm staggered - please don't let the scientific community hear or read that last line of yours:

"Maybe [i]why isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things."

No, it is a valid question - as equally legitimate as other questions, and I find it untenable that it is this very question that some have continued to excuse through the back door. As long as we see this as a weak scientific element in scientific investigations, questions will continue to be asked that elude scientific thinking. At best, science cannot explicate the why of existence in the grand scheme of things; but for any scientist to ignore that question is to fail to appreciate the very core of human existence, or any other existence for that matter. That is why scientists are all the more asking the why question today than in the past - because they suddenly woke up to realise that they've not properly done their home work.

Don't get me wrong: I appreciate science of whatever field, whether the natural or social sciences. But the beauties of the scientific mind and thinking are too constrained in answering questions of the complexities of existence. Both concerns of evolutionism and creationism are simply seeking answers to the question of existence more than anything else. There are widely divergent views as to the inferences, deductions and interpretations of the complexities of origins and existence; the latter of which is of the most concern to me, and I'm sure, to many people as well - religious or non-religious.

However you look at it, scientists in modern philosophical thinking are not seeking to find out merely what exists where; they realise that until an answer is obtained as to the why of what exists where, the basic question of the complexities of origin and existence will remain outside the core reality of our existence in the first place.

I'm persuaded to believe that such questions of the why of the complexities of origin an existence (rather than, and more than, the what how and where questions) is one of the things that informs many skeptic minds in taking a second look at what they've largely ignored. Professor Anthony Flew is not a religious man, as far as I know; but he definitely was concerned about the question of complexities of origin and existence - and it wasn't long ago that he eased up a little and took a deistic worldview on this perspective we're here dealing with at the micro level.

I offer you that the why question is really important in the grand scheme of things, and as long as we're playing down on that, more questions than answers will continue to emerge that science will find cumbersome to handle.

Enjoyed your challenging intellectual exercise, so far.

@ Kag

I was truly impressed with the quality of your writing in this thread and your sensible reasoning and salient points.

5/5 Good work and I agree 100% with your view on this subject!

4get_me:

nferyn link=topic=11284.msg319649#msg319649 date=1146151761:

thx 4get_me,

I agree with everything you said in the last post, except maybe for one addition: when it comes to the natural world, science is vastly superior to any other intellectual endeavor at determining truth. Other fields of learning don't even come close.
The ultimate why [/i]is very much a function of our temporal human existence and cannot be decoupled from it. [i]Why [/i]is a question that is only relevant to us humans. Maybe [i]why [/i]isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things

@nferyn,

I'm staggered - please don't let the scientific community hear or read that last line of yours:

"Maybe [i]why isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things."

No, it is a valid question - as equally legitimate as other questions, and I find it untenable that it is this very question that some have continued to excuse through the back door.

What I meant was that why is very much related to our linear perception of space-time in a 4-dimensional world. These are constraints of basic human perception and our thoughts are very much guided by it. What if time is not linear or unidirectional? Where does beginning and end, purpose and goal come into the picture?
Us asking these kind of questions is related to human existence as we perceive it, not to an absolute reality. There is far more to reality than what humans can imagine.
Now, as to excuses, I don't see the point you're trying to make. Science is explicitely limited to falsifiable natural phenomena. If you go outside these bounderies, you are not scientific.

4get_me:

As long as we see this as a weak scientific element in scientific investigations, questions will continue to be asked that elude scientific thinking.

Obviously, there are many questions science cannot answer. Purpose is one of them. Unless you can objectify ultimate purpose (and I cannot see how that currently can be done), science has nothing to say about purpose. Leave that to philosophy and religion.

4get_me:

At best, science cannot explicate the why of existence in the grand scheme of things; but for any scientist to ignore that question is to fail to appreciate the very core of human existence, or any other existence for that matter.

Scientists, being human, should not ignore these questions, but they simply are outside the boundaries of scientific investigation. They can answer them as human beings ponder over philosophical questions, but not as scientists.

4get_me:

That is why scientists are all the more asking the why question today than in the past - because they suddenly woke up to realise that they've not properly done their home work.

No, it's rather because they get closer to proximative causes of existence and behaviour. The advances in neurology and cognitive psychology allow us to investigate these questions scientifically. That doesn't mean that ultimate purpose of existence is anywhere in reach. It has very little to do with doing their homework.

4get_me:

Don't get me wrong: I appreciate science of whatever field, whether the natural or social sciences. But the beauties of the scientific mind and thinking are too constrained in answering questions of the complexities of existence. Both concerns of evolutionism and creationism are simply seeking answers to the question of existence more than anything else. There are widely divergent views as to the inferences, deductions and interpretations of the complexities of origins and existence; the latter of which is of the most concern to me, and I'm sure, to many people as well - religious or non-religious.

They certainly are not too limited to ask questions about the complexities of existence. In fact, scientific thought has demystified many of these complexities and shown that they are not as mysterious as originally thought.
Evolution Theory is science, Creationism is nothing of that sort. It's a weak defense of biblical literalism.

4get_me:

However you look at it, scientists in modern philosophical thinking are not seeking to find out merely what exists where; they realise that until an answer is obtained as to the why of what exists where, the basic question of the complexities of origin and existence will remain outside the core reality of our existence in the first place.

Only on a proximative level. The immediate, mechanical, cause or origin is studied, nothing more.

4get_me:

I'm persuaded to believe that such questions of the why of the complexities of origin an existence (rather than, and more than, the what how and where questions) is one of the things that informs many skeptic minds in taking a second look at what they've largely ignored.

And what might that be? What have they ignored?

4get_me:

Professor Anthony Flew is not a religious man, as far as I know; but he definitely was concerned about the question of complexities of origin and existence - and it wasn't long ago that he eased up a little and took a deistic worldview on this perspective we're here dealing with at the micro level.

And what does that mean exactly? Flew is a philosopher and as such it is his domain of expertise to systematically ask these kind of questions.

4get_me:

I offer you that the why question is really important in the grand scheme of things, and as long as we're playing down on that, more questions than answers will continue to emerge that science will find cumbersome to handle.

How so? I don't see the connection.

4get_me:

Enjoyed your challenging intellectual exercise, so far.

So have I

Reverend:

@ Kag

I was truly impressed with the quality of your writing in this thread and your sensible reasoning and salient points.

5/5 Good work and I agree 100% with your view on this subject!

And I'm not getting a pat on the back? That's all I'm here for, after all

@ Neferyn

You also deserve 5/5 for your well constructed posts with valid points and reasoning.

My train of thought is still with Kag though whom I am in agreement with. I think has hit the nail on the head

@nferyn,

You don't seem to have a good handle on the issues you raised. The enquiries of evolutionism and creationism is more about the complexities of origin and existence, not about the limitations and constraints of science or any other tool as a means of investigation. What is the point of a scientific investigation if it has no application to the core of reality or existence? Can you tell me?

When scientists (not science itself) beg fundamental questions that have relevance to existence, then we are told to throw away the question of why; or at best, relegate it to the concerns of philosophy and religion. Let me say this: if that is what we think that scientific investigations are all about - to ignore the why question in relation to enquiries of origin and existence - then we come back to th same issue of the limitations of a scientific investigation.

Would you agree with me on this, that the concerns of evolutionism and creationism are more about seeking answers to the question of origins and existence than about anything else? And if not, then what is the question?

Reverend:

@ Kag

I was truly impressed with the quality of your writing in this thread and your sensible reasoning and salient points.

5/5 Good work and I agree 100% with your view on this subject!

Thanks.

nferyn:

And I'm not getting a pat on the back? That's all I'm here for, after all

I think it's a given that we all love your posts, so even though the words aren't said, we do appreciate it.

everyone's so happy!

see what happens when u relax and ogle fine women?

4get_me:

@nferyn,

You don't seem to have a good handle on the issues you raised.

Maybe I don't , but I don't see how you can get to that conclusion from what I posted here.

4get_me:

The enquiries of evolutionism and creationism is more about the complexities of origin and existence, not about the limitations and constraints of science or any other tool as a means of investigation.

Evolution theory is a framework that allows us to study the complexities of life, biology. If you want to call that dealing with the complexities of origin and existence, fine. It is limited to the confines of science. Creationism is just intellectual gibberish. If it weren't for it's socio-political impact, it wouldn't be worth spending one minute of our precious time on.

You were the one stating that the basic question of how we got here has not been answered.. I replied that that could only partially be answered by science and that you don't have to look to science for answers to questions of ultimate purpose, as they are outside the boundaries of scientific investigation. I fail to see how that translates into me not having a handle on issues. Which issues exactly are you refering to?

4get_me:

What is the point of a scientific investigation if it has no application to the core of reality or existence? Can you tell me?

What is the core of existence or reality? All depends on your point of view. As to the point of scientific investigation, just look around you to see how scientific knowledge is applied or are you a luddite who shuns technological advances?

4get_me:

When scientists (not science itself) beg fundamental questions that have relevance to existence, then we are told to throw away the question of why; or at best, relegate it to the concerns of philosophy and religion.

Could you be a little more precise. I don't understand your concern here.

4get_me:

Let me say this: if that is what we think that scientific investigations are all about - to ignore the why question in relation to enquiries of origin and existence - then we come back to th same issue of the limitations of a scientific investigation.

Scientific investigation is limited and scientists are aware of it's limitations. When religion threads into the field that can [/i]be studied by science and claims to have answers where it has none (natural history), then that is not only arrogance, but those answers are plainly false.

Tell me, how do you read Genesis? Do you consider it to be the literal truth or does it need to be read allegorically?

4get_me:

Would you agree with me on this, that the concerns of evolutionism and creationism are more about seeking answers to the question of [i]origins and existence than about anything else?

Creationism only claims to have the answers without even asking any questions. It is non-sense, a mockery of science.
Evolutionism does not exist, it's a label used by Creationists. Evolution Theory is a scientific theory that explains biodiversity. It explains the mechanisms by which all living beings evolved from a common ancestor. It explains the [b]fact [/b]of evolution.

4get_me:

And if not, then what is the question?

The question of what?

jagunlabi:

According to the jewish creationist myth,the human race is about 6000 years old.That was the accepted fact till a few centuries ago,but nobody believes that anymore these days,except the usual uninformed.Even the Vatican has quietly turned it's back on it.
Since then,the age of mankind has been continually pushed back further and futher into prehistoricity.Thanks to the scientists.
But the concept of a supreme deity being the power behind the creation still remains undisproved.

Mos people misunderstand the bible, misinterprete and then turn around and accuse the bible of being incorrect, the bible NEVER claimed the human race was 6000yrs old, it only suggests that CIVILISED MAN is 6000yrs old which most anthropologists agree with

simmy:

Mos people misunderstand the bible, misinterprete and then turn around and accuse the bible of being incorrect, the bible NEVER claimed the human race was 6000yrs old, it only suggests that CIVILISED MAN is 6000yrs old which most anthropologists agree with

No they don't. There are civilisations uncovered that are far older than 6000 years.

This depends so much on how we define a civilization! The first permanent farming settlements were established in the Middle East in approximately 8000 B.C. By 6000 to 5500 B.C., irrigation has developed and the roots of the Mesopotamian civilization were in place. By 3300 the city of Uruk had two great temples, and its priests and accountants had developed cuneiform writing. Other early farming communities are India (7000 B.C.) and China (6500 B.C.), both of which led eventually to civilizations. The Indus state emerged in 2700 B.C., while the Xia dynasty in China developed in 2100 B.C.

A question for all;

If intelligent life forms are to be discovered in another solar system or in another distant galaxy or planet,will that effect a change in this debate?To which side of the diviede will the scale be tipped?To the creationist posse,or to the evolutionist camp?

@jagunlabi
No life outside earth has been discovered yet, so i think ur question is irrelevant but to humour u i think both sides will come up with ingenous arguments to tip the scale in their favour
@ nferyn
Homo sapiens? or prehistoric man? except im wrong mordern civilisations are not much more than 6000yrs old

@ nferyn and others like him

Most evolutionists assume this superior intellectual attitude when regarding creationists because they assume creationism is based strictly on belief or faith, but it isn't.
Evolutionists argue that changes occur over a period of time in a population and that the dramatic changes we notice is brought about by time, time on a grand scale, millions and billions of years, but they get carried away by the grandness of their own theory (yes, i'll be the 1st to admit that only a genius could have thought out evolution).
First of all, evolution is a THEORY (or a school of thought). Scientists insist that NO theory can be proven right but has to be proven wrong. Pray tell me then how the theory of evolution differs from the the theory of intelligent design in that respect. I see no way in which evoluiton ties facts together! All evolutionsits observe is a certain gradation in complexity of organisms and they hastily jump into conclusion that these organisms somehow transform into each other over time!! I challenge ANY scientist the world over to show JUST 1 organism in the process of evolution.
They probably will shake their head and say it happens so slowly u can't see it
To that I issue a challenge to ANY scientist the world over to show complete fossil records that capture accurately one organism evolving into another. (To that they mummble somehting about incomplete fossil records)
Whatt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
And you dare accuse creationists of basing their opinions on non-facts

When certain individuals posess certain characteristcs that somehow give them an advantage over others what we get is A VARIANT of the SAME SPECIES!! not a new specie! I wonder why evoluitonists cant get that. Nature even has a way of dealing with interbreeding between two different species which tells any one who cares to listen that nature is intent on keeping species seperate
I agree that all species are related but claiming they have a common ancestor is like claiming that because two ladies are blond means thaty they must be sisters. I think there is a leap in logic!
Anyone well versed in genetics will realise that variation produced by genetic reshuffling can NEVER lead to such dramatic differences that exist between a monkey and a frog! Evolutionists tend to hide under the cloak of time to hide the outlandishness of their claims but they fail to realise that even if a gazillion years where offered to evolution, the chances of life evolving in the direction it has would be so close to impossible that , (duh!) Pray explain to me how patterns of behaviour like instinct evolved (please don't qoute some jargon penned down by some halfwit , such complex behaviour is simply unexplainable by evolution. Take for example the migratory instincts of common birds!!)
Mutation?? maybe, but it is inplausible and I was taught in school to always look for the more plausible answer. The genetic system of more advanced species has a way of correcting mistakes (such as might arise from mutation) during reproduction, making the possibility of error as small as possible. This proof reading also allows mistakes to be made occasionally in order to promote variation, but saying mutation accounts for evolution is the effect of an overworked and overactive and anti creationist mind!
The theory of intelligent design is based on a very simple premise
The planet earth is SOOO perfectly positioned to support life that to assume that it wasnt placed their by someone or something on purpose is simply not logical (one reason why some people arew not so easily carried away by that argument is ignorance. I recommend such a person conduct a simple research on the conditions necessary for ANY intelligent life and how the earth goes out of its way to meet such conditions).
Lif as we know it is SOOOOOO (raised to the power of a gazillion trillion trillion) unbelievably complex that no amount of time will be sufficient to account for a slow change from simple to complex (no wonder evolutionists insist that evolution is not necessarily about increase in complexity, I wonder!!!anyone who knows anything about biology would realise that nature is extremely efficient, no amazingly efficient, an increase in complexity is ALWAYS DEFINITELY for a purpose). Everywhere you turn in the universe ruthless purpose is observed and yet evoluitonists draw a blind eye to all this and explain life away like a kindergatten kid armed with the knowledge of simple arithmetics trying to solve a problem in calculus!!!
An d they are so damn smug about it!!! accusing other people of being unreasonable
HUMMMMMMMMPHGH!

simmy:

Mos people misunderstand the bible, misinterprete and then turn around and accuse the bible of being incorrect, the bible NEVER claimed the human race was 6000yrs old, it only suggests that CIVILISED MAN is 6000yrs old which most anthropologists agree with

It does if you are a strict literalist. Also, what do you mean by "civilised man"? Because by all accounts, civilised man, as i understand it, is far older than 6000 years.

jagunlabi:

A question for all;

If intelligent life forms are to be discovered in another solar system or in another distant galaxy or planet,will that effect a change in this debate?To which side of the diviede will the scale be tipped?To the creationist posse,or to the evolutionist camp?

It would probably do more for the theories of abiogeneis, than the creationists dogma.

Hi everyone,

I was searching the web for articles for an assignment and stumbled across this weblog. It happens that there are good entries from a lot of folks on this Forum, but I'm sad to say that a closer look at the issues reveals some people are so impassioned about defending their cause that they lose sight of the central theme.

@4get_me,
Please don't be offended, but I think you asked a very legitimate question (the question of why in the grand scheme of things) and made good sense, and a huge one at that. The problem predictably was that you were a bit too technical for nferyn (and maybe for some other folks), and as it turned out, he lost direction.

@nferyn,
Again, I beg that you don't be offended, but to me (I may be wrong) you were running around in circles. Intelligent though you seemed to be, but anyone with good sense will agree that intelligence leaves personal agenda and face issues. Unfortunately, you detracted and flew off the handle into something else. How? Let me explain -

As a student, what we don't want to see is half-truths and prejudiced opinions. I don't know where you ever got the idea from that "Evolutionism does not exist, it's a label used by Creationists." Really? The point is that you're doubly wrong.
  (a) Evolutionism actually exists as a field of study
  (b) It is not a label used by Creationists, but rather by the scientific community.
I expected you'd have done a search first to ascertain your statement, but perhaps you failed to do so. And what if indeed Creationists use the term - that becomes too much for you to handle? That kind of attitude smirks of prejudice. It is almost like what many atheists do today: they come off trying to redefine atheism and claiming that only theists define atheism as the belief in the non-existence of deity/God. That really isn't balanced because the people making that sort of claim just don't know the reality of what they're talking about.

I'm not trying to pick you apart, but when you earlier stated that "Maybe why isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things", I wondered if you were kidding - please take a look at reality and be very aware of what is currently happening: modern science is having to deal with this very question more than ever in the past. And that is the propelling force behind many enquiries - scientific, philosophic, religious, political, cultural, . . . and even plain fiction.

It seems to me that you trailed off discussing the Theory of Evolution and meandered into atheistic evolutionism. It does not appear that your concern was more about ToE, but rather the discrediting of other legitimate fields of study which you virulently classed off as "arrogance. . . non-sense, a mockery of science." Please be informed that science is no Cinderella all by herself - you don't have a monopoly on science in order to pride yourself as one defending science. Philosophy is as legitimate a discipline as what is called science, and so is creationism. Anthony Flew may have been a philosopher, and it was scientific enquiries that led him to change his previously held worldview from atheistic evolutionism to deism.

In all, you made some valid inputs - as did everyone else; but you flawed your position seriously by your unbalanced assertions. For a peep view of evolutionism as actually existing outside the confines of Creationists enquiries, please follow this link or do a balanced search of your own. Wikipedia offers an explanation of the term from a historical perspective as well. Fact is, you're wrong; and the term actually exists.

@simmy,
Many thanks for your inputs. I think some of our readers need to take a careful and objective look at issues here.

Closing remarks:

Evolution remains simply as a theory, and is yet to provide a satisfying answer to the basic questions of origin and existence. This is the fundamental questions that informs the debate between Creationism and Evolutionism. Faith in creation should not be rubbished on the premise that science is superior to any other field of enquiry, because scientific enquiry is far too constrained in providing answers to so many questions in the natural world. We all see things from different angles and interpretations; but that shouldn't be grounds for anyone to be arrogantly assertive with half-truths on either camp of the debate - whether Evolutionism or Creationism.

Thank you.

simmy:

@ nferyn and others like him

Most evolutionists assume this superior intellectual attitude when regarding creationists because they assume creationism is based strictly on belief or faith, but it isn't.

It is.

Evolutionists argue that changes occur over a period of time in a population and that the dramatic changes we notice is brought about by time, time on a grand scale, millions and billions of years, but they get carried away by the grandness of their own theory (yes, i'll be the 1st to admit that only a genius could have thought out evolution).

Athena perhaps .

First of all, evolution is a THEORY (or a school of thought). Scientists insist that NO theory can be proven right but has to be proven wrong. Pray tell me then how the theory of evolution differs from the the theory of intelligent design in that respect.

First of all, theory is highly regarded in science, as it relies on facts and evidence. Second, ID is not a theory. Third, the ToE differs from ID, because the theory of evolution, like other scientific theories, can be falsified. Finally, "proof is for maths and alcohol".

I see no way in which evoluiton ties facts together! All evolutionsits observe is a certain gradation in complexity of organisms and they hastily jump into conclusion that these organisms somehow transform into each other over time!!

Really, you don't see how the ToE ties facts together? Also, no there's more to the ToE than observing change in allele frequencies.

I challenge ANY scientist the world over to show JUST 1 organism in the process of evolution.
They probably will shake their head and say it happens so slowly u can't see it

I'm sure you won't accept a, "every organism is technically in the process of evolution (sic)" kind of response, so here's one .

To that I issue a challenge to ANY scientist the world over to show complete fossil records that capture accurately one organism evolving into another. (To that they mummble somehting about incomplete fossil records)
Whatt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

Can't do that, but we know why. Your question is, in my opinion, a red-herring; you've ignored the many fossils we do have and asking for something that would be impossible.

And you dare accuse creationists of basing their opinions on non-facts

Yes.

When certain individuals posess certain characteristcs that somehow give them an advantage over others what we get is A VARIANT of the SAME SPECIES!! not a new specie! I wonder why evoluitonists can't get that. Nature even has a way of dealing with interbreeding between two different species which tells any one who cares to listen that nature is intent on keeping species seperate
I agree that all species are related but claiming they have a common ancestor is like claiming that because two ladies are blond means thaty they must be sisters. I think there is a leap in logic!

Pray tell, how are they then related?

Anyone well versed in genetics will realise that variation produced by genetic reshuffling can NEVER lead to such dramatic differences that exist between a monkey and a frog!

I'm sure many well versed in genetics would disagree with you though. However, would mutations and selection do?

Evolutionists tend to hide under the cloak of time to hide the outlandishness of their claims but they fail to realise that even if a gazillion years where offered to evolution, the chances of life evolving in the direction it has would be so close to impossible that , (duh!)

Care to tell us why?

Pray explain to me how patterns of behaviour like instinct evolved (please don't qoute some jargon penned down by some halfwit , such complex behaviour is simply unexplainable by evolution. Take for example the migratory instincts of common birds!!)
Mutation?? maybe, but it is inplausible and I was taught in school to always look for the more plausible answer.

Without looking it up, I'm sure the answeres lie in the evolution of the brain (or something like it). the unseen, unevidenced designer (*wink* *wink*) is IMO, no more than a God of the gaps argument.

"Hey you, explain how lightning works", said the Hellenist. "Erm, huh, ", replied the common pleb. "See it's more plausible to believe Zeus done it".

The genetic system of more advanced species has a way of correcting mistakes (such as might arise from mutation) during reproduction, making the possibility of error as small as possible. This proof reading also allows mistakes to be made occasionally in order to promote variation, but saying mutation accounts for evolution is the effect of an overworked and overactive and anti creationist mind!

I disagree with the way you've worded that, but semantics aside, there are still many mutations that occur in every reproduction. That's why it's often said, you have several mutations your parents didn't.

The theory of intelligent design is based on a very simple premise
The planet earth is SOOO perfectly positioned to support life that to assume that it wasnt placed their by someone or something on purpose is simply not logical (one reason why some people arew not so easily carried away by that argument is ignorance.
I recommend such a person conduct a simple research on the conditions necessary for ANY intelligent life and how the earth goes out of its way to meet such conditions).

So, ID is based solely on "this hole was made specially for me, said the puddle" (to paraphrase Douglas Adams (?)) Here's a question for you, what do you think the odds of life forming on a suitable planet , are? Bear in mind that there are a number uncountable galaxies in the Universe, and each probably has at least one solar system with planets orbiting it.

Lif as we know it is SOOOOOO (raised to the power of a gazillion trillion trillion) unbelievably complex that no amount of time will be sufficient to account for a slow change from simple to complex (no wonder evolutionists insist that evolution is not necessarily about increase in complexity, I wonder!!!

Can you present something to backup that ssertation? And yes evolution is not necessarily about increase in complexity, although I fail to see what that has to do with what you asserted.

anyone who knows anything about biology would realise that nature is extremely efficient, no amazingly efficient, an increase in complexity is ALWAYS DEFINITELY for a purpose). Everywhere you turn in the universe ruthless purpose is observed and yet evoluitonists draw a blind eye to all this and explain life away like a kindergatten kid armed with the knowledge of simple arithmetics trying to solve a problem in calculus!!!
An d they are so damn smug about it!!! accusing other people of being unreasonable
HUMMMMMMMMPHGH!

And that's your evidence for ID? Okay.

Simmy and syrup,

You come up with the same tired old arguments. I will refute them one by one, but unfortunately, I have other things to do today, so it will be late this evening.

I want to reply to syrups disingenious tackling of the Evolutionist label though.

syrup:

As a student, what we don't want to see is half-truths and prejudiced opinions. I don't know where you ever got the idea from that "Evolutionism does not exist, it's a label used by Creationists." Really? The point is that you're doubly wrong.
(a) Evolutionism actually exists as a field of study
(b) It is not a label used by Creationists, but rather by the scientific community.
I expected you'd have done a search first to ascertain your statement, but perhaps you failed to do so.

1. Try to find me one evolutionary biologist that uses the label Evolutionist to describe what he/she is doing - Good Luck
2. Only Creationists (or misinformed social scientists) use the label Evolutionism to describe evolutionary biology.
3. In the Wikipedia article you used, the following paragraphs can be found:

In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are rarely used in scientific circles. However, all three of these terms are commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars outside the physical and life sciences; these terms are used to refer to theories about the development of cultures and civilisations.

Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly atheist and materialist, designations under which many scientists would not like to be cast. Thereby the creationists deride the scientists' theories as mere belief that ignores divine intervention, contrary to what creationists think is a more preferable explanation.

I cant believe that you guys(Reverend, Nferyn, KAG and the gang) are still arguing about this Evolution or Creation thing.

Its like this, ok, so all of you evolved from Monkeys right?

Kimba, you speak in parables (following a good example, are you?   )
Let me restate my question:
How do you know that your quotes are coming from God? How do you verify the fact that they come from God? What leads you to that conclusion?

or in other words: how do you know that the bible is God's word? How can you trace the words in the Bible back to God?

Can you tell me how you know your mother was your mother, forget the fact that she told you, forget the fact that others might have told you, forget what your dad said(dont you think your dad and your mom made up the story?)

tell me, what theory/practical experiment have you proved, since the day you were born to convince you that your mother IS your mother, or if you never knew her, what theory/practical experiment have you proved, since the day you were born to convince you that your father IS your father tell me, ok, and If you can give me a concrete answer, ill tell you why i know that the Bible is from God.

I give you a clue:
My Bible says:
Ps 10:4 - The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

syrup:

It is almost like what many atheists do today: they come off trying to redefine atheism and claiming that only theists define atheism as the belief in the non-existence of deity/God. That really isn't balanced because the people making that sort of claim just don't know the reality of what they're talking about.

The problem with the definition is more of a language and semantics problem, than anything else (at least that's the impression i've gotten lately).

I'm not trying to pick you apart, but when you earlier stated that "Maybe why isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things", I wondered if you were kidding - please take a look at reality and be very aware of what is currently happening: modern science is having to deal with this very question more than ever in the past. And that is the propelling force behind many enquiries - scientific, philosophic, religious, political, cultural, . . . and even plain fiction.

Maybe it isn't important in the grand scheme of things, maybe it's more important to acknowledge we are here, and just try to appreciate that fact, and enjoy what time we have. Meh! *shrugs*

It seems to me that you trailed off discussing the Theory of Evolution and meandered into atheistic evolutionism. It does not appear that your concern was more about ToE, but rather the discrediting of other legitimate fields of study which you virulently classed off as "arrogance. . . non-sense, a mockery of science."

I don't think creationism falls under a legitimate field of study, and ID - although a little better - still suffers from too much politics, and almost no science.

Please be informed that science is no Cinderella all by herself - you don't have a monopoly on science in order to pride yourself as one defending science. Philosophy is as legitimate a discipline as what is called science, and so is creationism.

What's scientific about creationism? I also disagree about philosophy being science; there was time when it could have been considered science, but the definition of science has come a long way since its incepption.

Anthony Flew may have been a philosopher, and it was scientific enquiries that led him to change his previously held worldview from atheistic evolutionism to deism.

Dan Barker may have been a minister, and it was theological enquiries (amongst other things) that led him to change from his previously held worldview from christianity, to atheism. *shrugs*

Evolution remains simply as a theory,

And a theory is held in the highest esteem in science.

and is yet to provide a satisfying answer to the basic questions of origin and existence.

Origin of life, universe? No. Origin of species, yes it has.

KAG:

Dan Barker may have been a minister, and it was theological enquiries (amongst other things) that led him to change from his previously held worldview from christianity, to atheism. *shrugs*

So, what's your point - that we're debating between theism and atheism? nferyn was of the view that science is ultimately superior to other fields of enquiry (which is not the case), and my reference to Anthony Flew is that Philosophy is as legitimate a field of enquiry as much as what is called science. In other words, Philosophy is a science; thus, it was scientific enquiries even within Philosophy that led Prof. Flew to change his worldview, because the ultimate question as to origin and existence still remains unsatisfactorily answered by the theory of evolution. That Dan Baker became an atheist does not read my point here at all, unless you're further confirming my suspicion that people sometimes fail to look at issues and veer off instead at defending a position.

@nferyn,
I saw and read all those underlines, and indeed offered you to make an objective search yourself. Two things I would like you to pay attention to from the Wikipedia quote:

1)

In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are rarely used in scientific circles

First, the word has been modified so that it has a connotation in modern times different from earlier times.
Second, it does not mean that Evolutionism did not exist as you earlier stated.
Third, that it is rarely used does not mean that it has never been so used in scientific circles.
So, what's your question?

2)

However, all three of these terms are commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars outside the physical and life sciences

That they are now commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists and other scholars does not mean that the physical and life sciences are superior to the former. If you're persuaded that the former are inferior to the latter, you're not doing science.

3)

Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study.

That scientists (as if there are only the physical and life sciences) object to the term is understood for the reasons undergirding their object; but that does not mean that any other researcher using the term evolutionism and evolutionists is necessarily a creationist; otherwise, you perhaps would be telling me that all anthropologists and sociologists are creationists.

My observations are based on the half-truth assertions you made earlier, and my first post was to the effect that you were wrong on both counts - evolutionism as a term exists, and it is not a label used by Creationists as if to say that it is only Creationists that use that term. You can solve this problem for yourself this way: do an objective search and find out if Evolutionism is never used even by the physical and life scientists. You may discredit all others and take only what helps your arguments (we all are guilty of doing that, really) but I offered the non-religious simple online definition that is commonly used in many fields of life sciences in this link, and it reads simply:

   Noun: evolutionism
          1. (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
              - theory of evolution, theory of organic evolution.

We may all see things differently. Debating issues is a different matter from debating positions. You may disagree with what you read, but what's all the red eyes about? 

@KAG

I wouldn't ask for stone to be turned into bread when I'm hungry, I would ask that stone be turned into bread for the millions of children that are starving to death as we speak, if God did, that I, and many other non-believers, would be her number one fans. So why doesn't God work that way anymore?

So your I-would-have-believed-in-Jesus-but-unfortunately-I-didnt is because of bread? hhmmm so right, you dont need God to turn stone into bread for you, but you wont mind that he turn stones into bread for others, right? and after that you could become a fan-of-Jesus.

Unfortunately, JESUS DOESNT NEED FANS?

Quote
@kimba

Isnt it sad that God has been doing everything to reach out to man, since Eden, yet man would rejects. Anyway, theres still time to believe. Make hay while the sun shines.

No he hasn't, really, really, he hasn't.

Rom 1:28 - And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

I've read, the Bible, read most of it several times, still think Pratchett is a better writer than all the authors in the contained in the Biblical cannon, and believe R. R. Martin pwns the Nicene council in the editing department

This is the best part of your post. God wouldn't have held you responsible if you had no opportunity to read, to hear the gospel of Christ, but now that you have read it and heard it all:
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Ro 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Ro 1:19 - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Ro 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Ro 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

syrup:

So, what's your point - that we're debating between theism and atheism?

Conversion/Deconversion stories serve absolutely no purpose, and are a fallacy, not only in a debate between theism and atheism, but especially in a debate between science and religion.

nferyn was of the view that science is ultimately superior to other fields of enquiry (which is not the case),

I suppose it's all about perspectives and opinions.

and my reference to Anthony Flew is that Philosophy is as legitimate a field of enquiry as much as what is called science. In other words, Philosophy is a science; thus, it was scientific enquiries even within Philosophy that led Prof. Flew to change his worldview, because the ultimate question as to origin and existence still remains unsatisfactorily answered by the theory of evolution. That Dan Baker became an atheist does not read my point here at all, unless you're further confirming my suspicion that people sometimes fail to look at issues and veer off instead at defending a position.

I have no doubt philosophy is a legitimate field of enquiry, but I don't see our it can be called science. See above for why I mentioned Barker; also what is the ultimate question that can't be answered by the ToE?

First, the word has been modified so that it has a connotation in modern times different from earlier times.

Just a quick point, the etymology and past use of a word can be, and is, often disregarded, especially if the modern definition of the word differs significantly from it's past meaning. I'm just saying.
[quote][/quote]

kimba:

@KAGSo your I-would-have-believed-in-Jesus-but-unfortunately-I-didnt is because of bread?

Huh?

hhmmm so right, you don't need God to turn stone into bread for you, but you wont mind that he turn stones into bread for others, right? and after that you could become a fan-of-Jesus.

It's not too much to ask. If YHVH could do it for the Isralites (think bread rainfall, as opposed to stony bread), then what's stopping her now?

Unfortunately, JESUS DOESNT NEED FANS?

Good to know, I won't "clap for Jesus" next time.

No he hasn't, really, really, he hasn't.
Rom 1:28 - And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
[-Delo McKown]

This is the best part of your post. God wouldn't have held you responsible if you had no opportunity to read, to hear the gospel of Christ, but now that you have read it and heard it all:

A worthy endorsement for shhoting missionaries before they get the chance to spread the "good news"?

2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
(snip)

A callous, heartless religion is that which defines it's God as a cold and unmerciful deity, quick to anger and even quicker to condemn it's people to an eternity in fire."
- Sherman Milliken