Evidence for the Creationist Model

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juantoo,
Thank you for your post. I think this is a very difficult subject to get into the nitty gritty of without appearing predjuidiced, especially on a forum such as this. I am relieved and pleased that you see it is not my intention to insult anyone. It can be hard trying to get across my views, and I am not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to writing.

I am sorry that I seemed to focus on Christianity, I used it only as an example and my views are more accurately ascribed to fundamentalist sects within any of the Abrahamic religeons, especially Islam. I am also at pains to make it clear that I know the majority of the followers of these faiths do so in the spirit of love and faith, or to put it another way, for all the right reasons. I also recognise that polytheistic faiths and cults are not imune to what I described, but as they do not have a comparable power base I tend not to see them as much of threat to future peace.

The sciences with which I refer to proving the existence of things from prayer to God is Quantum science. I dont know why the many many experiments in Zero Point Field resonance go largely ignored, but they are presenting a mounting body of evidence that the power of prayer is a measurable phenomenom made possible by quantum entanglement. I agree that both ego and pride are appreciably present in the scientific community but the majority of scientists are still 'of faith' and of good integrity.

And finaly I too, I supose, see that there was creation at some point, just not the kind put forward in Genesis and interpreted so voiciferously in Islam and certain Christian sects. Still that just throws up the who created the creator argument and off we go again

Anyway thank you once more for your kind words,

Respect and regards

TE

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Personally, I don't think there actually is any conflict between science and faith . . . just people who haven't carefully considered the purpose and methods of each.

Science doesn't "disprove" faith (and can't), unless you have a problematic understanding of what constitutes "faith."

On the flip side, "faith" doesn't "prove" anything, and needs to stay out of science classrooms.

And I wish I could say in so few words just what you said

[n4h1z]

Peace to bob x and all....

The common ancestor of the vertebrates had a heart, on the left. The common ancestor shared by the vertebrates and other organisms with or without hearts is not relevant to the question.

But still this doesn't answer the question as to why didn't the arrangement of internal organs evolved like how the external organs have evolved. Again, Why should there be an exceptional. How could the organism evolve so extensively on the outer organs but didn't evolve at all in the arrangement of the internal organs. IF (please note the capital IF),evolution really happened, internal organs should have evolved. The arrangement should also differ from species to species...Why didn't this all happened as it should have evolved ?

A typical bird needs to see behind, in case some predator is chasing them. The owl is a predator: it is more useful to the owl to have a double view of what is in front, to get depth perception on what they are chasing.

I already expected this argument would come. Anyway let's carry on...
Yes, the owl is a predator...and so is the eagle,falcon, buzzards etc etc. But Why do these predators have their eyes on the side of the head ? They hunt just the same as how owls hunt. All of them can catch prey in mid-air or grab it from the ground or water surface. The fact is owls don't really rely on their sight while hunting. Eventhough owls have a very good night vision, they locate their prey through sound medium . The owls' rounded face acts like a parabola dish to help its' hearing catch the faintest soundwave.Their ears are on the side of their heads but they can flip their ear flap to get maximum accuracy.

The best studied of these nocturnal predators is the Barn Owl. Extensive experiments conducted by neurobiologists Marc Konishi and Eric Knudsen in totally darkened, soundproofed rooms have unequivocally demonstrated that Barn Owls can locate and capture prey by sound alone. - http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/How_Owls_Hunt.html

Evolution has to work with what is given; it is creationism which would predict that creatures would have whatever was best for them, designed from scratch. The giraffe evolved from creatures with vertebrae in their necks, so they have them also.Another peculiarity about giraffes is the vomeral nerve, which in all vertebrates goes from the face into the brain making a detour through the cervical vertebrae: this happens in the giraffe also, even though that means a detour of several feet. It is trivial to understand in evolutionary terms why this would be so; but one would not expect an intelligent designer to do such a thing.

What did you meant by "given" in your fisrt sentence. Do you mean given as in "given a vertebrae" or "received a vertebrae" or "Giraffe: Somebody gave me my vertebrae"....if it is given, then there must be a Giver. Very curious about that. I just leave it to you then...ok, let's carry on....

Why is it trivial to understand the development of vomeralnasal organ in evolutionary terms? I thought the theory of evolution is widely accepted as a scientific fact and it should be able to xplain evolution and development of organs, internal and external without exceptional. If the theory of evolution can't explain the vomeralnasal organ and the un-evolved arrangement of internal organs, then the theory of evolution must be no better than just a theory...not to be accepted as a fact!

Peace...

[n4h1z]

Peace to sara and all...

Notice that giraffes do not break their legs when drinking, nor do they have a problem getting water. Their bodies are perfect for their needs or they would die out. As for a flexible neck, think about the engineering requirements for that.

I think you have missed the word IF in my last post. There's a big "IF" there. I said "IF evolution was really to happen..."
See the difference,i was talking from an evolutionist point of view and trying to give questions for other evolutionist to answer. I didn't said giraffes broke their legs while drinking, I said "they look as IF..."

n4h1z (as an evolutionist) : If bears hunting by the coastal shores could evolve into a whales, then why can't a giraffe develop a flexible serpent-like neck so that it wouldn't have to bow down to reach the water on the ground. If such obvious transformation could happen to the bears, why can't giraffes' neck go through such obvious evolution too?

n4h1z (as a creationist): Do you really want to know why...it's because evolution itself never exist at all. So there is no way in blue hell bears can shift shape into a whale although it hunts for food in the coastal areas for billion of years. The same goes for giraffes.

n4h1z (as an evolutionist) : That is totally unacceptable. That is not even considered a scientific argument. There must be a scientific xplanation to this evolution case and they must have originate from a common ancestor.

n4h1z (as a creationist) : If you ask me about origin, creation is the conclusion that the appearence of all life forms can only be xplained by the existance of the Almighty God, who designed and made the universe and all the basic life forms on this earth.

n4h1z (as an evolutionist) : You know nothing about science or evolution or pharmacology. By Saying that God created everything perfectly as it is today is total escapism.

n4h1z (as a creationist) : I'am just telling you what i believe in. If you can't accept it....fine. I have nothing to loose. I can xplain to you everything scientific about organisms but I can't explain any further about their origin besides associating it to the works of the Intelligent Designer.

- felt like smeagol for a while there....

bob x is absolutely right about the owl. Prey animals have their eyes on the sides of their head for maximum range of sight. Predators have their eyes on the front for increased depth perception. Owls would not have evolved to have eyes on the side because it would have decreased their ability to successfully hunt. Instead, they evolved the ability to turn their heads completely around. This is the best solution for the problem.

Refer to my reply to Bob x in my last post....

There is no issue here other than you presuming that you know better than millions of years of nature or, since you accept creationsim, God. If owls and giraffes could be more perfect, as you say, why didn't God make them so?

Giraffes and owls are in their perfect state as we know them today. As a pro-creationism, i have no idea at all how owls and giraffes could be more perfect because they're already perfect, designed by a Divine Power to suit their environment, behavior, diet, etc etc.

The way i see it I'am the one who should be asking you the question how giraffes and owls could evolve into a better form, as you're a pro-evolution and evolutionist believe that organisms will evolve through time into a better form. Don't you think?

I'am not presuming that i know better or trying to be a smart***, I'am just sharing my thoughts, based on facts which i think is relevant in supporting creationism...that's all my intentions here. If there is any false or irrelevant facts in my post, please kindly point it out. I'am also here to learn....thanx.

Peace...

[NamelessMan]

In response to the OP,


I believe there is a creator behind all that we see, and this creator is responsible for all observable (and unobservable) phenomena that occur in the universe.I believe we evolve. If there is any reason for this evolution, it most likely has to do more with evolving consciousness than it does any divine plan, although I truly believe it is not so much an intentional thing as it is just nature doing what nature does.

You can not teach my theory in a science class, just as you can not teach any creationist theory in a science class. Just to say that there is a creator, and all the evidence points towards this, is not science. There is no empirical evidence of a creator, but the empirical evidence that has been provided about the physical world, and my own personal experience leads me to believe there is a creator.

I consider science and spirituality very much like the two sides of the Yin-Yang symbol. Complimentry opposites that should work together to accomplish a common goal, in this case to help explain our existance here and determine where we are going as a species. History has proven that an imbalance between these two forces is detrimental, and if a reconciliation between the two is not reached soon, it could prove even worse. The world can not subsist on just one or the other, both science and spirituality are vital for our survival. It is up to us to create that dialogue that is needed.

(climbs down from soapbox)

With respect,
N/M

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao Equus!

Your reply is more skilled than you give yourself credit for.

Still that just throws up the who created the creator argument and off we go again

Does it, really? Put another way, what does it matter? If there is a Creator, and "He" is the one who calls me to task, and it is He to whom I must answer, then what purpose does it serve me to even wonder if He has a creator? I am so far removed from such a being (a creator of creators) if one should exist, that it is irrelevent to my existence, hence not even worth considering...philosophy for the mere sake of philosophy...no practical application, a waste of time, effort and brain cells. (Fun if you're trippin', but otherwise useless...)

At least, that's how I see it.

A final thought, considering this is the thread dedicated to evidence for the creationist side, is that from this vantage the argument really comes down to proving or disproving God, as Creator of course. Which is probably why science is "smart" enough to leave it alone and invite religion to play on their field, of logic and facts. Scientists are generally intelligent enough to realize that one cannot prove, nor disprove, God. The best one can hope is to argue in circles...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Namelessman, and welcome to CR!

History has proven that an imbalance between these two forces is detrimental, and if a reconciliation between the two is not reached soon, it could prove even worse. The world can not subsist on just one or the other, both science and spirituality are vital for our survival. It is up to us to create that dialogue that is needed.

This is an interesting insight. I don't particularly agree that "History has proven that an imbalance between these two forces is detrimental", but I am willing to hear what you may have to say to back this up.

[NamelessMan]

Hi, juantoo3,

After you brought this remark to my attention, I realized, I'm not too sure if I even agree with it (lol)!

In all seriousness, I suppose the wording should have been different, i.e with an "In my opinion, history has proven that an imbalance..."(blah, blah, blah)

What I was getting at with the comment was basically things such as Galileo's run in with the Church, religious institutions constantly disregarding scientific findings, the on-going battle between evolution and religion,scientists who disregard religious people's experiences as not "rational and logical" (i.e the current backlash from the scientific community at the Dalai Lama's appearance at a scientific lecture series concerning the effects of meditation on the human mind) and other such things which I see as having had a very detrimental effect on human culture's advancement. It is detrimental in the fact that we can not advance beyond disputing each other's ideologies long enough to see that each side does, in fact, have something to bring to the table. I think that we, as a global community, would be far more advanced at this stage in the game, had we not allowed our personal ideologies to stand in the way.

Furthermore, I just really think it goes without saying that we, as a civilization need both science and spirituality. We need to have an understanding of ourselves and how the world around us works, and an understanding of what our place is in the universe. I think it has been a set back for many years that we have split off into little groups and ignored the other groups to a great degree.

Anyway, thanks for the response, and for pointing out my own grammatical errors! Good to meet you as well. I love the Roald Dahl quote, by the way!

respectfully,
N/M

[Tao_Equus]

Dear Nahiz,

Firstly, all birds of prey have forward looking binocular vision for the reasons already simply explained. If you care to look at a few pictures I am sure you can satisfy yourself of that fact. They are not all owls however, and have thus not adapted their vision to work in low light conditions. The fact that barn owls can hunt by sound alone is a clever argument but a deceptive one too. The conditions in which the experiments were carried out were of an owl hunting quarry at close quarters in an artificial enviroment that the barn owl has become particularly well adapted to. In an open enviroment where prey is located at greater distance and enviromental factors like wind noise come in to play then the owl must have superb vision to effectively hunt.

As for giraffes let me ask you this. What would be the reason for a creator to give a giraffe the same number of neck vertabrae as a doormouse? This idea that evolution should have given the giraffe a serpantine neck shows a poor grasp of how evolution works. And the giraffe is not perfect, it is a real struggle for it to drink for example and again as was pointed out, and then ignored, it has some internal features that no designer would leave in but are easilly understood in terms of evolutinary adaptation. Your arguments have glaring chasms of non-logic. Try again.

Regards

TE

[E99]

Hi Tao Equus

Just to interject an off subject point regarding the Isaiah scripture, circular or flat earth etc ! And you did say that you put this creation discussion up originally as a challenge to my creationist beliefs, assuming that I believed in a creation event from 6000 years ago. I beleive in the genesis account, but not the young earth theory.



My quote:
"What the old church believed about the flat earth etc. is in no comparison with the actual scriptures where it says in Isaiah 40:22 "There is one dwelling above the circle of the earth ", and Job :"The earth hangs upon nothing". It was clearly written in the bible."


Your quote:
There are other explanations for how this 'knowledge' came to be.


Bobs quote:
A flat circle, not a "ball".



I've shifted this particular point about the circle of the earth from the abiogenesis thread to here as its off topic on that discussion. The question wether the word 'circle' found in Isaiah and other scriptures has a meaning that it merely refers to a flat circle or disc, or to a globular shape is a significant point for creationists....If the word circle is indeed implying a spherical shape, and is in line with the scripture that the earth 'hangs upon nothing' it go's a long way in showing that the ancient biblical characters had some sort of unusual, possibly God inspired knowledge as regards to the physical shape of the earth, whilst surrounding civilisations had contrasting beliefs, generally believing that the earth was flat or on the back of a giant animal etc.


The meaning of the circle found in Isaiah 40: 22 is not a flat circle. The implication that it means a spherical shape is found by looking at the original Hebrew word and its usage in other verses. The earth in the scriptures is circular, viewed from all directions, but that also makes it spherical in form. The Hebrew word 'chug' here is defined in a Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures by B. Davidson as "circle, sphere." The Hebrew word for circle also means sphere... (like so many Hebrew words, they have varying applications, meanings and implications.)



The actual Hebrew words and direct English transliteration at Isaiah 40:22 are:


Eishb: (The one sitting) ol: (over) chug: (circle of) eartz: (the earth) uishbe: (and the dwellers of) kchgbim: (as grasshoppers) enute; (the one stretching out.)


Translated using old English grammar and syntax:
(It is) he that siteth upon the circle of the earth and the inhabitants there of (are) as grasshoppers.


Updated:
"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers,


The Hebrew grammar uses the 'circle of.' It does not imply a flat circle.


This same Hebrew word 'chug' for circle is found in Job 22:14,

Hebrew words.....Obim: (thick clouds) sthr: (concealment) lu: (to him) ula: (and not) irae: (he is seeing) uchug: (and circle of) scmim: (heavens) ithelk: (he is walking)


Translated using old English grammar and syntax:
Thick clouds are a covering to him that he seeth not and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.


Updated:
Clouds are a concealment place for him so that he does not see, And on the vault of heaven he walks about.’


The spherical circle or vault of the heaven is that as found in Genesis 1: 7,8....

"Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8: And God began to call the expanse Heaven.
It is describing the half sphere semi circular sky from the perspective of an observer on the earth.


Viewed from above the vault, or circle of heaven is hemispherical, half globe. Not forgetting the circle of heaven below... a whole globular shape. In tandem with this fact, Isaiah 40:22 says that God sits above the circle of the earth, then the word "circle" (chug) here is in the same Hebrew sense as that found in the three dimensional circle of the heavens at Job 22:14.....Spherical.


Its clear that the word "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 must mean something that is spherical, just as the appearance of the sky viewed from the earth is semi circular.


It all ties in with the scripture at Job 26: 7 regarding the works of the creator... "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing," and Job 26:10 "He has described a circle upon the face waters,To where light ends in darkness"....

The earth hangs upon nothing...Not a common idea at the time. The circle of the earth, where the defination between night and day is recognised as the result of a spherical shape, not a flat disc.

Viewed from space the earth is always going to be seen as a circle, but in reality it is recognised as a sphere.

The ancient Greeks and preceding civilisations might have viewed the world as flat, but the Hebrews didn't. The Hebrews by descendancy from Adam knew full well that the earth was of a spherical shape that floated in an empty space. The creation account was well known to them, handed down possibly by scrolls that have been lost in time, oral tradition and mainly by the actual inspired words of God the creator found in the scriptures. Short of the ancient Hebrews conducting apollo mission minus 13, they did seem to have had exceptional insight into these matters.



I contested naturalistic abiogenesis as a fallacy, and after refreshing my memory on it all, it seems even more ridiculous a notion to entertain than when I started at the outset.

Its a two horse race.....The whole spectrum of creationism, or the whole spectrum of naturalistic evolution involving abiogenesis..... When one proves to be lame, the other races ahead. Sorry but,The intelligent design elements, anthropic principle etc, seem to imply a designer/creator more so than unproven materialistic chemical evolution forced stories.


Shalohm

[Tao_Equus]

Hello E99 thx for your post


The flat Earth debate I raised to point out an example of irrelevant debate, like Piltdown man. The fact is that many ancient cultures from Australian aboriginals, to south americans, to japanese to the ancient Greeks all percieved the world as a sphere. Given that the sun and moon hang in the sky what else are people really going to think? All that flat Earth teaches us is how the church is prone to infection from fools with their own agenda who's ego's demand we believe them to know best.

I have no problem with abiogenesis because I do not make the distinction between the animate and inanimate you appear to. We are all Star dust. Creation started long, long before our solar system was born. The basic materials that we are composed of have gone through an evolutionary journey stretching back many billions of years and they are spread throughout the cosmos just waiting for the chance to evolve further.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I also percieve from your writing that you believe the creator to be an almost humanlike entity staring down at us like some scientist down his microscope. That 'He' is already perfection and beyond betterment. I dont, I see creation as an unstoppable force, an energy, a dynamic and perpetually evolving exploration of the possible. The countless individual particles exist superficially independent but are each and every one a communicating part of the totality. Thus I see evolution as a good eye opener into the workings of real creationism. No conflict.

Regards

TE

[n4h1z]

Peace to Tao...

Firstly, all birds of prey have forward looking binocular vision for the reasons already simply explained. If you care to look at a few pictures I am sure you can satisfy yourself of that fact. They are not all owls however, and have thus not adapted their vision to work in low light conditions.

Yes, they all have forward looking binocular vision. But they don't have to turn their head completely like the owl to view their rear. My argument was mainly on the placing of the owls' eye which unables it to view its' rear without turning its' head completely. Other birds of prey can view their rear without turning their head completely.

The fact that barn owls can hunt by sound alone is a clever argument but a deceptive one too. The conditions in which the experiments were carried out were of an owl hunting quarry at close quarters in an artificial enviroment that the barn owl has become particularly well adapted to. In an open enviroment where prey is located at greater distance and enviromental factors like wind noise come in to play then the owl must have superb vision to effectively hunt.

I never denied the owls' good night vision. The owls hearing is as good as its' night vision. Combined, this makes the owl a perfect nocturnal hunter. The owl depends on its' hearing more than its' sight while quitely sitting on tree branches, picking up the faintest sound. The owls' sight come into action only when the sound source is located and during flight b4 the strike. Despite the perfect hearing and sight of the owl, their accuracy in locating prey in open environment also depends on their familiarity with the place. Hearing helps to replace the absence of sight, but intimate knowledge of the habitat completes the job.

As for giraffes let me ask you this. What would be the reason for a creator to give a giraffe the same number of neck vertabrae as a doormouse? This idea that evolution should have given the giraffe a serpantine neck shows a poor grasp of how evolution works. And the giraffe is not perfect, it is a real struggle for it to drink for example and again as was pointed out, and then ignored, it has some internal features that no designer would leave in but are easilly understood in terms of evolutinary adaptation. Your arguments have glaring chasms of non-logic. Try again.

I purposely use an illogic example because i was comparing it to an illogic example (bear to whale). Compare an apple to an apple...that's the way it works. I also made that comparison because i was impersonating as an evolutionist.
If giraffes are not perfect as we see them today, than we might as well consider it as a freak of nature. But we know well that they are not freaks. If you consider girrafe as imperfect because how they drink from ground, then you might consider humans also as imperfect by how they struggle to scratch their back.
All creatures are in their perfect state fitting their behavior and environment.
I'am not trying to shove anything down your throat here...i'll just let you digest it according to your own intellectual. I'am just sharing...so i don't need to "try again".
I'll share more relevant arguments in my future post...doesn't seem to have the time to do my readings lately...
c ya'll around...

Peace

[presser_kun]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Since this thread is dedicated to "evidence for the creationist model," allow me to ask a few questions for science to address.

What is beauty?

What is love?

What is faith?

Why do we have or need hope?

Why do we cherish our loved ones? Even after they are dead?

Why are we moral to those we hold within our "family?"

What is awe?

Why do we dream? Why do we have prescient dreams?

I'm coming to this thread just today (11/26), and am enjoying the back-and-forthness of it.

juantoo3, your quote above reminds me of something a dear, departed friend once said. He wrote music for Christian children's choirs, as do I from time to time.

I found a news item some years ago and reported it to him. It said in brief that scientists (French, I think) had discovered the biochemical basis for consciousness and were confident that they would one day be able to explain the human soul.

My friend, the sacred music composer, said:

"Who'd want to sing about that?"

Science, indeed, lives in a different dimension than religion. The attempts to reconcile the two is, I think, misguided.

I suppose that one could "reconcile" oil with water, but I think it's probably better to let each with its different properties simply be.

peace,

press

[Tao_Equus]

Hi there

Originally Posted by presser_kun

I'm coming to this thread just today (11/26), and am enjoying the back-and-forthness of it.

juantoo3, your quote above reminds me of something a dear, departed friend once said. He wrote music for Christian children's choirs, as do I from time to time.

I found a news item some years ago and reported it to him. It said in brief that scientists (French, I think) had discovered the biochemical basis for consciousness and were confident that they would one day be able to explain the human soul.

My friend, the sacred music composer, said:

"Who'd want to sing about that?"

Science, indeed, lives in a different dimension than religion. The attempts to reconcile the two is, I think, misguided.

I suppose that one could "reconcile" oil with water, but I think it's probably better to let each with its different properties simply be.

peace,

press

I think I do understand you, in the terms that you put it, but for some there is wonderous music in equations, or computer code, or chemical reactions......and for some these things are no less hymns in wonder and celebration of the great all.

Regards

TE

[presser_kun]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

for some these things are no less hymns in wonder and celebration of the great all.

How interesting that you put it that way. The Greeks said that music (along with mathematics) was one of the four great areas of learning that all must complete (or begin) in order to be truly educated.

And they combined the two. A fifth (a note and the one five tones above it) was considered perfect because it was created by dividing a string in half and then half again.

The Greeks saw mathematics in music, and vice versa.

Perhaps we should as well . . . see science in religion and religion in science, so to speak. I stretch the analogy (as all analogies are stretched), but I think that oil and water are not so exclusive as I first suggested.

Thanks for your thoughtful and poetic comment, TE.

peace,

press

P.S. I've enjoyed your posts in several threads!