theyeti

Yes, you can always interpret things using God's omnipotence and mysteriousness to side-step every one of the many problems with creationism. Such a God is capable of creating everything to look like it's ancient and to look like evolution occured and we just don't know why. But you can use that reasoning to justify anything. At this point, creationism become compatible with absolutely all sets of data, real or imagined, no matter what. This is why creationism fails even the most basic standard of science; it's not even capable of explaining why the natural world appears as it does. If the natural world appeared completely different, then creationism would be no worse off. It does not make any predictions, it is not even remotely testable, and it doesn not provide a theoretical framework for incorporating new data. It is the antithesis of science.

At this point you are entering into a theological point of view that most theologians would find odious. The most glaring flaw with your reasoning is that if God can do what he wants and we're in no position to ask why, then the creationist has no reason to reject evolution. Who are you to question God?

theyeti

Peez

We aim to please. First, creationism is not restricted to Christianity. Second, it is a bit obscure as to why everything from bacteria to blue spruce suffer from diseases, not to mention why we should suffer for an ancestor's sin. By the way, were all those pathogens (disease-causing organisms) created at the fall? Anyhow, the problem is that creationism can be used to explain anything, therefore it explains nothing. Life as we see it makes sense in the light of evolution, creation makes no sense at all. Actually, you have said something outlandish. Claiming that some mythical being created all life as we now see it is outlandish. Let's keep the hyperbole to a minimum. The point being made is that a medical doctor is not a scientist (unless they also have a PhD in some discipline). Even those scientists whose specialty is not biology generally know little about evolution, and even within biology there are many scientists who do not know much more. Perhaps this is the problem. You can, of course, define "evolution" any way that you want to, but that is not the "evolution" that Darwin spoke of, and it is not the "evolution" that biologists recognize today. Again, there are two concepts that are often called "evolution." First there is the history of life on this planet, the fact of evolution. It has nothing to do with the origin of life. Simply stated, it is that living things here share a common ancestor. It may be noted that Darwin was not the first to suggest that living things had evolved, but he was the first (along with Wallace) to suggest common descent.

Second, there is the theory of evolution. This is the mechanism that explains how living things evolve. This is a theory in the sense of "the analysis of a set of facts in relation to one another" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary), not in the sense of being tentative. Speaking only for myself, I am not trying to pick you apart. Rather, I am trying to explain evolution to you, and discuss it. And I don't care if a doctor believes this or that (by the way, I never mentioned if the priest was Catholic). I imagine that you mentioned the opinions of doctors to illustrate that intelligent, well-educated people could be creationists. Can you not see that I mentioned the priest to illustrate that intelligent, well- educated Christians can accept common descent and the theory of evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with ‘doing whatever I want.' It is simply the fact, as revealed by scientific evidence, that life shares a common ancestor, and that mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection are the best scientific explanation for what we see today in terms of living things. Since your definition of evolution is not the one that biologists use, it appears that you didn't study those "evolution books" very carefully. Does that mean that you do not intend to answer these questions? Peez

Peez

Scigirl is addressing you with respect, perhaps you could extend her the same courtesy. We get back to the definition of evolution. This is exactly an example of evolution as biologists understand it. The individuals carrying genes that confer greater resistance to powerful sunlight would be more likely to survive and pass those genes on to the next generation. Eventually, most or all of the population would have those protective genes. That is exactly evolution. Perhaps not by your definition, but it certainly is evolution according to Darwin and biologists since him. We have seen the same old arguments that you are putting forth many times before, but most of us (and scigirl in particular) are treating you with respect. You are only reenforcing negative stereotypes about arrogant Christians by being rude like that. Perhaps I am slow, but I don't understand your point here. Could you please explain why, according to the creationist model, human/chimp genetics are like that?

Peez

Peez

I will not complain that you are being rude, as you were addressed in a way that was less polite than it might have been. I will, however, point out that your verbal gymnastics did not hide the fact that you did call him ignorant, so please do not pretend moral high ground there.

As for those examples, of course they are evolution. Textbook examples, literally. Check out Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition (Douglas J. Futuyma, 1998, Sinauer) p. 385; or Evolution (Mark Ridley, 1993, Blackwell) pp. 110-112. Many introductory biology texts also point this out (e.g. Biology, Fifth Edition (Campbell et al, 1999, Benjamin/Cummings) p. 438).

Peez

Ergaster

Waidaminnit! You are claiming that "evolution" can only be something that hasn't been observed?? And as soon as you observe it, it can't be "evolution"? Holy Revisionism, Batman! I know that your "definition" of evolution was basically meaningless from a scientific standpoint, but that one takes the cake!

Um...perhaps you are not aware of what a scientific theory actually is? By calling evolution a "theory" we are basically saying that it is an explanation for observed phenomena and facts that has the *highest* confidence among scientists. It is the *best* explanation for the pattern and history of the diversity of life on earth that there is. It has withstood repeated and continuing tests of its various explanatory mechanisms. There is nothing else out there that explains all the observed data, and furthermore which allows useful predictions to be made.

Yes--adaptation has been observed. Adaptation is a part of evolution. If you do not think so, I submit that you have not studied it very hard or with much attention.

Yep--many creationists also accept speciation, and a limited form of descent with modification (you have heard of baraminology and Discontinuity Systematics, have you not?). This is because these things have been *observed*, and they are also a part of evolution. There are some facts which even creationists cannot ignore, and it is fascinating to watch them try to fit reality into their own "special" version of the world....

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Ergaster ]</p>

scigirl

Science can't be observed! OH MY GOSH! What have I been doing the last three years of my life! (Scigirl throws away all of her observations and neutrophils and rotavirus).

So what do you think science is,?

As a matter of fact, I have taken the time. And no, not all creationists support adaptation. Some of them don't even believe in natural selection! Read this <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000008" target="_blank">formal debate</a> beween me and a creationist.

scigirl

scigirl

Yes, you did. You stated that diseases are because of the fall, not because of evolution. Your words, not mine.

How so, donotworry? Many diseases are caused by parasitic organisms. They absolutely need to live inside a host cell to survive. This compromises the host.

Please explain to me how rotavirus could have existed before the fall. I.e. How could it have survived by replicating in the small intestine of children but without causing disease?

Even if things were 'different' before the fall, it's irrelevant now, wouldn't you agree? You may reject evolution, but you still have to agree with its conclusions (i.e. mechanisms behind diseases). So why not just accept it?

I doubt that. For one thing, we need some bacteria to survive. Another thing--an overactive immune system is just as bad as an underactive one. Ever meet a person with diabetes or multiple sclerosis?

I find it helpful to think like Aristotle when thinking about biological concepts. The extremes are bad, the middle is good. If you believe that everthing is either good or bad (digital Christian thinking), than diseases, as well as nearly all of modern medicine, makes no sense unless you make up and add to the Bible stories. "Viruses are because of the fall." Does the bible say that? No it does not.

Of course, and that's one of the reasons why creationism sounds appealing to people. "An alternative to dogmatic science, a new explanation."

Except. . . what you are asking us to do is abandon perfectly good explanations for diseases which do have data in favor of an explanation that we can neither see nor test at all.

scigirl

theyeti

This is perhaps the most hilarious and hypocritical of creationist canards. It also makes me think that your "conversion" story is less than sincere. Ignoring the fact that evolution says absolutely nothing about the existance of God or lack thereof, let's see just who doesn't want to be held accountable for anything.

[rant]

Creationists claim that they're not accountable to anything but God in the Bible; that is, accountable to their interpretation of the Bible. According to their arguments, they are not accountable to human standards of decency -- the Bible lets them hate faggots to their heart's content. Why do you think they spend so much time dwelling on it their "seminars"? They simply pull out parts of Leviticus that justify their hatred and ignore the ones that, for example, won't let them wear cotton/polyester blends. They also hate abortionists although the Bible says absolutely nothing about that (expect for a part in the OT where God commands to "dash their babies on the rocks" or some such -- He seems to like violence). And yet they don't even think about criticizing the things that the Bible does preach against -- like being rich and greedy for instance. Heck, their heavily in favor of that! Just ask millionare heir<a href="http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/97jan_feb/ahmanson.html" target="_blank">Howard Ahmanson</a>, the primary funder of the Discovery Institute. It's exceedingly obvious that there is no consistency with what creationists claim that the Bible tells them to do. They simply pick out the parts that seem to justify their hatred and greed and ignore the ones that tell them to do things that would be contrary to thier own self interest.

Creationists further claim that they're not even accountable to the government! The more radical ones, like Robert T. Lee, are calling for it to be overthrown and replaced it with one founded on "The Ten Commandments", whatever that means. He's not alone -- the entire Christian Reconstructionist movement (of which Ahmanson is a member), that bases its ideology on Biblical literalism (i.e. creationism), is seeking the same thing. Oh, and they also want to murder fags and little shits that talk back to their parents. Then you have people like Kent Hovind, who doesn't pay his taxes because he says that the govenment has no authority over him. What a coincidence that this particular interpretation (quite contrary to Jesus' speech about "give unto Caesar") happens to put more money in his pocket, which is already overflowing thanks to suckers.

How convienient! Can I join this religion that let's me tell everyone who I disagree with to fuck off because I answer only to God? I too want to do whatever I want despite the needs and considerations of neighbors, govenments, and nature. Hey, we've got this Book that can be used to justify practically anything without having to worry about common sense, decency, or reason! Talk about not wanting to be held accountable for anything! The creationist penchant for blatant hypocrisy is perhaps the most despicable of its many grotesque manifestations.

[/rant]

theyeti

Peez

Nope. If humans and chimps share a recent common ancestor, we should expect similar genetic architecture. If humans are not animals at all, and do not share a common ancestor with chimps, then there is no reason to expect such similarity. This is not at all similar to complaining about what colour the sky appears to be.

Peez

Peez

By all means, but first define what a "beneficial" mutation is. LOL I am sorry, but I cannot contain myself. You are trying to define evolution in some convoluted way that excludes any examples that we have observed. You have it backwards. We started with a definition, then went out and found mounds of evidence for it (and, so far, none against it). You seem to have some pet definition of "evolution" that you are arguing doesn't happen. Frankly, I don't know if your "evolution" happens or not, but I do know that overwhelming evidence indicates that what biologists call evolution has occurred. I suggest that, before you lecture us on the nature of science, you look up the word "theory" in the dictionary. You might also reflect on whether or not anything other than personal existence can be proved. "Theory" as scientists use the term does not imply tentative, science never deals in "proof," and common descent is not a scientific theory. As a plus, "evolution" (as biologists use the term) does not mean "nothing to something to something very complex." I certainly do not accept that "evolution in that sense has ever occurred. I believe that you do not know the meaning of adaptation, evolution, scientific fact, or theory. I have read far too many creationist arguments. I believe that some of them would not believe in "adaptation," though I am not completely clear on what you mean by that. If you even knew what biologists mean when they say "evolution," I would be much more inclined to listen to your arguments.

Peez