Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hume said:
If he was a trickster, sure.

A young creation should stipulate that every time we go out to gaze at the night sky, we see new dots lighting up as their light finally reaches us.

So many objects in the universe it would be a nightly show. I should be able to go out and look at black patches and watch things appear.
Click to expand...
The deceiver God is a fallacy. Suppose you are walking down the beach and see only left footprints at the edge of the water. Should one conclude a deceiver was at work?
 
Hume said:
We see the evolution of tyrannosaurs in their fossils. Literally.

As for whales, we can watch their evolution from land-dwelling mammals step-by-step. They still have some evidence of this today with their little vestigial hips they’ve yet to fully shed.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, vestigial organs have gone bye bye.
Show we the over 10,000 morphological steps from land to whale. At each step show me the survival advantage.

How do you know a fossil is an upwards transitional or a downwards one?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
If he was a trickster, sure.

A young creation should stipulate that every time we go out to gaze at the night sky, we see new dots lighting up as their light finally reaches us.

So many objects in the universe it would be a nightly show. I should be able to go out and look at black patches and watch things appear.
Click to expand...
The deceiver God is a fallacy. Suppose you are walking down the beach and see only left footprints at the edge of the water. Should one conclude a deceiver was at work?
Click to expand...
No, I’d have good reason to suspect the right prints had washed away.

Now if this occurred way up on the beach, yeah. Something odd in play.
 
Upwards downwards???

You mean further past to current? If so - date the rocks.

As to the thousands of steps requirement - not reasonable.
It used to be whales lived on land!?!? Show me a transitional specimen!

Done.

Nonsense! I want transitions between the transitions!

Done.

Aaaarg!!! No! Now I want 10000 steps, complete with papers!

Pass.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
The intelligibility of the universe depends on the existence of unchanging laws that govern the universe discoverable by man. Discovering the laws allows the reliable prediction that “if x then y” and, conversely, "if not x then not y.’ The latter, just as important as the former is the principle of sufficient reason. Nothing happens without sufficient reason.
Click to expand...
Scientific laws are only descriptive, not prescriptive. What is formulated as laws in sience is simply patterns of repetitiveness which occurs under certain cirumstances. That’s it. We have good evidence that what we consider “laws” of nature is very much energy dependent.
 
Hume said:
No, I’d have good reason to suspect the right prints had washed away.

Now if this occurred way up on the beach, yeah. Something odd in play.
Click to expand...
Ok- suppose you keep walking and see only left footprints? Was a deceiver at work? How do you know?
 
I would know because a God that created the universe with light already in route to its destination was deliberately making the universe look older than it really was.

That God would be a deceiver and we would best worship it by trying to mimic its deceptive nature, would be my guess.
 
Hume said:
Allow me to repeat your biggest problem.
Click to expand...
Not even close. Right now my biggest problem is that the flying monkeys have entered the thread at ~ 1600 posts and attempt by regurgitation to move the conversation back to the beginning.
 
There’s only change. “Devolving” suggests an idealism that I can’t observe. Not part of the equation, particularly as the fundamental reason life changes is to become more adapted to where it lives.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
Aaaarg!!! No! Now I want 10000 steps, complete with papers!

Pass.
Click to expand...
Right. It is fantasy and story telling.
Click to expand...
No, you have an unreasonable expectation for how often things fossilize in different environments.

It’s very possible, maybe even probable that there could be thousands of generations between fossil specimens. Those changes simply weren’t saved in rocks.
 
Hume said:
I would know because a God that created the universe with light already in route to its destination was deliberately making the universe look older than it really was.

That God would be a deceiver and we would best worship it by trying to mimic its deceptive nature, would be my guess.
Click to expand...
Yes, an old argument.

Really? Why does God have to create by your expectations? Do you have all the information?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
I would know because a God that created the universe with light already in route to its destination was deliberately making the universe look older than it really was.

That God would be a deceiver and we would best worship it by trying to mimic its deceptive nature, would be my guess.
Click to expand...
Yes, an old argument.

Really? Why does God have to create by your expectations? Do you have all the information?
Click to expand...
Do you? Why else would the divine trickster create a universe with light already en-route?

I though it’s scripture said that it wasn’t a god of confusion…
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Hume:
Allow me to repeat your biggest problem.
Click to expand...
Not even close. Right now my biggest problem is that the flying monkeys have entered the thread at ~ 1600 posts and attempt by regurgitation to move the conversation back to the beginning.
Click to expand...
There, there…

We ALL want our philosophical premises to be taken as granted. Problem is, there has to be some actual, verifiable observation to back it up.

The cold, hard maul of “Reality” is what beats belief apart from fact.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
There’s only change. “Devolving” suggests an idealism that I can’t observe. Not part of the equation, particularly as the fundamental reason life changes is to become more adapted to where it lives.
Click to expand...
One cannot observe your claim. Yes, no one argues adaptation. We also are also finding organisms shape their environment. We also now know about cell directed mutations.

This issue is macroevolution. From very simple to very complex from the beginning. We only need enough time. Macro does not happen.
 
buffalo said:
One cannot observe your claim.
Click to expand...
Sure they can. Fossils appear in one strata, they don’t in another. Within the strata, they display differences.

There are no fossils of humans and blue whales in the year 50 million BC. But there are these little rat/weasel like things.

Not long after, these guys are gone, but there are more types of rats with differing traits.

Not long after, these are gone, but there are rats that have even more exaggerated expressions of the old traits and some new traits have shown up.

Repeat a few more times and you wind up with the mammals we have today.
 
Hume said:
Sure they can. Fossils appear in one strata, they don’t in another. Within the strata, they display differences.

There are no fossils of humans and blue whales in the year 50 million BC. But there are these little rat/weasel like things.

Not long after, these guys are gone, but there are more types of rats with differing traits.

Not long after, these are gone, but there are rats that have even more exaggerated expressions of the old traits and some new traits have shown up.

Repeat a few more times and you wind up with the mammals we have today.
Click to expand...
fossils appear in sedimentary rock that was rapidly buried. Very rarely are they complete and undisturbed. Every catastrophic event can scramble them even more. Even so, what we know is abrupt appearance, stasis and variation within.

Date the fossils not the rocks.

No matter, we are getting better genetic information. Fossil evidence is going to be trumped by genetic evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top