|
REPLY #60 TO
"EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM" (R) Way to not respond to the point about the second law of thermodynamics!!! (MB) Way to begin your rebuttal by ignoring the first three exchanges and jumping in to something in the middle! By the way, I posted a 102-word paragraph in response (in Reply #59) to your unsubstantiated and ludicrous charge that evolution violates the 2LT. Didn't you see it? Incidentally, you did not respond to two key points that I raised prior to the introduction of the 2LT chestnut. Perhaps, you could take a moment to do so. The first asked you which "Christians" you claim to speak for when you talk about "what Christians believe". The second wondered whether or not you accept the existence of gravity since that, too, is "only a theory". (R) You just avoided that with a pot-shot at the "without form and void" scripture. (MB) I can see that you completely missed the point of my answer. You claimed that the 2LT "has never been broken". My answer pointed out that it had to have been broken at least once if you accept divine creation. Therefore, your own beliefs disprove your argument. (R) Creation occurred, then there was the "void", then God put things back in order. (MB) You can't put a void "back in order", since if something is "void", it does not exist. If, as you say, "Creation occurred", that implies that at least one thing was created and, therefore, existed. If, afterwards, the void returned, what was initially existing suddenly existed no more and things were back to nothingness. In other words, it was as if nothing had happened in the first place. Then, you say that "God put things back in order". Well, if we now have a situation where nothing is existing, what could possibly be put back in order? (R) There was no disruption of the 2nd law here. (MB) You don't think that a miraculous creation event where an entire universe is created from the nothingness of a void doesn't constitute a violation of the 2LT? Also, if divine creation is claimed, then you must accept that the majority of the universe was created in a state of *disorder* -- not "order" -- since that is its current state. This would be pointless and downright foolish in a system which owes its existence to intelligent design. (R) Obviously, there was a catastophic event of some sort that caused the earth's form to be chaotic, and God patched it up again. (MB) Just what eisegetical spin-doctoring is being used to wring that interpretation out of the text in Genesis? If an all-powerful God was in charge, there is no reason for him to allow any such catastrophe to happen. It would have made more sense for him to have created the Earth exactly the way he wanted it from the very beginning. (R) Even though the earth's form changed, there's no dissintegration, or dissappearance of matter, nor is there a building up of it without cause. It remains, but with a more chaotic form. (MB) Just what is "chaotic" about the Earth's form? Do you really believe that the Earth was created before the remainder of the universe? Since no other characteristic of the Earth violates any known laws of celestial mechanics or astrophysics, why should we believe that its creation was any different from that of any other celestial body? (R) So, what kind of refute was that. (MB) I'll let you know once you respond to my actual refutation of your claim rather than taking umbrage at my reference to Genesis. (R) You also pointed out how evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. Well, it is always brought up in a context of the origins of life, so I argued against it in that context. (MB) So, your choice to apply an irrelevant context to evolution demands that your chosen context be defended? Creationists could make their own lives much simpler by learning what evolution actually is than by arguing about what they *think* it should be. (R) But, inherent in your point is more reasons to not believe in evolution. It just stops at some point. (MB) Who said that evolution ever "stops"? No data exist which would support that claim. The common belief that Homo sapiens is the apex of evolutionary progress is nothing more than self-serving arrogance. It is certainly not what science says. (R) It makes more common sense that a greater intelligence designed something, like our universe, than to say, "We know we evolved from a blob, but we don't know where the blob, or original matter came from. (MB) The answer to where the "blob" came from is a question for biologists and biochemists to answer, but it is not anything that directly concerns evolution. As far as evolution is concerned, your invisible "God" could have created the blob and then allowed evolution to take over. It could even have been deposited here by an extraterrestrial visitor or by a comet impact. It could have arisen by natural and understandable processes. Evolution doesn't care how the blob came to exist. Evolution seeks the answers to how living things developed and diversified only *after* the first "blob" appeared. The more that Creationists try to shoehorn unrelated matters of origins into evolution, the more they demonstrate their lack of knowledge about what evolution is actually all about. As to which idea of ultimate origins makes more "common sense", it would have to be one which has objective and testable evidence to support it. Only the "God did it" claim is totally devoid of supporting evidence. Therefore, it is the approach that makes the least common sense. (R) Because of this theory we can explain the past hundred billion years of the history of mankind but can't or won't try to even guess the source of energy of our origin, i.e. what caused the big bang, or what brought about the original matter in the universe. (MB) We have other scientific theories which seek to explain those questions. Evolution is not one of them. Evolution also does not explain the theory of atomic structure, but such structure is essential to the chemical reactions required to produce the building blocks of life. Evolution, like many theories, is a product of more fundamental theories. (R) Look, something brought life's existence about. And it's more sensible to believe in the supernatural and a more intelligent being than us, than it is to believe it just happened. (MB) Why is something that nobody has ever seen, that nobody has ever objectively experienced, and for which there is no evidence whatsoever to be considered "more sensible to believe" than any theory which depends on evidence? There is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. A given person's inability to explain or understand a natural phenomenon does not make belief in the supernatural "sensible". (R) The most blind faith lies in evolution. (MB) Evolution follows the same rules of evidence as does any other theory of science. To say that evolution relies on "blind faith" is to claim the same thing for *all* of science. I doubt you're going to try that. Now, what rules of evidence does religion follow? Even if I was to accept the existence of a Creator, what evidence proves that such a Creator is the "God" in which you believe? Why couldn't it be the supreme deity of any other religion? How will you demonstrate that the Creator is not Ra, Ahura-Mazda, Brahman, Odin, Cronus, Ta'aroa, Coyote, the Great Green Arkleseizure or any of numerous others -- including all possible deities that Man does not yet know about? (R) For years people said "The missing link is out there, we just haven't found it yet." The evidence for what you believe doesn't exist, but you believe it anyway? (MB) "The missing link" as pertains to what? If you're talking about the common ancestor of apes and humans, the fossil record of our descent is all but complete. The debate is over which particular ancestor was the *actual* point of divergence. When we answer that question, "the missing link" will be known. But, it should be clear that the fossil itself already exists. (R) And you think creationists are the ones with blind faith? (MB) Yep. For all the reasons detailed above as well as many, many more. Additionally, you have neglected to answer a few questions that I raised concerning what you believe. For your convenience, I'll quote them here: Who are you to say that things aren't exactly the way the "the creator" wants them to be? Who are you to put limits on what such an entity can or should do? Christians are fond of claiming that Man cannot know the mind of God. Yet, aren't you claiming such knowledge here? (R) There's NEVER EVER been a "link" between species found, even with the millions of archaelogical digs that have been found. (MB) Perhaps you have some seriously distorted connotation of "link", but the facts are that there are thousands of libraries and labs filled with the evidence you say "doesn't exist". You ignored my question which asked you to explain how we know the complete and unbroken record of the evolution of the modern horse, Equus, over the past 54 million years? Is this because this example would prove too difficult for your claim to address? (R) And you say creationists have blind faith. (MB) Yep. For all the reasons detailed above as well as many, many more. Along those lines, I will quote another paragraph from my previous response which you neglected to answer. Science *invites* questioning! It is only religion which actively discourages questioning -- often under threat of death and/or eternal damnation. Science can only tell you that you are ignorant. Religion tries to tell you that you risk the wrath of an almighty God and everlasting torture in Hell. Which prospect is likely to be more intimidating to the average person? Even at that, after 2000 years of preaching and threatening, only about 30% of the world's population calls itself "Christian" while it's the rare person who disbelieves what science has to say. Therefore, which is more compelling to the average person? (R) You can't see love, the wind, gravity (as you stated), or God. You think that's enough to dismiss the existence of God? (MB) I can show conclusive and objective evidence for love. "Love" is our word for the effect of certain chemicals on the human nervous system. I can show conclusive and objective evidence for the wind. "Wind" is our word for the effect produced by the motion of air molecules in the atmosphere. I can show conclusive and objective evidence for gravity by jumping off a table or by releasing massive objects above the ground. There is also evidence for the existence of the graviton. Only the notion of "God" has no such conclusive or objective evidence to support it. "God" is the fall-back answer when somebody can't understand or doesn't know the real answer. "God" is hardly self-evident since there are so many different and mutually-exclusive versions in the minds of Man. "God" has the same amount of evidence to support it as do leprechauns, Santa Claus, and Little Green Men from Mars. There is only one version of science and it applies to all people without regard to any of their other personal beliefs. Yes, I do believe that this is enough to dismiss the existence of God. (R) Evolution demands tangible evidence that doesn't exist. It should be thrown out the window. (MB) Fortunately, clearer-thinking minds have prevailed and Man has benefitted greatly from them. There is no reason to suspect that this will change in the forseeable future. (R) The Bible has a myriad of evidence supporting it, include the names of all the elements in the element table found recently in the "Bible Codes". (MB) Uh-huh. The names of all the elements -- in English -- are found encoded into a book that was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? You may wish to read the next paragraph before answering this. (R) No one atheist, Christian, agnostic, scientist, whatever, that has studied the Bible Codes, has said they don't exist. It's fact, they do. From the inventor, date, and place of the innovation of the light bulb to the death, date and location of Lady Diana's fatal accident, just about every major piece of history has been found in the Bible--AND NOT IN ANY OTHER PIECE OF LITERATURE IN THE WORLD. Now you can believe the code is real and not believe the text on top. You have that free choice. But it's asinine to do so. (MB) You may be interested in reading Reply #8 to Religion in which I show that the same sorts of "wonderous information" has been found in Moby Dick (which certainly qualifies as "a piece of literature") by using the same bogus mathematics and contrived methods used in the gematria of The Bible Codes and provide a link to the proof. This proof was performed *at the request and the challenge* of the author of The Bible Codes himself! The underlying mathematics prove that you can find anything you want in any non-trivial work if you look in enough different and laborious ways and know ahead of time what you are trying to find. Anybody who seriously believes in The Bible Codes has truly put their mind on "Park". Either that, or they must be forced to claim that Moby Dick is also a God-inspired holy book. In addition, you may be interested in checking out the large collection of similar nonsensical gematria provided at http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Religions/Numerics. After examining the refutations, please come back and tell me more about how gematria proves God. (By the way, despite the way the URL reads, this page concerns itself with Biblical and Talmudic nonsense along with that claimed in favor of the Qu'ran.) (R) You didn't address the lack of facts backing up evolution. That's typical of evolutionists. (MB) In fact, I *did* address it. It was in the part of the previous reply you seem to have skipped over in your haste to jump on the Genesis thing. In case you can't find it, I said: As to the standard mantra that there is "no evidence" to support evolution, this is such clear and blatant nonsense that it's barely even worth addressing. The numerous replies in this section and the links provided in many of them present ample supporting evidence for evolution. To ignore it or claim that it "doesn't exist" is ultimately as futile as spitting into a strong wind.This is the 60th reply (and 75th page) in this section. Can you read all of them and still say that there is "no evidence for evolution"? If so, you will need to bring up all examples which have been presented thus far and refute them, one by one. Are you up to it? (R) There's stuff out there that you could deduce from, or exctract the theory from, but when you put it in light of creationism and all the evidence that demonstrates instantaneous creation, it doesn't stand. (MB) There is no "light of creationism" to use for any comparison. As far as "all the evidence" for creationism goes, so far I've heard nothing but "God did it" and "it's silly to think otherwise". Considering that you can't even make a compelling case that this "God" is the one you choose to worship, your beliefs can't even begin to get off the ground. (R) You have to look at the whole of all the evidences you are using. (MB) I do nothing else. That's why I have such confidence in evolution. Creationists have been trying to tear it down for upwards of four decades now and have only succeeded in splitting their own ranks and strengthening the case for evolution. What wonderfully new things do you know that have thus far escaped the best that Creationism has to offer? (R) Someone could say that a thunder cloud is dark and someone could say that it's light-colored. Well, say the "dark theorist" never saw nighttime or anything black, or never closed their eyes, their opinion would be in light of the brightness of daylight. But if the light theorist was stuck in the deepest darkest cave in the world for three years, his/her opinion of the darkness of the grayness of that cloud might be in light of his extreme experience with pitch black, deep darkness. Each view is skewed by their own personal experience. (MB) This is not only contrived, but silly. "Dark" and "light" are subjective evaluations and not objective facts. A scientist would not use words like "dark" and "light". He would express the color of each cloud as a function of the frequencies of light which are reflected or emitted by each. This is especially true since "Dark" could be frequencies which are off either the low or high end of the visible light spectrum. (R) Well if you only look at your supposed mole-hill of evidence for evolution and don't look at the mountain of evidence that supports the Biblical account of creation and the scientific data that leans toward creation, or makes more sense when applied to the creationist theory, if you don't look at both, of course you're going to believe the side that you spend all your time investigating. (MB) I always look at both (or *all*) sides. When I look at the religious view, I see not one jot or tittle of objective evidence to support it and can find numerous unresolvable problems with it. But, I'm a fair man. If you sincerely believe that there is a "mountain of evidence" which supports your views, why not present some of it? In other words, why not make a positive case for Creationism instead of demonstrating an inadequate knowledge of science, in general, and evolution, in particular? Certainly, you must understand that the positive case for Creationism *must* be made even if evolution is defeated. So, to help you get started on making your case, perhaps you can answer the following 10 questions: Anything with "mountains of evidence" to support it should have no problems with any of the preceding questions. I will be interested to see your answers -- especially since none of the questions have ever been successfully answered.
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.5 .......... Last Update: 24 Apr 00
|