Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: "Best Critique of Evolution You Will Ever Hear"
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 1, 2017
Author: PNN
Post Date: 2017-09-01 17:33:27 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 10206
Comments: 71
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-17) not displayed.
.
.
.
#18. To: Justified (#16)
I did not say that creationism does not work. I merely pointed out that the requirements the narrator placed on evolution, that the theory be "observable, demonstratable, repeatable and quantifiable" are requirements that creationism fails. At least the first 3. For example, when is the last time we observed a life form being divinely created? When has it been demonstrated or repeated? We have never witnessed any of those things. So why does the author make demands upon evolution that creationism fails to answer as well? That we do not know. It used to be said that heavier than air objects cannot fly, but that intuitive claim was eventually disproven. Just because we do not understand all about evolution does not mean it is completely wrong. If chickens do indeed possess DNA for growing teeth, I would consider that evidence (though perhaps not proof) in support of evolution. With creationism, there would be no reason for chickens to possess such DNA. (though a web search just now seems to show some discussion about how that can be under creationism).
Creationism can't explain banana-head BorisY. God must have evolved a bunch of rotten bananas at the Chiquita warehouse, into Boris! LiveScience: Surprise: Chickens Can Grow Teeth : )
The majority may not be thinking about it all the time. But when they fall for the lie of evolution subconsciously for the rest of their lives constantly it causes them to reject gods word. You could also look at vpcreationism as just answering questions of skeptical and showing the people that they can believe in gods word and that it is reliable and not a fable. So most of us aren't talking about it all the time but once we come to a conclusion it is affecting us all the time.
Nice attempt at backfilling. However, if you weren't exposed to all these crevo threads all the time on the internet, I doubt you'd ever give much thought to the topic at all. The same is true for about 99% of the public. Even people like pastors or evolutionary biologists just don't give it all that much thought unless someone is churning them up over the issue. I didn't ping you to it but maybe you'd enjoy my favorite new Christian #FakeNews site. It's a hoot. Here's where I posted about it here at LF. Some really funny stuff and not just the low-hanging Pope Frank stuff either.
Before the internet i knew about this stuff. Ive been to seminars in the 80's. I'm not the typical person though. What do you mean by backfilling?
The content of your link (at least the titles) sounded about as funny as sneakypetes joke he told the other day.
The site looks to be humor from a conservative Prot/Baptist/Reformed viewpoint. And, yes, it is pretty funny.
For me, it's not a question of falling for a "lie" or being deceived, it's a question of whether to be honest or not honest about what I observe about life, the universe, and everything. There are no doubt many Christians who call themselves such out of "I fear for my [eternal] life" reasons. That is, they don't want to burn in hell for all eternity, so they are Christian. Have they applied critical thought to the validity of the faith? I know many have, I'm sure many have not. And if someone, after full consideration, honestly concludes that they do not believe the bible could be the literal "Word of God", is it reasonable to believe that God would punish this person in a lake of fire for all eternity, while eternally rewarding someone who simply buried the issue out of their head and pretended to believe it was? I'm not at that point. There is no doubt in my mind that honesty is a virtue, even if that honesty is one that expresses doubt, and if there is one thing for which we will be judged, it will be on whether we lived honestly with real doubts or if we instead pretended to believe something we really don't because we were afraid. For me, the former is more virtuous, and I cannot for a moment believe that God would judge me for the worse for taking that path. And in my opinion, anyone who subscribes to any faith out of fear instead of sincerity is not being honest. And if they are not being honest, then that is something for which they may be judged as lacking.
Have you observed a chicken egg hatching something besides a chicken? Have you observed an apple tree changing into a new kind of tree. Have you witnessed any changes in any plant or animal species? Me neither. I see things reproducing after like kind. Exclusively. Have you ever been hypnotized and talked to God? Exactly what observations are you talking about?
Yes. Because they have rejected the truth.
I don't think pretenders cut it because of this verse. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Have you ever done things immoral and wrong? Yes you have and so have I and everyone else. Why would god take people who can't even say they are sorry for the wrong they did? Ask and ye shall receive.
So why doesn't God make everyone into perfect beings and allow them all into heaven? It would actually be more cruel if God were to do this, since many people prefer hell to the alternative (complete submission to God). All the people who end up going to hell will have done so because they actually prefer hell to being forced into the presence of God for all eternity. People like to live in their favorite sins and answer to no one else. They know that if they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior that God will want them to change their lives and they might have to give up some of their autonomy. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/hell.html
No, but neither have I observed a new life form being created out of nothing, and I'm pretty sure no one else has either. Can one be so certain that when one speaks, God does not listen, or that when thoughts and understanding enter one's mind, it did not originate from God? So maybe I have talked to God. Maybe everyone has. Everything from physical evidence of life and geology on earth and the stars in the sky to interactions with other people. Everything. Your own beliefs are also based on observations, are they not? You have observed the Bible and the stories it contains, and believe it.
But they have not rejected honesty. Would not God cherish one's honesty about lack of academic understanding more than the capacity to understand itself? If a typical parent would not condemn a child to death for being wrong about something, and parents are far inferior in capacity to love and forgive than God, how much less likely is God to condemn one of his kids for "rejecting the truth"? I say infinitely less so. One's academic understanding of God is surely not what God cares about most. Your position is not logical at all.
Because he's God. If mere people are virtuous enough to tolerate and accept others in spite of their imperfections, how much more likely is God to do that? Do you believe God is less tolerant and virtuous than people are?
There is, in my opinion, a much better theological model than the one that says we live once and be judged to enter heaven or hell for all eternity, and the qualities of this model are objectively superior to the standard Christian model (though such analysis of objective superiority is not proof it is correct). The model that includes reincarnation has the following benefits/advantages: 1) We are not limited to a single lifetime that determines our eternal fate. 2) An untimely murder or death does not deprive a victim of opportunities to continue to grow spiritually. 3) We have complete free will in the lives we live, including the choice to live at all. 4) Tragic circumstances, such as the loss of a loved one or being born handicapped serves a deeper, positive & pragmatic good. 5) Our life on earth serves a very real, pragmatic and understandable purpose that is for our direct benefit, and not for an obtuse purpose of "glorifying God" or what ever other descriptive terms Christianity would deem. 6) We all grow at our own pace according to our own desire. Those that grow are rewarded with that growth. 7) We are not penalized for growing up and living full lives in alternate cultures that do not teach what happens to be a "correct" theology. 8) Under this model, it's much easier to forgive others, as we see in a different light that all are on their own paths, and how wrongdoers will eventually voluntarily choose to suffer the same harm they have caused others so they can understand and grow into better souls. Under Christianity, death is a door we pass through only once, after which free will is gone forever and we get either eternal damnation or bliss. The decision to die is often left to other people, whether murderers or normal people that make mistakes. The length of time we have to decide about God can be limited to less than a few years, in the case of children dying. Those born severely handicapped had no choice in the matter. Spiritual growth is not particularly important. It's far easier to take on the mindset that there is "a special place in hell" for those who have caused great harm and hate them. Under the model I subscribe to, we have an eternity to grow which reflects the virtues of great love and patience that Christianity itself correctly teaches about God. It works sooooooo much better in just about every way, and is much more consistent with a God that is eternally wise, loving & patient, which are all qualities that even Christianity teaches that God possesses. And one might ask: If God, being God and being all powerful, wise and loving had a choice on how to design the entire spiritual relationship between him and man, would he not choose a design that is more virtuous over another that is less so? Would he not choose a design that does NOT require him to condemn most of his children to hell for all eternity? If it is true that, "With God, all things are possible" is it then possible for God to allow reincarnation? For me, the well considered answer to these questions is "Yes", and it is consistent with those cases of people who have past life recall. I will say though that Christianity is not a bad faith at all. While I do see the doctrinal points about sin and judgment to be in error, it is nonetheless a great faith in all it teaches about virtuous living, of loving, forgiving and helping others.
I think that the main reason is that if Genesis is taken as allegory and not as literal fact, then the whole rigidly literalist structure of fundamentalist theology comes crashing to the ground. For if Genesis is allegory, then the Gospels, or Paul's letters, or anything else on which they build their religion may also be allegory, and they lose the ability to insist on the literal application of those things they like that run contrary to sentiments of other Christians.
I think you lack the perspective of those who know without a doubt that God exists and that he does communicate with believers. God has told us in his word what he wants us to know, he gives us the bare bones, not every detail. Einstein summed it up well; I just want to know the thought of God, everything else is just the details. Genesis tells us that God was active in creation and specifically had a purpose for man. You can say that is allegory if you want, but don't include Paul and the Apostles in your generalisation. These are people who understood far more than you do because they experienced it, and just maybe you should examine the old testament from the same perspective
Loved the Joel Osteen yacht one. Calvinist buddy of mine over at CF posted that one on CF. You would be amazed how many people thought it was real. My all time fav at the Bee is still the one about a boy became a Calvinist because of vaccines. That one went 3 pages before everyone realized it was fake news.
I hate to defend him but that is not a good one. Osteen's church was mostly flooded itself and they point out that they were never asked to provide shelter and that their location within the flood would make it very hard to get supplies and people to their mostly-flooded church. Okay, that's the last time I ever say a word to defend that phony.
I broke my neck in a lake and was paralyzed and sank to the bottom drowning, alone. God reached down and healed my neck. Later, God grabbed my face and talked to me. I have seen the City. I have had the Holy Dove dive into my face and disappear into my head in an explosion of light to drive off a visible demon that was physically attacking me. Nobody on this earth has greater certitude of the existence of God than me. You want to teach me with condescension, but you don't know what you are talking about. You simply believe what other men have told you, and they had no greater direct knowledge of God than I do - probably less. So, if you want to talk about God, we can. But you just want to tell me what you believe about a book, and I'm not interested in what you believe about a book. I have my own beliefs about that book, and there is not one good reason on earth for ME to substitute MY experience and belief about it for that of anybody who doesn't know God as well as I do. Now, if you'd like to come up off of your pulpit, way down there in the deep valley, and join me up here on the mountaintop, we can speak as equals. But if you're going to try to speak to me with authority, you are very much mistaken. I have more than you do on this matter.
I too defended him at another site, because the facts were in his favor. Soooo...Once I did so I was attacked from both sides. One side telling me "I can take my fake money pastor and shove it." Others saying "you are not a real Pastor Joel believer." So when you state facts for such a lightning rod as Osteen, expect the haters to hate. :)
And they're all haters. Organized religion has gotten to be a bit much in the internet age.
Honestly, Vicomte, you come off as extremely condescending with this rebuke. I don't doubt the sincerity of your experience or the strength of your conviction. But this is nonetheless quite condescending, and frankly, arrogant. People are allowed to be wrong, even about you, and being wrong does not make one deserving of such a response.
Key words, "may be". Certainly it's easier, mentally, to be able to embrace the bible as the literal "Word of God" than it is to subject it to scrutiny in which parts of it should be taken allegorically and which parts literally. That does open up a possible pandora's box of context, understanding of the day, the history and experience of the individual authors and so on. I think someone told me once that taking the bible as 100% divinely inspired is warranted because it's essentially the only road map we have, and with the element of faith that God most certainly would not have left mankind ignorant without some book that shows the way to salvation. Ergo, the bible must be the word of God.
The Catholic Church chooses to do it the harder, more intellectually rigorous way, which requires scholarship and historical knowledge, as opposed to feelings and simple (and erroneous) shortcuts. The problem with the easy way is that then the Bible collapses into a welter of contradictions and other problems, such as "What's in the Bible". Each of those decisions then has to be made by short-cut (to defend the whole original logic), and it all then collapses into a "You just gotta BELIEEEVE" argument, asserting that one has to believe in what the critical eye observes is essentially unbelievable BECAUSE OF the contradictions. Which is why the Catholic approach, which is a lot harder, is nevertheless what you have to do if you want to arrive at a theology that is internally consistent and can stand up to the obvious problems with the text. Pretending the problems are not there doesn't do anything but alienate thinking people and render the whole thing unbelievable.
Did you read the condescension in the original message to which I was responding? I was spoken to with condescension. I replied in kind, but more effectively. It was this: "I think you lack the perspective of those who know without a doubt that God exists and that he does communicate with believers." My response demonstrated my perspective, and why I do indeed know - WITHOUT A DOUBT - that God exists, and that he communicates with believers. He also communicates with unbelievers, and that can make believers out of them. I expressed that clearly and sharply - as a rebuke to a condescending statement.
The absence of evidence is not evidence. A horse and a donkey produce neither a horse nor a donkey, but a mule or a hinny. Centuries of inbreeding produce... uhhh... royalty. I can neither prove the Theory of Evolution absolutely correct or incorrect based on scientific evidence. Nature offers oddities such as dolphins and whales being mammals.
In the middle ages I think it was heresy for laypeople to read the bible for that exact reason. Without a doubt, bible-believing fundamentalists would contest this, saying there are no contradictions. One I remember is whether Jesus, at the last supper, served bread before wine or vice versa. The gospels are not consistent on that point. But... maybe he served wine or bread twice.
Wouldn't the observation that we only see creating like things be evidence that things don't change into an entirely new creature, plant etc. I'm not talking germs mutating that is something different in my view and takes more typing which I cannot do right now.
Yet Jesus did the opposite and chose ordinary people. It is the spirit that reveals not some foolish Catholic usurper. The Catholics teach evolution contrary to scripture. But you already sussed out of that on another thread. When I get back on a regular keyboard I'm planing on blasting you for it. 😁
Contradictions. Is that the shit they teach in the Catholic cult. Trust the shithead popes who have a history of murder and covering up for pedophiles. No thanks. The Bible that you dont believe says you shall know them bh their fruits. The catholic church has some stinky rotten fruit.
Put up or shut up judas.
I did, and it was noted prior to my reply. Well, the bit about telling him to come down from his pulpit and joining you on the mountain top certainly struck me as coming from a much bigger pulpit that his post was. You called it "in-kind, but more effectively". Seems to me it was about 5x louder in volume. By my playbook, responding "in-kind" in such situations is inferior to more graceful and constructive responses which serve well enough, by their very nature, to demonstrate one's true altitude on said mountain. hehe... But I pass no judgment on either of you. Carry on as you see fit. I'll say no more.
By the way this isn't the best critique. There are many more. 🤗
You hurt your neck deluded one.
Your the one on your high horse and full of it again. Go pray to Mary again it doesn't work.
Short answer, no, it would not. #1) Evolution doesn't teach that a newly evolved creature is "entirely new", but rather carries a strong majority of the characteristics of it's parents. It would be very similar to the species from which it descended, but somewhat different. For example, evolution does not teach that an ostrich can lay an egg from which a squid could hatch. #2) But more to the point, in order to show that evolution can't happen by observing a lack of cases where offspring qualify as a new species, one would need to qualify what percentage of reproductions are expected to be a new species in nature, and then apply sound math statistics to show that it is mathematically improbably for evolution to be true. For example, if evolution should occur in 1 out of 20,000 reproductions and 500,000 were observed with no new species generated, then one could possibly argue that THAT is mathematical evidence that evolution does not occur, at least at a rate of 1/20,000. But even then, it's possible that environmental factors could play a role that, by some un-theorized or unknown mechanism, increases the odds of evolution occurring.
So we resemble single cell creatures?
Comments (59 - 71) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest The narrator asks if evolution observable, demonstratable, repeatable and quantifiable, but those requirements are completely lacking in creationism. To be fair, one must judge both by the same measure, and creationism most certainly fails on all 4 points.
I have to differ here. Creationism works. You plug it in and it all works. Where evolutionism only works within species. Even evolution within species works within creationism.
Where evolutionism only works within species.
Zero evidence that we all came from pond scum exist
#19. To: A K A Stone, BorisY (#12)
bananas never turn into people.
#20. To: Pinguinite, Justified (#18)
If chickens do indeed possess DNA for growing teeth, I would consider that evidence (though perhaps not proof) in support of evolution.
#21. To: Tooconservative (#13)
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
(Edited)
#23. To: Tooconservative (#22)
#24. To: Tooconservative (#22)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#24)
The content of your link (at least the titles) sounded about as funny as sneakypetes joke he told the other day.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#21)
The majority may not be thinking about it all the time. But when they fall for the lie of evolution subconsciously for the rest of their lives constantly it causes them to reject gods word. You could also look at vpcreationism as just answering questions of skeptical and showing the people that they can believe in gods word and that it is reliable and not a fable.
So most of us aren't talking about it all the time but once we come to a conclusion it is affecting us all the time.
#27. To: Pinguinite (#26)
For me, it's not a question of falling for a "lie" or being deceived, it's a question of whether to be honest or not honest about what I observe about life
#28. To: Pinguinite (#26)
And if someone, after full consideration, honestly concludes that they do not believe the bible could be the literal "Word of God", is it reasonable to believe that God would punish this person in a lake of fire for all eternity
#29. To: Pinguinite (#26)
while eternally rewarding someone who simply buried the issue out of their head and pretended to believe it was?
#30. To: Pinguinite (#26)
For me, the former is more virtuous, and I cannot for a moment believe that God would judge me for the worse for taking that path.
#31. To: Pinguinite (#26)
#32. To: A K A Stone (#27)
Have you observed a chicken egg hatching something besides a chicken?
Have you observed an apple tree changing into a new kind of tree.
Have you witnessed any changes in any plant or animal species? Me neither.
Have you ever been hypnotized and talked to God?
Exactly what observations are you talking about?
#33. To: A K A Stone (#28)
And if someone, after full consideration, honestly concludes that they do not believe the bible could be the literal "Word of God", is it reasonable to believe that God would punish this person in a lake of fire for all eternity
Yes. Because they have rejected the truth.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#30)
Why would god take people who can't even say they are sorry for the wrong they did?
#35. To: A K A Stone (#31)
So why doesn't God make everyone into perfect beings and allow them all into heaven? It would actually be more cruel if God were to do this, since many people prefer hell to the alternative (complete submission to God). All the people who end up going to hell will have done so because they actually prefer hell to being forced into the presence of God for all eternity. People like to live in their favorite sins and answer to no one else. They know that if they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior that God will want them to change their lives and they might have to give up some of their autonomy. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/hell.html
#36. To: Pinguinite (#5)
I do understand why it is important for bible-believing Christians that creationism be the explanation for the origin of life
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
I think that the main reason is that if Genesis is taken as allegory and not as literal fact, then the whole rigidly literalist structure of fundamentalist theology comes crashing to the ground. For if Genesis is allegory, then the Gospels, or Paul's letters, or anything else on which they build their religion is allegory
#38. To: Tooconservative (#22)
I didn't ping you to it but maybe you'd enjoy my favorite new Christian #FakeNews site. It's a hoot. Here's where I posted about it here at LF. Some really funny stuff and not just the low-hanging Pope Frank stuff either.
#39. To: redleghunter (#38)
Loved the Joel Osteen yacht one. Calvinist buddy of mine over at CF posted that one on CF. You would be amazed how many people thought it was real.
#40. To: paraclete (#37)
I think you lack the perspective of those who know without a doubt that God exists and that he does communicate with believers.
#41. To: Tooconservative (#39)
I hate to defend him but that is not a good one. Osteen's church was mostly flooded itself and they point out that they were never asked to provide shelter and that their location within the flood would make it very hard to get supplies and people to their mostly-flooded church. Okay, that's the last time I ever say a word to defend that phony.
#42. To: redleghunter (#41)
So when you state facts for such a lightning rod as Osteen, expect the haters to hate. :)
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
You want to teach me with condescension, but you don't know what you are talking about.
...
Now, if you'd like to come up off of your pulpit, way down there in the deep valley, and join me up here on the mountaintop, we can speak as equals. But if you're going to try to speak to me with authority, you are very much mistaken. I have more than you do on this matter.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
I think that the main reason is that if Genesis is taken as allegory and not as literal fact, then the whole rigidly literalist structure of fundamentalist theology comes crashing to the ground. For if Genesis is allegory, then the Gospels, or Paul's letters, or anything else on which they build their religion may also be allegory, and they lose the ability to insist on the literal application of those things they like that run contrary to sentiments of other Christians.
#45. To: Pinguinite (#44)
Certainly it's easier, mentally, to be able to embrace the bible as the literal "Word of God" than it is to subject it to scrutiny in which parts of it should be taken allegorically and which parts literally. That does open up a possible pandora's box of context, understanding of the day, the history and experience of the individual authors and so on.
#46. To: Pinguinite (#43)
(Edited)
Honestly, Vicomte, you come off as extremely condescending with this rebuke. I don't doubt the sincerity of your experience or the strength of your conviction. But this is nonetheless quite condescending, and frankly, arrogant. People are allowed to be wrong, even about you, and being wrong does not make one deserving of such a response.
#47. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#12)
Also we only reproduce after like kind. For example bananas never turn into people.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
The Catholic Church chooses to do it the harder, more intellectually rigorous way, which requires scholarship and historical knowledge, as opposed to feelings and simple (and erroneous) shortcuts.
The problem with the easy way is that then the Bible collapses into a welter of contradictions and other problems, such as "What's in the Bible".
#49. To: nolu chan (#47)
The absence of evidence is not evidence.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
The Catholic Church chooses to do it the harder, more intellectually rigorous way, which requires scholarship and historical knowledge, as opposed to feelings and simple (and erroneous) shortcuts
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#46)
Did you read the condescension in the original message to which I was responding?
I was spoken to with condescension. I replied in kind, but more effectively.
My response demonstrated my perspective, and why I do indeed know - WITHOUT A DOUBT - that God exists, and that he communicates with believers. He also communicates with unbelievers, and that can make believers out of them.
I expressed that clearly and sharply - as a rebuke to a condescending statement.
#54. To: Pinguinite (#48)
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
#57. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan (#49)
(Edited)
Wouldn't the observation that we only see creating like things be evidence that things don't change into an entirely new creature, plant etc.
#58. To: Pinguinite (#57)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]