Questions for creationists

[mactbone]

Well, would you rather they be falsely informed?

This is an important concept to teah because it deals with the origins of all life, something that has been speculated on by multitudes. I see it as a failing of the education system if a theory (remember all science is composed of theories, some are just a hell of a easier to demonstrate and remain constant than others) as well estabilshed as evolution cannot be understood by the general populace.

[Lung]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Well, would you rather they be falsely informed?

They already are

Good luck banging your head against brick walls

[Logical Realist]

We need not waste our time with people who are happiest in their own delusions

Why don't you dig up the bodies of the member's of the Heaven's Gate Cult, Jone'stown and the Branch Davidians and tell them how happy they should be in their delusions?

I mean evolution just answers the question of life itself...not like the origin and development of life is important or anything.

Perhaps we should just let holocaust deniers go around and tell people that the holocaust never happened also....I mean they are happy in their delusions. Wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.

[Urban Ranger]

loin,

I had no idea why this was dredged up. Be that as it may, I got some spare time.


lung,

Not that we have a facination with silly creationists - okay, can't speak for the psychologists among us - but we are just doing this to stop them from spreading their falsehood around.

The creationists are still going around with their own warped version of various scientific laws and theories to attack evolution. The best way to defend against this crap is an attack against creationism. Hey, if they got all tied up defending, they can't attack

[devilmunchkin]

the other day my mother told me that science was just man making stuff up......
it's so absurd...but what do you SAY to such stupidity??????

[Urban Ranger]

That's correct, science is just stuff we made up. However, we can't just make any stuff up. This is good stuff Stuff that closely follows obervations and can make predictions that will be tested by experiments.

Stuff that can't do that is bad stuff (bad stuff in terms of science anyway).

[Logical Realist]

I disagree with the idea that science is stuff we made up for a number of reasons. (One of which is that it seems to imply that we have some kind of idealism and another of which is that it defines that terms 'making stuff up' in a very..."unique" way so can be seen as a form of question begging).

The truth is that science, more or less follows realist principles and goes by realist axioms,(that we are studying a world "out there") and it tests observations and/or concepts against an ever increasing field of self-correcting data and conceptualization. Far from making things up science is the best tool ever used to describe reality. Any quarrel with that I say stems more from one of the many philosophical positions(concerning what science is) than an established view of science.

[loinburger]

LR: Never before have I seen somebody be so right, and yet be oh so very wrong...

[mactbone]

LR, you've read Descartes, haven't you?

I tend to agree with Descartes in that we cannot really know anything in science, we can theorize, but everything that we theorize about is colored by our perceptions, which may or may not be reality. Granted scientific theories are *much* more accurate with how we percieve things, we still cannot say for sure that it's fact.

[Goingonit]

MacTBone: I bet LR will call Descartes a solipsist. As it stands, I may just do it for him...

Descartes is of the opinion that our only source of knowledge is our own mind. If we accept this, then, yes, all science is based on our perceptions. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody tis there to see it, then, it wouldn't make a sound.

However, this has been refuted since the time of Descartes. I'm sure LR will tell you how; I can't quite explain it. You could also look at this page:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I guess bumping a dead thread is better than making a new one with no ideas on it.

[Ethelred]

Well I think I will jump into this troll of a thread.

Big Dave stated in two seperate posts

First

There is no "supposed" about it. There are sufficient extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ that his existance is as much a proven fact as Napoleon's, or Shakespear's.

Second

As for if Jesus existed, Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, and numerous other Roman records all talk about Him.

Only what Josephus wrote was independent of christian claims. All others are dealing soley with claims made by christians. None, not even Josephus were comtemperary with Jesus. None give any evidence to support the existence of Jesus except for the one remark in Josephus.

Josephus was born AFTER the most likely dates for the crucifiction. The only thing he did write about Jesus was to make a reference to Jesus as being the brother of James. Which is a pain for Catholics and any other christians that think Jesus didn't have any siblings.

There is one other mention of Jesus in Josephus, it was clearly added in later by someone else. Its not in the same style as the rest and it refers to Jesus as the Messiah something Josephus would never have done since he did not like the christians.

All other reference to Jesus are based on things the christians said. Not one single bit of evidence for the existence of Jesus has come down from the time of Jesus itself.

Tacitus discusses christians not jesus. He refers to Christus as the founder of the christians. Then he goes on to slander the christians. That was written LONG after the time of Jesus.

So how about showing one of these alleged documents?

I have asked Fundamentalists for some of the documents they claim before. They never produce them. Just Josephus if they produce anything and they do that after I do.

I am curious though about the Creationists here. Do they all think the Bible is without error?

If so I have some annoying questions for them.

[Agathonist]

I'm also going to jump in here...

I've been curious: If you believe in creationism, then how is it that we can see billions of light-years away? It seems to me that there would only be two possible explanations for this available to those who think the universe has only existed a few thousand years:

a) The light that seems to emanate from distant galaxies actually was "placed" there "in transit" by the Creator, or

b) The universal, constant speed of light is only constant at a given point in time, but over time it has decreased in speed (whether or not that decrease has continued into the present time).

The problem with the first is that this implies that the Creator is a great deceiver; the problem with the second is that it brings into question a number of other vital theories in physics (if the speed is decreasing, where is all the extra energy going? Unless, of course, they also do away with the law of the conservation of energy).

Since the second possibility is obviously absurd, do creationists admit they worship a deceiver??

Agathonist

[Lincoln]

Hello Logical Realist. I happened to see your troll .. er I mean your legitimate questions. Sorry I don’t have to time to do them all justice here because I have a real job now. First, unlike Dave I am not what some call a “young earth creationist”. I am like you a “logical realist”. Click on my home page if you like and you can find out all about my views. Anyway I will begin with your bottom line qualifier i.e. “Please answer these questions with something more then speculation. Use hard empirical evidence.”

I hope you always do the same. Of course the many conflicting modern theories of evolution, speciation, origin of information, and various abiogenesis stories are built upon speculation based upon limited evidence but for some reason you require a handicap on your opponents. Now read carefully my following answers and you will see that your oft repeated questions to creationists are for the most part simply strawmen.

“Why are 99 percent of all animals that ever lived extinct? One would think God would have loved his creations and preserved them.”

God said in the Bible:

Is:24:4: The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.
Is:24:5: The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Is:24:6: Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

One would NOT think that God would have preserved his creation when he clearly said he had cursed the earth and repeatedly promised destruction throughout scripture. The only one who would think the opposite is one who is not familiar with the Bible that they presumptiously ridicule.

“Why are there so many sedimetary layers? So many would have taken millions of years to develope.”

Genesis says; “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” There is no time line from that verse.” Most Christians that you continually ridicule do not believe in a young earth or universe. And the Bible itself forbids a strictly literal interpretation. But I understand that it is easier for you to defend your strawmen if you assume that they do.

“Why do animals get diseases? Why did God make diseases for animals?”

See above.

“How did Adam name deep sea fishes?”

The Bible never said that he named fish at all. It clearly says he “gave names to all cattle and the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.” (Ge. 2:21).

“Why are squid eyes better then human's?(Squid's don't have a blind spot).”

Eagle eyes are even better. You really should study up on the human eye and you will find out the reason for the blind spot.

“Why are almost all marsupials in Australia? Especially when they can survive in other places. One would think that marsupials would spread out from the Ark...not all decide to head to a certain island. Also how did the Kangaroo's sim down there?”

You do not understand the spiritual significance of the Ark. The flood, whether taken literally or figuratively is an example of destruction of the old creation and creation of the new. The New
Testament uses the type of the Ark as an example of the new life available to the believer because of the death and resurrection of Jesus on the cross. There was death (destruction) and resurrection (new creation). In the flood there was death and destruction and then a new creation. “Kangaroos” may or may not have existed before then. The point is that there was a miraculous new creation so science really
doesn’t enter into the picture because it is in the realm of the supernatural and divine intervention.


“Why are only certain exotic species located on islands when they can survive elsewhere and other animals can flourish on those islands? Seems odd how they migrated from the Ark in such a orderly manner.”

See above.

“Why do certian moles have eyes which they never use? And which only become useless later as dirt is constantly shoved in them?”

Probably because they evolved that way in order to adapt to their environment.


“There are huge meteror craters on the Earth, many compable of wiping out many lifeforms with dust clouds and explosions which would kill almost all, if not all, complex animals at this time. Its amazing many lifeforms survived, afterwhich they recovered at an astonishing rate.

How did delicate ecosystems recover from a world wide flood and these meteor strikes so quickly and completely? They don't seem to recover THAT fast now at days.”

See the above concerning the Ark and age of the earth.

“There isn't enough water on Earth to make a world wide flood. So how did it happen?”

Do you really think that a God who claimed to make all of creation including the universe itself cannot make or remove water?

“Why hasn't anyone even found God? If they haven't ;is it really apropriate to posit God as a mechanism?”

If they did then it wouldn’t be the God described in the Bible because he said that he hides himself and that he is only know through supernatural revelation. The effects of his existence are clearly seen however.

“What is the mechanism for creation? How did God do it in seven days?”

Regardless of the number of days or ages it took you seem to have no grasp of the concept of God at all if you have to ask that question.

“Why are certain fossils always found in certain strata?”

Because that is where they ended up when they died.

“How come they found swamp plant fossils in Antarctica? If Antarctica wasn't always a frozen area; where did penguins live?”

I don’t remember anywhere in the Bible where it says that Antarctica was or was not always
frozen.

“Why do men have nipples?”

Read the Bible. It clearly says that God created man and woman and “called THEIR name Adam". They both share many of the same parts.

“Why are there deformities? And ugliness? Seems kinda messed up how God made some people ugly to others.”

Again read the Bible. There are scores of passages on why people are not all attractive or without handicaps.

“Many of you speak of mankind "devolving". In that case ancient civilizations should have left some amazingingly advanced artifacts. I mean such smart people should have been able to discover electricity. Where are these artifacts and huge monuments? Where are the signs of this civilization?”

I don’t speak of devolving. The Bible does speak of a general decline however which partly answers the above questions and it also answers the question of why you are now ridiculing your creator when you claim to be so intelligent.

“If all language were created at the tower of Babel; how come the English language wasn't around in Roman times?”

Again you may have to actually read the Bible. It no where says that “all languages were created at the tower of Babel”.

“How did the human race survive two inbreedings?(Noachian and Adam/Eve).”

You still do not seem to grasp the concept of God. No where does the Bible say that he created
mankind and then left him to run his own course without further intervention as he sees fit.

“There isn't enough capacity in a given person's DNA to account for all the variety contained within the human species. How did Adam/Eve and the Noachian family then contain all this DNA?”

There certainly is enough capacity or are you suggesting that a miracle happened?

“Why do whales have little feet?”

Perhaps for the same reason that Polywogs do. They may have evolved from an amphibious creature of some kind.

“How did fish survive the huge salinity changes of water during the flood? (Anyone with an aquarium knows how sensitive fish are to this).”

See above.

“Please answer these questions with something more then speculation. Use hard empirical evidence. Thanks.”

I’ll remember that requirement the next time I debate an atheist.

[mactbone]

How exactly was it that the Far East had no knowledge of God? Or Jewish people?

Why did the Greeks worship a Pantheon?

Why were the Germanic tribes pagan?

Why did the Native Americans practice animism?

I would think that an all powerful creator would be able to get his message across, "Yo, I created you", or at least have some kind of prophet like he did for the Jews and Christians...