Re: Twenty questions for creationists



It's nice to get an actual creationist response to questions for once.

1-3. What are the three greatest challenges to evolution, made by
creationists, which biologists supporting evolution have *not*
competently addressed?  (And how much research have you done to see
how biologists have addressed them?)

1) The process that began life is not defined or understood. Therefore any
processes that come after that will have an incomplete definition.

That doesn't really follow logically. As long as the
"definition" (whatever you mean by that) doesn't have to reference the
origin of life there is no problem. If we observe how life changes
over time, the origins of life in the first place don't really effect
that one way or another.

2) The nested hierarchy is a guess.It appears to be a rewrite of the
classification table from long ago. Which itself was a guess.

Your use of the term "appears to be" would seem to indicate you have
not really researched this topic. How do you think they came up with
it? Do you know? If you don't know, then don't you think it's a
little odd you're making definite pronouncements about it?

3) Ancient historical data is not given consideration to the equation.

Of course it is. You mean "ancient texts." But either way, I don't
see how this is a problem for evolution.

4. When were Salmonella, Giardia, and ichneumonid wasps created, and
by whom or what?

Good question.
Imagine if you can that the bible and other texts are accurate with their
descriptions. Supposedly humans lived upward of a thousand years. Much
longer when the Sumarian kings list is factored in. The condition of the
earth was 100% tropical even in the polar regions. There was no rain, the
earth was watered by a mist and by streams so this made the entire planet a
lush greenhouse with a uniform mild climate. The sun was not strong as we
see today because a water vapor canopy encircled the earth much like we see
vapors covering other bodies in the solar system.

Like Venus? Wikipedia informs me that the weather of Venus is hot
enough to melt lead due to the action of greenhouse gasses such as
water vapor. You are turned around on the protective nature of a
vapor canopy, that would make us hotter, not cooler.

Now, Look at goggle earth
and imagine that water existed only in the areas that are the deepest of
blue. Imagine the water that is in the deepest of blue areas was fresh
water; not salt water. Land was everywhere else. The oxygen content of the
air was higher. Plants and animals grew larger. Nothing ate meat. All life
fed on plants and vegetation which are high in vitamins, minerals, enzymes
and antioxidants. The air had no pollutants. The described conditions are
quite conducive to life.

Now, imagine something that we do not understand upsetting the planet to the
point that the "fountains of the deep" broke open gushing water, the water
vapor canopy fell and the surface of the earth was completely destroyed.
During this process the water picked up elements that made the water salty.
It also picked up elements that would otherwise be safe until mixed with
water. Flood waters are quite unsanitary even today for the same reasons
they were back then. Nonparties became parasites during this destruction
period of the earth. Over time they adapted to acquired many other highly
advanced survival mechanisms.If you wish to call that evolution, fine. But
they are still after their own kind and are still parasites even if they
develop to the point that they can talk.

If you can say all this, I don't see why you have any trouble with
evolution. Evolution predicts that things evolve after their own
kind, at least in the sense that there must always be a direct line of
change from grandparent to parent to child. Evolution does not
predict things will jump from branch to branch of the evolutionary
tree, like cats giving birth to jelly fish. The only real difference
between evolution and what you apparently believe is that common
descent says we started with one kind, and it diversified from there.
If you believe a bacterium might evolve to speak, you clearly believe
that large changes like that could take place. So what is the
problem?

Then there is the supernatural element. God said he was going to curse the
earth. The flood is probably how he did it; with parasites being part of the
curse resulting after and because of the flood. People blame God for this
misery. But it was the watchers that had the entire world in a state of
chaos. Man chose to take of the fornidden knowledge. The apple was the
knowledge offered by the watchers.

Incidentally, since the flood it is recorded that man's life span steadily
decreased. And it has. Just as described in the bible. 120 years Max.

Actually, it's increased.

5. Could God create a world free of suffering in which people still
have free will?

He already did. But it was corrupted by Angelic Beings that God trusted to
guide and help mankind after he was created.

No, not really. Adam and Even didn't have free will until after teh
"corruption."

6. Do souls in heaven have free will?

Everything living that breathes is a soul. Hence phrases like "There were
2000 souls on board". If you mean "spirits",  yes they do. Spirtual beings
made the choice with their free will to leave their proper places and mate
with mortal women which ultimently resulted in God flooding the earth.

I think you missed the point. If spirits in heaven have free will,
some of them will make bad choices and there will be suffering there,
as there is on earth. Or conversely, if it is possible to have an
arrangement where they can have free will and not have the suffering,
it is unnecessary meanness to inflict suffering on us still living
people.


10. We know that new variation occurs in populations over time.  What,
other than lack of time, might prevent that variation from
accumulating, leading to arbitrarily large differences from the original
form?

Nothing. As long as you remember that this variation is limited to "each
after it's own kind" as described in the bible

So you don't really have any problem with evolution at all. You just
need to adjust your definition of "kind" and you're good to go.



12. Why are no mammals, birds, or flowering plants (among other
things) found in the Cambrian or earlier?

There are several earth ages or "eons".

Surely you don't consider that a complete answer.

13. If creationism were to be taught in a science class, what
specifically would be taught *about creation*?  Do NOT include
anything about evolution in your answer.  (That belongs with questions
1-3.)

You said no trick questions.

Answer: That things do evolve but within their own kind. Which is the only
evolution we have actually observed and can repeat BTW.

If you wanted to teach that you would need a tight definition of
"kind." Otherwise it doesn't really mean anything to say that things
only evolve within their own kind.


14. If teaching the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution is added
to the curriculum of public school science classes, should schools be
free to teach the weaknesses of creationism, too?

Of course. Truth is paramount. But that leads to the question: "Who gets to
decide what is and is not weak? From a scientific POV there is no scientific
proof of creation. That would be a weakness. But there are other evidences
just as valid as science. So from the other side of the coin that would not
be a weakness.

So...no creationism in science class, right? I mean, you just
admitted it wasn't science.

15. Even those who insist on taking the Bible literally admit that
there are parts which are not literal.  How does one avoid error in
determining which parts those are, and how certain is it that that
method works?

Anyone that can read accurately read and understand Shakespeare should be
able to understand how.

No parts of Shakespeare are literally true.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Twenty questions for creationists
    ... What are the three greatest challenges to evolution, ... earth was 100% tropical even in the polar regions. ... see today because a water vapor canopy encircled the earth much like we see ... The entire point of teaching both evolution and creation side by side would ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Few Simple Questions - I want some answers - evos/YECs - NOW!
    ... You aren't either, Ray. ... Since evolution is impossible.... ... Any evidence of special creation of species? ... If you assert the quote marked words mean the whole world or Earth ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... These created kinds adapted as the earth changed over the ... a second creation in the garden of Eden ... process stops the progress of evolution which claims it needs lots ... species centered on the groups remaining after the extinction event. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Any Christian Electronic Designers Here?
    ... formless with the land under the water and the land rising out of the ... The Earth was formed by acretion of material from the protoplanetary disc. ... Most cultures have creation legends. ... It is these people I would ridicule. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: How does the collapse of the theory of evolution demonstrate the truth of creation ?
    ... >How does the collapse of the theory of evolution demonstrate the truth ... >The second answer is "Creation." ... >today regarding how life emerged. ... if it is demonstrated that living species on Earth did ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading