Scientific thinking and common sense

[Eloi]

I have noticed that sometimes people with a scientific mind, people who have studied a lot and know a lot of information about different sciences, do not notice simple things that do not escape the attention of ordinary people, even if they have studied less or almost nothing.

For example, the fact that the animals that evolutionists call "lower" in the evolutionary scale still live alongside humans, and that others supposedly fitter, because they are located in a higher position in the evolutionary line of man, no longer exist.

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985017

To what extent do you think the "wisdom" of this system of things can cloud a person's mind?

[Inquirer]

These are philosophical questions and they are not confined to claims about the Bible either.

My question was directed at Eloi and was asked in the spirit of scientific enquiry. What evidence is there (external to the Bible) that shows the Bible to be factually correct about ‘kinds’?

Ask Barbarian, he is both an evolutionist and creationist, I'm sure he has much to say.

[Clownboat]

The Barbarian notes that God created each living thing according to its kind. As I said, the issue is that most creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

Well there are sound reasons for that disapproval Barbarian. Consider:

And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being (1 Corinthians 15:45).

and

and there was no one to work the ground (Gen 2:5)

and

...the son of Shelah,

the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

How can Adam (a specimen of Homo Sapiens I am told) be the first if he evolved? He is described as the first, until him there was no one to till the ground, his father was God not another human being, yet he must have had parents, grand parents, great grandparents... if he evolved - please resolve what appears to be a pretty blatant contradiction.

Will you actually believe what God has revealed or will you rely on your own carnal reasoning?

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding (Prov 3:5)

There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death. (Prov 13:12)

This is just one reason why some creationists disapprove of these claims about evolution.

If you think that evolution is false, can you point to a better mechanism that explains the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record? I would like to compare that mechanism to evolution. If your reasoning is truly just because "a holy book says it", just let me know and no further information will be needed or wanted.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #31]

Pardon me, I was asking the question of Eloi.

[Inquirer]

The Barbarian notes that God created each living thing according to its kind. As I said, the issue is that most creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

Well there are sound reasons for that disapproval Barbarian. Consider:

And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being (1 Corinthians 15:45).

and

and there was no one to work the ground (Gen 2:5)

and

...the son of Shelah,

the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

How can Adam (a specimen of Homo Sapiens I am told) be the first if he evolved? He is described as the first, until him there was no one to till the ground, his father was God not another human being, yet he must have had parents, grand parents, great grandparents... if he evolved - please resolve what appears to be a pretty blatant contradiction.

Will you actually believe what God has revealed or will you rely on your own carnal reasoning?

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding (Prov 3:5)

There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death. (Prov 13:12)

This is just one reason why some creationists disapprove of these claims about evolution.

If you think that evolution is false, can you point to a better mechanism that explains the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record? I would like to compare that mechanism to evolution. If your reasoning is truly just because "a holy book says it", just let me know and no further information will be needed or wanted.

Are you asking that with a straight face? can I think of a better mechanism than magically a bunch of particles and forces and laws just sprang into existence by the trillions uncaused and then magically just so happened to have the properties that if left to their own devices they'd coagulate into atoms, then molecules and then magically assemble into sophisticated self replicating nano machines that then develop an innate capacity to form ever more sophisticated living organisms that can defy the laws of probability as if by magic and lead to ever increasing complexity and sophistication all by themselves? Of course I can but I guess you can't, or perhaps you're just clowning around.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #31]

Pardon me, I was asking the question of Eloi.

I do hope that Barbarian has an opportunity to respond, I'm most interested in what his approach to this question will be.

[Clownboat]

If you think that evolution is false, can you point to a better mechanism that explains the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record? I would like to compare that mechanism to evolution. If your reasoning is truly just because "a holy book says it", just let me know and no further information will be needed or wanted.

Are you asking that with a straight face? can I think of a better mechanism than magically a bunch of particles and forces and laws just sprang into existence by the trillions uncaused and then magically just so happened to have the properties that if left to their own devices they'd coagulate into atoms, then molecules and then magically assemble into sophisticated self replicating nano machines that then develop an innate capacity to form ever more sophisticated living organisms that can defy the laws of probability as if by magic and lead to ever increasing complexity and sophistication all by themselves? Of course I can but I guess you can't, or perhaps you're just clowning around.

Please calm down, I'm not sure why you are imagining nano machines and what not.

Evolution is defined as the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. When living organisms reproduce, they pass on to their progeny a collection of traits.

Take two breaths and let's pretend that evolution has been shown to be false so we can continue our discussion.
Can you point to a better mechanism that explains the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record? I would very much like to hear it.

[Inquirer]

If you think that evolution is false, can you point to a better mechanism that explains the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record? I would like to compare that mechanism to evolution. If your reasoning is truly just because "a holy book says it", just let me know and no further information will be needed or wanted.

Are you asking that with a straight face? can I think of a better mechanism than magically a bunch of particles and forces and laws just sprang into existence by the trillions uncaused and then magically just so happened to have the properties that if left to their own devices they'd coagulate into atoms, then molecules and then magically assemble into sophisticated self replicating nano machines that then develop an innate capacity to form ever more sophisticated living organisms that can defy the laws of probability as if by magic and lead to ever increasing complexity and sophistication all by themselves? Of course I can but I guess you can't, or perhaps you're just clowning around.

Please calm down, I'm not sure why you are imagining nano machines and what not.

Evolution is defined as the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. When living organisms reproduce, they pass on to their progeny a collection of traits.

So what was the first example of evolution? how could evolution ever take place if the means by which it propagates had not yet evolved?

Take two breaths and let's pretend that evolution has been shown to be false so we can continue our discussion.
Can you point to a better mechanism that explains the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record? I would very much like to hear it.

Must it be a scientific explanation? That is if I propose a non-scientific explanation will you reject it because it is not a scientific explanation? What do you even understand by the term "explanation" anyway? do you know?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #37]

how could evolution ever take place if the means by which it propagates had not yet evolved?

All you need is a first population of organisms that reproduce imperfectly (ie. there are copying errors, mutations, etc.), and viola ... evolution can begin. How that first population of organisms came into existence we don't know yet, but evolution proceeding once it did appear is independent of that mechanism.

[otseng]

Of course I can but I guess you can't, or perhaps you're just clowning around.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without the personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[The Barbarian]

The Barbarian notes that God created each living thing according to its kind. As I said, the issue is that most creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

Well there are sound reasons for that disapproval Barbarian.

There's never a sound reason to dispprove of God's will.

And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Notice it wasn't Adam's body (which was produced from nature, but his living soul, which was give directly by God.

and there was no one to work the ground (Gen 2:5)

That's a real problem for anyone who wants to make Genesis into a literal history, isn't it? For working the ground was a curse laid on Adam after the fall. It makes no sense at all to bring that in before the fall, unless the creation story is figurative.

How can Adam (a specimen of Homo Sapiens I am told) be the first if he evolved?

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. And Adam was the first living soul, not the first human. Will you actually believe what God has revealed or will you rely on your own carnal reasoning? Why not just let it be God's way instead of your new revision of Genesis. As you see, the "work the ground" issue cannot be reconciled with the creation story as a literal history.