What Evidence Would it Take For You to Accept Creationism as a Valid Explanation?

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 113
    dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Stephen J. Gould

    Both the theory [of recapitulation] and ?ladder approach? to classification that it encouraged are, or should be, defunct today.





    Honestly! That picture was worth a thousand paper cuts.



    (Haeckel's drawing was shown to be fraudulant many, many years ago.)
  • Reply 102 of 113
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Smircle

    Well, they look like gills, they are at the same place where gills are in fishes...



    If you don't like gills, what about a tail? The human embryo develops a tail which reaches maximal length at the sixt week and then later shortens again.







    Do you ever wonder why that drawing hasn't been recreated with actual photographs in this day and age where it would be so easy to do?



    Nick
  • Reply 103 of 113
    Haekel was mistaken about the gills.



    Now what about the tail?
  • Reply 104 of 113
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Haekel was mistaken about the gills.



    Now what about the tail?




    Why not consider the beliefs and views of the already discredited author of the already discredited drawing.



    From Wikipedia...







    Quote:

    Haeckel was also known for his "biogenic law," in which he suggested that the development of races paralleled the development of individuals. He advocated the idea that "primitive" races were in their infancies and need the "supervision" and "protection" of more "mature" societies.



    Haeckel was a flamboyant figure whose popularity with the public was substantially higher than it was with many of his scientific peers. Although Haeckel's ideas are important to the history of evolutionary theory and he was a competent invertebrate anatomist, almost all the speculative concepts that he championed have turned out to be incorrect.



    Haeckel hypothesized, described and named, hypothetical ancestral micro-organisms that have not been found and almost certainly do not exist. His concept of recapitulation has been disproved. Haeckel did not support "survival of the fittest" instead believing in a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics. On top of picking the wrong theories to support, he was caught using doctored data in some of his papers.




    Sounds like a good basis for eugenics and Nazism...



    Now go here...



    Photographs



    By no means am I saying that this disproves evolution. Rather I am saying, if you are going to be an evolutionist,at least be a good and accurate one.



    Nick
  • Reply 105 of 113
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Ref Kage2050's post



    I think we are meant to be discussing the Creationist view of the Bible, where every word is taken literally. It might be a good post, but it is not on-topic?



    Do creationists take Revelations literally too?



    PS. I kinda like the bit about the harlot in purple who has the gold cup of 7 kings (cum?). Im sure Ive actually seen this somewhere
  • Reply 106 of 113
    I just noticed this thread, so forgive my late participation.



    Regarding Hassan's initial question I think it's important to point out that it is not the exact paralell to the original question put to DMZ.



    The original question that was so beautifully and comically restated was-

    Quote:

    Is there any possible evidence which could convince you of the validity of evolution AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.



    The last part is key.



    Creationism might very well stand as a valid explanation (note: not a valid theory) because the will and actions of an all powerful deity could explain anything you might find. This applies, of course, to all supernatural creation explanations from Abbaism to Zorostrianism. Ok, I made up Abbaism (people who worship swedish disco group Abba) because I couldn't think of a religion that started with A. Strong atheism might be considered a religion, albeit lacking a supernatural foundation, but I digress...



    A theory, on the other hand, is predictive as well as explanatory.



    In perusing the post, if I'm not mistaken dmz did finally put forth his standard of evidence as the acromynized Dip-Bat-Co standard . As well, as offering some interesting admissions as to the validity of speciation (that was a surprise).



    While this does come somewhat close to the tried-and-true "show me exactly how every single living thing evolved" standard, it is at least narrow enough that I will think it over a bit.



    As I do, I would hope that maybe dmz's papercut has healed and he could explain why demonstrating the same mutation-by-mutation detail of how say, humans and chimps descended from a common answer wouldn't be enough evidence.
  • Reply 107 of 113
    kage2050kage2050 Posts: 10member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MarcUK

    Ref Kage2050's post



    I think we are meant to be discussing the Creationist view of the Bible, where every word is taken literally. It might be a good post, but it is not on-topic?




    The point was that there are TWO literal Creation stories in the Bible. So if you take the WHOLE Bible literally, you've got a bit of a dilemma.



    Quote:

    Do creationists take Revelations literally too?



    PS. I kinda like the bit about the harlot in purple who has the gold cup of 7 kings (cum?). Im sure Ive actually seen this somewhere [/B]



    Yeah, usually -- with the apocalypse and all.



    Though the image isn't exactly that, I think you're refering to Rev 17:3-19:9..."And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour...having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication..." It later says that "five [kings] are fallen [to the woman]." But there's 2 other kings, too, but it doesn't really much about what happens to them. "Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth"
  • Reply 108 of 113
    kage2050kage2050 Posts: 10member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    dmz...



    um... doesn't it strike you as apparent that the christian thinking of now is different and possibly contrary to thinking in the past and thinking in the future... i'm just saying...




    I'ld have to argue that there's not really any definitive "Christian" way of thinking anymore. Though I really, really, really hope we've gotten past the old thinking that, for example, paying the church will erase sins, or the service must be in Latin...because that wasn't it's language of origin anyway. Though I gotta admit, services in Latin are pretty impressive.
  • Reply 109 of 113
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kage2050

    The point was that there are TWO literal Creation stories in the Bible. So if you take the WHOLE Bible literally, you've got a bit of a dilemma.





    Yeah, usually -- with the apocalypse and all.



    Though the image isn't exactly that, I think you're refering to Rev 17:3-19:9..."And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour...having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication..." It later says that "five [kings] are fallen [to the woman]." But there's 2 other kings, too, but it doesn't really much about what happens to them. "Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth"




    That bible sure does love the women, don't it?
  • Reply 110 of 113
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kage2050

    The point was that there are TWO literal Creation stories in the Bible. So if you take the WHOLE Bible literally, you've got a bit of a dilemma.





    Yeah, usually -- with the apocalypse and all.




    Not just the apocalypse, but all of the imagery as well. Some people really do expect to hear trumpets, see winged beasts, and generally have the worst trip this side of Woodstock I.



    Personally, I think they're clinically insane, but hey.
  • Reply 111 of 113
    kage2050kage2050 Posts: 10member
    So I gotta bring another piece in here, as it could turn into something pretty interesting: So Einstein theorized (and subsiquent experiments have confirmed) that time doesn't just tick along steadily like we seem to think it does. (duh, you ever sat in a doctor's office? ) But instead depends on the speed at which you are moving. So perhaps neither evolution nor creationism are relevant because time isn't relevant. There is a theory out there (dunno who suggested it - Einstein again?) that says that time may change with time, ie. as our idea of time as a progression of events advances, the pace of the ticking of the clock also changes. Then how would either carbon dating or someones calculation of what happened when in the Bible be accurate? And how do we know time doesn't just cycle, for example, the dinosaurs that we see in fossils are of the future, not only the past? Or maybe certain living things came here on space matter, as some people think SARS did?

    If I think of any other off the wall theories, I'll be back to report.
  • Reply 112 of 113
    kage2050kage2050 Posts: 10member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    That bible sure does love the women, don't it?



    lol...of course! Doesn't everybody?



    Actually, it goes back and forth depending on who's writing. But this is kinda interesting: Rev 17:18 "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."
  • Reply 113 of 113
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kage2050

    lol...of course! Doesn't everybody?



    Actually, it goes back and forth depending on who's writing. But this is kinda interesting: Rev 17:18 "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."




    Eeeeeeenterstink. Which, according to Catholics, would be the Vatican.



    JWs say its NYC, what with the UN based there and all.



    Of course, they are too... I always found that deliciously ironic.
Sign In or Register to comment.