Can creationists categorically deny the evolutionary nature of the exponentially growing body of human ....?

Question

..... knowledge and experience? .... Doesn't the FACT that we have been mentally (e.g. technologically, scientifically, emotionally, socially, etc.) evolving, make a rock-solid case in favor of the evolutionary model?

Answer 1

Sorry skate_flip, can't sit by...wish I had time to respond to all of your points, but most of them are nonsense, so I'll summarize...

The Bible is NOT the world's oldest book (not that we have proof of, anyway)

All of the prophecies have NOT come true (especially if you don't reach WAY out there to make some of them look like they did)

Your points are mostly idiotic, though you're right, all scientific theories will not be proven, but neither has the existence of god...but if you're going to just believe something that was written down a long time ago then why not believe in Egyptian gods, or maybe 2000 years from now the Simpsons will be gods...

No logic in any of your thoughts...all you have is faith, and if you're happy with that, great...but at least scientists have evidence and method, you have your parents and some priests...enjoy that, I choose to use my head along with my heart, not just the one that makes my life easier to understand and cope with...

Grow up...and stop using your faith as a crutch...

Answer 2

This is not taking a state of a single cell amoeba and creating complex cells. We still have the single cell, why is it not evolving? I am sure tests have been done to determine this factor. There are many theories in the Scientific community on this very question. Each disproving the other. We are to believe a community that cannot believe itself? You are talking about an existing thing being more educated. This is not evolution but knowledge thus going along with the Bible every generation will be weaker and wiser. You have the obese why, the hard work is no longer here but more sedentary positions. now you have inventions that you no longer beat your carpet to clean it you simply vacuum. How many people do you see using a crosscut saw or a bone ax to cut down a tree? We have became wiser. How is this evolution? This is the ever changing mentality of mankind, not evolution of mankind. Evolution of thought does not constitute evolution of body. The thoughts behind the big bang theory and evolution are still light years away from their own proof. By that time mankind will have exterminated themselves. So I guess with all of this said we still have Creationism that has stood the test of time, and never wavered.

Answer 3

Not necessarily. The passing on of information (for example, language, knowledge, technology) is close to, but not identical to, the passing on of genes. Therefore, although you can draw an analogy between the evolution of "stuff" (language, books, etc...) and the evolution of biological organism, one can not be used as evidence for the other.

Nevertheless, creationists will categorically deny evolution, using some form of the God of the Gaps method.

To answer another answerer above. Terri said:
"If you are saying that the universe is simply the product of applying physical processes to physical materials, but... you actually came up with something nonphysical, a consciousness... That's not science. "

You must demonstrate, not assume, that consciousness exists apart from the material to which it is tied (i.e. our brain). I have never encountered consciousness in a non-physical form, nor have I ever seen the continuation of consciousness once the matter is removed (no one runs around without a head on). Further, in standard God of the Gaps style, you take a lack of knowledge about the brain's processes ("You can't look into a physical brain and see what that person is about"), and extrapolate that to what you feel to be a solid conclusion ("the mind and the brain are separate"), despite that conclusion having no positive evidence for it.

In smaller words, you are saying, "We don't know how the brain and the mind are connected, so I am assuming they are not, even though I have never seen a mind without a brain."

Since the rest of your point depends on that, I can stop here for that argument. You have not provided any evidence to back up your claim.

Next you said "Science, when interepreted and researched correctly points to a designer. "

Firstly, that's not true. If you define design as "having a purpose," then you're wrong because science points to adaptation and jery-rigging. There are many parts of many animals that serve no purpose whatsoever, or are even counterpurposeful. Our eyes are wired backwords, giving us a blind spot. Whales have vestigial leg-bones because they used to be on land. And saying "well, those parts may have a purpose we don't know about" undercuts your premise -- that we can distinguish purpose in order to identify design.

If your definition of design is complexity, then you make a logical fallacy, because sharing one trait is not the same as being equal. "All design is complex. Nature is complex. Therefore nature is designed" suffers from the same fallacy as "All crows are black. Fluffy is black. Therefore Fluffy is a crow." (Fluffy could be any number of animals).

Finally, even if I were to grant you the design argument, that would be an argument AGAINST god. Because what is design? A means to an end. I use a hammer because my fist pounding on the nail hurts and is ineffective. If god uses design, it would imply that the other methods he has are inneffective. A truer demonstration of god would be the existence of life in a universe that DOESN'T permit it. In short, if god's word was enough, what's the point of all this design?

Your argument is terrible.

Answer 4

No it doesn't. I would question the mentally, emotionally and socially evolving. We have taken a step back in these areas. With the exponential physical growth of the human body came many diseases that were not nearly as prevalent before. Diabetes and heart disease are tied to obesity and all three are much more common now than 100 years ago! No progression in evolution there. There are other things that we need to look at. The fossils show a remarkable stability in their form across the ages until today.

Answer 5

Creationists will believe what they want to believe, posting a question on here isn't going to change that...especially one that's a faulty argument...I mean, I'm not exactly sure that our growing knowledge is proof that we are evolving...evolution is such a slow process I think a more accurate fact would be that we're for some reason getting taller...ever been to an old house (1800's or older?)...What really gets me is the whole dinosaur problem how can you look at a fossil of a gigantic dinosaur and say that the Devil put that on the planet to steer us away from god...or what about the preservation of pre-historic man (whether or not he was evolved from an ape, he certainly isn't very similar to how we are now)...It really gets me, because if Adam and Eve were the first people, then who were the ancient Greeks and why weren't they all god fearing Catholics? or at least Jewish? Creationism is absolutely ridiculous...

Answer 6

I am a creationist, and yes I can categorically deny evolution based on your question.
Actually, the things you mentioned as evolving in our minds have not been proven, scientifically to be a product of evolution. All those things you mentioned requires consciousness, an ability to think, rationalize, compare, moralize, so on and so forth. Most commonly referred to as being conscious. Consciousness is not a product of the brain. It is separate, therefore it is not a product of our brains evolving. That has been proven by a mountain of research. And to say that our conscious minds are a product of evolution, you would have to step out of the arena of hard scientfic fact and scientific definitions, in to the realm of "viewpoints", namely panpsychism. Science says that matter is stuff that can be described by the laws of chemistry and physics. And if I interpret your question correctly, you are saying that our consciousness is simply a natural byproduct of the increasing complexity of the brain due to evolution. But the problem with that is you can't create something out of nothing. If you are saying that the universe is simply the product of applying physical processes to physical materials, but instead of coming up with just more complex physical materials, you actually came up with something nonphysical, a consciousness, then you would have to say that these previously dead materials always had the potential for a mind to emerge and at the right time, under the right circumstances they popped in to existence, which is panpsychism which says that matter is not just inert physical stuff but it also contains mental states inside. That's not science. That's redefining universally accepted and proven terms to fit an agenda. But if you were to supposed panpsychism was true, where did these pre-mental states come from? Can you explain that outside of a designer? And if you were to say that enough of these pre-mental states came together to form a conscious mind, inside a person, how can you, scientifically, stop that process at just human. Wouldn't it make sense, scientifically, to say, that if enough of these pre-mental substances came together, they could create a super mind, like a god, that in turn created the universe with a bang?

Science, when interepreted and researched correctly points to a designer. You cannot get around that. Scientists are still trying, but so many are seeing, through hard scientific evidence that there is something out there that put all of this here.

And, to quote an evolutionist on the subject: JBS Haldane: "If my mentat processes are determined wholly by the motions of the atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
I guess what he was saying is that our brain is more than just the physical and chemical stuff that makes up a brain. You can't look into a physical brain and see what that person is about, you have to ask that person, which says that the mind and the brain are separate and therefore not supported by evolution (nutshell version)
All it takes is a little research.
Buzz, wait a minute, there's no room in evolution for stepping back, it's evolvement. how do you explain the decline of the human mind outside of the stance that we live in a fallen world and the degradation we see is a result of sin in the world. You can't simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit? And the fossil record? What about the Cambrian explosion? A sudden onslaught of fully developed new species with no transitional species anwhere. That's not a scientific stance for an evolutionist to take.
Michael, you give me way too much credit! This is not my idea, everything I put in my answer comes from the research of neurosurgeons, neurophysiologists, one Nobel Prize winner in the field of physiology, a Nobel Laureate, fellows at MIT, anthropologists, doctorates in nuclear chemistry, brain scientists, embryologists, cosmologists, astronomers...
And you're research came from whom?

Answer 7

You've obviously never debated a die-hard young earth creationist before. Yes, they can categorically deny evolution, the age of the earth, gravity and physics in general.

Addendum: Hahah! See the above post, I rest my case.

Heheh, the chief problem creationists have is their information comes from creationist websites (as opposed to science journals and education), so they usually don't understand the theory of evolution and how it works. The whole morphing thing, the transition species etc is proof of that.

Answer 8

I'm a believer in a creator and i am sure that we are evolving constantly .. we only use a small percentage of our brain and that is forever increasing .. can you imagine what we would be capable of if we had full faculties ! ... and yes the body from each generation to generation is changing .. even small changes due to surroundings is very noticeable .. e.g the shape of a woman's body is a great example of how we have changed due to over population or increase in population needed during war times etc
im all for creationism and evolution .. it can work together !

Answer 9

dude, I had this discussion with a former colleague.

Any and every example I gave him was just brushed aside.

Fossil record. Brushoff? "not enough evidence in that to make one whole animal."

Dogs (e.g. proven evolution in record). Brushoff? "induced by man" (spurious, but I went with it for the sake of the argument)

Bacteria and their proven evolution against antibodies, etc. Brushoff -- and this one really p*ssed me off -- "I just don't accept that. My [teacher] told me that if anyone ever gave evidence of evolutionism, it would be something small and insignificant, like bacteria. So I just don't accept that."

You don't ACCEPT that!? without counter-evidence?!?

What if you were up on murder charges and the prosecution presented DNA as evidence of your involvement? Would you say, "it's small and insignificant, so I don't accept that," and then expect to get away with it?

Its all down to confirmation bias. People will not accept something that fundamentally affects deeply held opinions, and will find anything they can to refute them. Regardless of how spurious or illogical it may seem to others, they will think it makes perfect sense.

So in answer to your question: Yes, creationists *can* categorically deny anything you put in front of them.


-- ADDITIONAL --
In repsponse to that long overwinded proof-of-denial, WTF? So how, if it's not down to science, does god do it? Like with gravity? Does he *MAKE* things fall to each other, or are you saying gravity doesn't exist?

As to "Science says some stuff was there then it exploded, but where did the stuff come from?" can I just ask this:
In the beginning the world was void and without form. God created "stuff". Where from!?!?

The answer to that, would probably also answer the scientists question too...

Answer 10

We are getting smaller in size and more susceptible to sickness and disease, some evolution or rather de-evolution.

We have more technology but our basic human nature and instinct are still the same for thousands of years now.