Why is this logic so common for creationists?

Question

I was talking about the evolution creation debate with some friends of mine over dinner. My friend’s dad believes in creation and I believe in evolution. I was talking about an experiment biologists did were they put a bunch of plants and animals in an artificial environment that is slightly different to Earths natural environment, and just let them sit to see what happened. All the life forms changed but the plants more so. The plants changed shape in a way that was more adept to survive in this artificial environment. He said I was blind because it obviously took intelligence to make this happen. Basically what he was arguing was that if we replicate something, then the thing we replicate was intelligently designed. With this logic I could say that if I melt a rock and make lava, a volcano is intelligent.

Answer 1

I will be the first to tell you that I don't know whether it is by creation, or intelligent design, but I do have a problem with the logic of people who can believe that for no apparent reason, some thing crawled out of the ocean, and from this birds sprouted wing and feather, while animals grew fur, and humans grew hair.
sorry but that is just not a logic that i can understand.

Answer 2

Plants and animals are designed to adapt to their invironment.

As Hugo de Vries has said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”

Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe. We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But natural selection can only operate on the information already contained in the genes; it doesn’t produce new information. There are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant.

The different dogs we see today have resulted from a rearrangement or loss of information from the original dog kind; no new information was produced. What are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another).

Answer 3

First of all, you are both talking about Micro Evolution. Even most Christians agree that that exists, in fact, many famous scientists that did breeding experiments were Christian or a related denomination.

What Creationists do not believe in is Macro Evolution. The idea that a plant or animal that has been exposed to a new environment for long enough (hundreds of thousands of years) will actually stop adapting to its environment and BECOME a NEW species that is adaptive to the new environment.
That concept is commonly referred to as the theory of evolution.

Secondly, experiments with "closed" environments have only met with mixed success. It is exceedingly difficult with our current funding and technology to create a truly closed environment to study that survives for a significant amount of time and shows significant effects on the flora and fauna.
Even a hundred year project would only be able to show MICRO Evolutionary changes and would be very easy to spoil with exposure from outside the enclosure.

Answer 4

I think what your friend's father was saying is that in order for any organism to be able to adapt...it would have had to be designed in such a way as to make adaption possible...even likely. A rock for example can not on its own...change...for it is not a living creature. Life....all life...has a design that allows it to change....or mutate when a new situation comes up. Those things that can not change quickly enough if the circumstances change very quickly...do not survive....i.e. the dinosaur for example.

I am a believer in God...but also a believer in science to some degree. This does not mean that I fully agree with the theory of evolution. It has many holes in it. However, I do not think that one has to disprove the other. God Bless.

Answer 5

That's odd. I grow a lot of plants. I garden and I grow a good portion of my own food. When the environment is not right for my plants I've always noticed that they wind up stunted or die.

I wonder what those scientists did to change the soil, chemical, air or sun content that plants need to properly develop without dying that caused them to magically mutate without killing them or at least stunting them. Sound like fishy testimony to me.

By the way I DO believe in evolution, but I'm not buying this story.

Answer 6

i've got examined what the two atheists and creationists furnish up as "good judgment," and that i'm unable to declare that i locate the two team to be particularly logical or rational. i think in God, and that i'm additionally a existence-long fan of technological awareness. From what i will tell there would not ought to be any inherent conflict between believing in and enjoying those 2 issues. on the same time as we are on the concern, merely how plenty info do you actual have that each and everything in existence is concern to logical and rational motives? it style of feels to me that it particularly is an unfounded and unproven assumption it relies greater on the wishful thinking of people who try in ineffective to conceal in the back of those issues. suitable needs!

Answer 7

Bad example. A volcano does not have intelligence, not does it produce anything with any kind of order. Changes can occur. Did this experiment produce a new specie of any sort? Did the existing species CHANGE into different species? This is what the evolution theory says, that one specie turns into another specie.

GOD bless

Answer 8

I am sorry but I have serious doubts about the intelligence of young earth creationists.

I also don't believe that evolution, which is a proven fact, means that God did not start the whole thing.

Answer 9

Like all creationists, I believe in the survival of the fittest. However this type of process only reduces genetic information, it does not create new genetic information. What is illogical is Evolutionists which use so-called proof which is directed towards de-evolution, and then turn around and call it evolution.

Answer 10

What? It would show an intelligent God that cause the phenomna.

Christians worship the creator more than the creation. And that the creation glorifies the creator. The creation only shous how logical, and principled he is in his design and worksmanship.