# Two questions for creationists... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2001, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944 "2001-08-12T21:43:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/161 "2001-08-21T22:52:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Hook \* > **God is the origin of all scientific laws including those that govern evolution. Discovering and proving those laws is the business of science, be it naturalistic or not.** It’s the business of science to discover these laws without metaphysical commentary. Any practitioner of science who gives metaphysical commentary is acting as a philosopher and not as a scientist. \*\* > [@](#): > > So, Big brained Brad is born with slightly different thumbs. All others of his species stop mating so Brad can start his superior thumbed family. In another area, Sally is born with an equally advantageous mutation, but not the thumbs. Why don’t Sally and Brad start separate versions of their respective species, both with viable advantages? What keeps this from happening? It seems there should be animals in existence that are closer to humans than the apes.\*\* Wow, there’s a lot in this paragraph. Let me see if I can break it down (just like MC Hammer tried to do all those years ago ;)). Opposable thumbs go back way further than humanity, but if a human is born with a competitive advantage, it’s not necessary that others stop breeding–the one with the advantage will have more offspring and those genes will spread. If Sally’s line and Brad’s line don’t interbreed for a long enough time, they will form separate species. But as long as they’re trading genes, they won’t. We share something like 98% of our DNA with Bonobos. I’m not sure how much closer you could get. For this and a lot of other information on evolution, I suggest [talkorigins.org](http://www.talkorigins.org). ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Hook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/91b2a8/32.png) [@Duck\_Hook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Hook)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/162 "2001-08-21T22:53:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > This is just another case of non-religious folk trying to debunk religion. > > Well, no. Not in the slightest. Nope. Nuh-uh. > > This is a case of both religious and non-religious folk alike to try to debunk those who claim that their faith is the same as science, or that their faith constitutes scientific evidence. It is an effort to debunk the seriously deranged and potentially very harmful concept of “creation science.” > > See, _we_ agree with you–science is science, religion is religion. Religious belief cannot be used as a scientific refutation of anything any more than scientific theory can be used as a religious refutation. > > Unfortunately, there are many who do not agree with this, and attempt to present their faith as science. It just don’t work. > > And those are the people we rail against. \*\* Good enough! I still think the OP invites a religious response to a scientific question. Why even ask it? I’ve heard speakers that I respect for their biblical knowledge actually make scientific sense, but their arguments are always rooted in religion. I’ll look for some cites to folks who make actual scientific arguments for the nature of God. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/163 "2001-08-21T23:09:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Hook \* > \*\*I’ll look for some cites to folks who make actual scientific arguments for the nature of God. \*\* I think I’m kinda in the minority on this, but I don’t believe that the existence of God is a scientific question. The main reason is because it’s not falsifiable–because God could’ve made the universe in any way, then no matter what we see, we can’t take it as evidence that God doesn’t exist. Rather, we should say that the existence of God is a spiritual question, one that can only be answered subjectively. The objective truth is out there, but I don’t think we can ever know it. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/164 "2001-08-21T23:21:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ultrafilter \* > I think I’m kinda in the minority on this, but I don’t believe that the existence of God is a scientific question[/ Make that a minority of at least two, Ultra. And just to confuse things more the scientific reason of non falsifiability is only one side of my reasons. On the other side of the reasons, the question is . . . well, it’s impertinent at the least. When you meet God, you don’t ask him for His identification, last regular address, place of employment, and phone number. You might refuse to believe, in which case the question of proof is pointless. If you do believe, well, . . . you just shut up, and listen. After all, He is God. ## Tris " It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching." ~ Saint Francis Of Assisi ~ ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/165 "2001-08-21T23:32:13Z")
Three. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/166 "2001-08-21T23:32:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Triskadecamus \* > **When you meet God, you don’t ask him for His identification, last regular address, place of employment, and phone number.** Did you see _Star Trek V_? If Captain Kirk had heeded that advice, he might have believed some big, bad alien was God. ---
**Author:** ![katerina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@katerina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/katerina)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/167 "2001-08-21T23:46:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Royal Sampler \* > > \*\* …if you were in my position you would realise that it is not easy being a lone soldier against a heavy infantry. > > > > Thank you, and God bless. \*\* > > Or a liar for Jesus. \*\* I find this comment exemplary, Manhattan. Do you make that with your moderator’s hat on or off? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/168 "2001-08-21T23:49:54Z")
Well, if he didn’t say he was acting as a moderator, I think it should be assumed he wasn’t. But it was indeed commendable. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2001, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/169 "2001-08-21T23:58:37Z")
**Ben** , I want to quote part of your post on “Mitochondrial Eve” over at The Pizza Parlor. Is that all right? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/170 "2001-08-22T00:06:25Z")
Oh, and it would help if you gave a cite. (I believe you, but you know how some of those Pizza-eaters are…) ---
**Author:** ![katerina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@katerina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/katerina)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/171 "2001-08-22T00:23:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Hook \* > I still think the OP invites a religious response to a scientific question. Why even ask it? \*\* Indeed, Mangetout specifically qualified her OP to clarify that she didn’t want a scientific answer to debunk the theory of evolution but a creationist one. I was quite disappointed. I really wanted to hear what scientists thought were weaker points in the theory. I am gathering that macroevolution is more dubitable than microevolution. What else? ---
**Author:** ![katerina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@katerina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/katerina)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/172 "2001-08-22T00:29:44Z")
Andros, Why do you find the response commendable? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/173 "2001-08-22T00:30:23Z")
> [@](#): > > I am gathering that macroevolution is more dubitable than microevolution. Not to scientists, though. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/174 "2001-08-22T00:30:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by katerina \* > **Indeed, Mangetout specifically qualified her OP to clarify that she didn’t want a scientific answer to debunk the theory of evolution but a creationist one.** Say what? I took the OP to be asking for a scientific answer from a creationist. If you want to ask scientists for weak points in evolutionary theory, you should open up a thread in GQ (with a “this is not an e/c debate” disclaimer). > [@](#): > > \*\*I was quite disappointed. I really wanted to hear what scientists thought were weaker points in the theory. I am gathering that macroevolution is more dubitable than microevolution. > \*\* Macroevolution is harder to observe directly, but it’s as established a scientific fact as any. The mechanisms of macroevolution are less well understood than those of microevolution. I suggest to lots of people that they go look at [talkorigins.org](http://www.talkorigins.org) cause it’s got quite a bit of information on the evolution/creationism debate. ---
**Author:** ![katerina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@katerina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/katerina)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/175 "2001-08-22T00:32:00Z")
Oh, I see it was in the thread title as well. Missed that. Guess that the original ‘two questions’ did not strike me as being both addressed at creationist. Subjectivity strikes again. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/176 "2001-08-22T00:32:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Why do you find the response commendable? Because it’s accurate and concise. Or do you use a different definition of “exemplary” than I? ---
**Author:** ![katerina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@katerina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/katerina)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/177 "2001-08-22T00:39:10Z")
Exemplary as in “a good example of…” Agreed as to the concision. As for the accuracy, I need more explanation, if you don’t mind. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/178 "2001-08-22T01:09:48Z")
An example of what, then? The most common use of exemplary is to mean “worthy of imitation.” As to its accuracy, I believe that Royal Sampler gave all sorts of indications of dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/179 "2001-08-22T01:48:19Z")
> [@](#): > > It also says that we are not required behave no better than animals, since we are merely animals. And many people demonstrate that they are unwilling to be any more than animals. This leads to apathy of the worse kind. I think this particular line of argument is really better refuted in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=82620). At any rate, an argument from alleged social consequences is not really an argument against the truth of a statement of fact. ---
**Author:** ![katerina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@katerina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/katerina)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2001, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/180 "2001-08-22T01:56:04Z")
An example of unnecessary attack. I was being ironic. I am interested in why you find his posts dishonest. The reason why is that the accusation of lying, particularly in the context of being a ‘liar for Jesus’ confounds me. As a sarcastic jibe [‘soldier/liar for Jesus’], it works, but on purely grammatical grounds or even analogical grounds, I don’t get it. First problem: I don’t remember any documentation of Jesus telling his proselytizers to lie for him or of any Church doctrine advocating lying. Second problem: Person A: “I sincerely believe that blah blah blah” Person B: “No you don’t. You’re lying!” Doesn’t work. It is possible that we are using different definitions of lying. So I all see is a sarcastic jibe thrown out for the sole purpose of the jibe. Nothing useful said. That, or unintentional jibing due to hasty writing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944.md?page=10)