Double M Herbals | Kratom Forum

Hello all!

I’d like to present what I feel to be a strong argument in support of creationism, to hear opinions. Please tell me what you disagree with and what I’m wrong about. Try to cite science if you can, but any opinions are totally fine as well! Share any thoughts you may have. I will not be offended by differing views.

I’m not looking to preach or anything like that, I just find this to be very interesting subject and would love to have a good-natured, open discussion.



So here is my current primary argument in support of creationism:

Humans Contradict Evolution Part 1:
The Meaningless Yet All-Powerful Species

Humans play no role in the natural world. We serve no crucial purpose in supporting any ecosystem. We don’t pollinate, we don’t have any natural predators, no plants or species rely on our existence to survive. We could essentially vanish from the face of the earth tomorrow - and the world would go on just fine.

In fact, many scientists and evolutionists would argue thay humans are HARMFUL to the environment. Our existence is detrimental to the biosphere. We pollute oceans, we contaminate water sources, we cause global warming... we are simply a meaningless species that serves no purpose.

All we do is use resources... we take as we please without ever having to give back. Our ecosystem does not benefit from us... we only benefit from IT.

Every other life form in the natural world is connected to its environment in some crucial way. Every plant and animal plays a role in its ecosystem. They are all driven - instinctively - to fulfill that crucial purpose. Cicadas find their way to the tree, bees pollinate, beavers build dams. But humans are the lone exception.

Humans are the only species who can wake up one day and decide to never do anything again. You’ll never see a bee wake up one day and say “I’m just gonna hang out in the hive for the rest of my life”. Yet humans can do this. And the world wouldn’t be negatively effected. Domesticated animals would simply return to the wild, forests would just go back to their natural state. The world would be just fine - if not better off - without us.

On top of all that... we are also the most powerful species. We could eradicate any species on earth with relative ease. We could annihilate the entire face of the earth with nukes. We could send an elephant to the moon if we saw it fit to do so.

So my question is, why would natural, unguided forces lead to the emergence of human beings? If humans are products of evolution, then why aren’t we connected to the ecosystem in some way? And why would this meaningless species also just so happen to be the most powerful? How do we fit in to the evolution model?

Point being, the mere existence of human beings contradict the evolution model. We are clearly separate, and apart from, the natural world. There’s the earth, and all the plants and animals therein... then there’s humans. Two separate things.

The creation model actually explains this, as the idea behind creation has always been that man was created separate from the world. We were designed to be the most powerful species. We are deigned to be different from the world.

Science, and evolutionism prove that man is above, and apart from all other life on the earth. Creationism explains why. The heavens and the earth, and all the animals and plants therein, were created - then man was created, and placed on the earth to “subdue it”, and tend to it.

Creationists need not deny the presence of man-made problem within our biosphere. Underwater military testing has caused dolphins and whales to beach themselves, we have dumped waste into our oceans and rivers, we have sprayed agent orange onto millions of acres of forests, we have polluted our atmosphere with all sorts of toxic gas emissions. These things have an undeniable negative impact on our environment... but these things also prove that man is in a position of unnaturally great power and responsibility. While yes - the presence of these problems show that man is failing to uphold this responsibility - it shows that we have this responsibility, nonetheless.



Humans Contradict Evolution Part 2:
Pollution: Evolution’s Greatest Accomplishment

If humans are products of evolution, then isn’t pollution also a product of evolution? If the human brain is a product of evolution - and pollution is a product of the human brain - isn’t pollution a product of evolution? Why would evolution allow for the emergence of pollution and global warming? If humans are natural beings... then how could we ever do anything unnatural?

Bees are products of nature and evolution. Therefore anything they do, such as pollinating plants, is considered natural. Why then are humans the exception? We’re supposedly natural beings, yet we do unnatural things? If we’re natural, then isn’t pollution just natural?

How can global warming be a threat to the natural world if global warming is a product of nature itself? Why would nature do something to harm itself? And why should we take efforts to mitigate these issues if they are merely a result of nature?



Please critique and share thoughts. Refute my claims, or add to them. Don’t hold back, just try to use science when possible. I have a couple more interesting arguments if anyone is interested.

Btw will read more thoroughly later,
I just wanted to comment briefly to say thank you on your philosophies always fun to talk to others about!

Also,
If you dont mind me asking...
Where did these thoughts come from?

Payshince wrote:Btw will read more thoroughly later,
I just wanted to comment briefly to say thank you on your philosophies always fun to talk to others about!

Also,
If you dont mind me asking...
Where did these thoughts come from?

Well, primarily it was an effort to refute the religious teachings of my upbringing. I was raised to believe that God created the heavens and the earth. But in school, and virtually everywhere else, I was told that evolution is what’s real.

I hit an age, early in high school, where I became very skeptical of my religious teachings. “Where’s the proof”. Everyone told me there’s tons of proof for evolution, none for God.

I would occasionally try to argue that God exists, but even the most basic argument would shut me down when I realized science seems to back up evolution. I just saw no feasible way to scientifically defend my faith and this was very off putting to me.

But as I really developed an interest in the origins of life - one of the most interesting concepts to me - I just got this overwhelming sense that evolution seems too far-fetched. Like, I almost felt that believing an explosion 14 billion years ago led to the existence of humans bringing monkeys to space, was less likely that the idea of a creator. I didn’t really have any concrete evidence to go by, but it just felt so far fetched.

But again, all an evolutionist needs to say is “it happened”. If I say “it sounds too far fetched to be random”, they could simply say “but it happened”, and that’s the end of the argument. I eventually hit a point where I realized, even though my instincts tell me evolution takes more faith than creation, there’s just no way to argue it. Scientifically, everything supports evolution.

But then I realized... evolution has some issues.

First thing that caught my eye was the dinosaur bone with soft tissue in it. That totally threw off all the evolution, mainstream dating methods. What was really off-putting to me was the way they immediately just changed their “facts” to account for the finding. They went from saying “soft tissue can only last a few thousand years” to saying “ok nevermind it can last millions of years”.

Then there was the hammer found in a rock. Rock supposedly millions of years old, humans supposedly thousand of years old... yet a hammer is found IN a rock. Again, they just changed their facts to account for the anomaly.

Those two things really threw me off, in regards to the accuracy of their dating methods. The whole evolution theory is so reliant of their dating methods being accurate... and suddenly these two things just totally threw it off.

Then there was all the giant bones found in this country throughout the 1800s and early 1900s. Thousands of reports of these bones were reported in reputable magazines and newspapers. Totally separate sources - all reporting the same thing.


Here’s a link to a small handful of these reports:

http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm

Here’s another source - a totally random mention of giant bones in a town history book. Check page 400:

https://books.google.com/books/about/Hi ... QlAQAAMAAJ


That really piqued my interest because the Bible explains the existence of a race of giants. These giants were mostly 8-12 ft tall. This really contradicts evolution - these giants really have no place in the evolution model whatsoever.

What REALLY nailed that home was the way it’s covered up. Like... why cover it up? Nearly all those reports mention that the bones were collected and none of them were ever seen again.

Then if you google “giant bones”... all you see is blatantly fake, 40+ foot tall giants. Just to crowd the search results with obvious bogus to make the proposition of giants bones seem like fantasy. Anyone who researches the subject will simply find obviously untrue stuff. Which really made me suspicious... why do you have to dig so hard to find anything about these ACTUAL giant bones, which were actually 8-12 ft? The Bible mentions this stuff and I kid you not, my heart dropped when I first realized this. I don’t even know what to make of it.


But anyways, those things just rekindled my interest in creationism. Like, suddenly, proving creation was no longer just a bunch of “trust me, bro”... it could have some very compelling scientific arguments.

Then what truly did me over was the circumcision thing.

Apparently, the Old Testament said to circumcise babies on the 8th day of their life. This was written thousands of years ago.

Only in recent decades has modern medical science learned how accurate that command was. On the 8th day of a baby’s life, they have way above average vitamin K and blood clotting platelets. They can heal from cuts ridiculously well. By day 9 it’s already down regulating, and day 7 it’s still increasing. So day 8 is just a medical phenomenon in that a baby can heal from cuts... and that’s the day God apparently commanded babies to be circumcised thousands of years ago.

Then there’s the solar eclipse argument. Where basically, solar eclipses are too specific of an event to happen regularly for several years. The expansion of the solar system would be too drastic, based on the evolution model, for a total solar eclipse to happen more than a few times. They’ve been recorded for at least 4500 years, but if the solar system is undergoing a constant state of evolution, they couldn’t happen that long. In fact, even in the 200ish years that solar eclipses have been accurately studied, there should already by observable variances in their occurrence. There’s more to this but for times sake I’ll move on.

Then what really broke the Camel’s back was the human irrelevance in the ecosystem which I wrote about in the OP. That totally convinced me that the universe is a product of intelligent design. I won’t go pushing specifics as to religious stuff, but for sure there is intent behind everything.

Just skimmed this, so this is just a quick reply. You're still looking at science through the lens of the Christianity, and that's where you'll always have problems. Giants didn't exist. Thats why you can't Google it without finding Hagrid links. They aren't real. Just because the "Bible said so" doesn't make it true. The Bible is not a literal history, should not be treated as a history book, and there are innumerable instances where the Bible is obviously wrong and outright contradicts itself (two completely different genealogies of Jesus in the new testament), or otherwise contradicts what we already know of history from non biblical sources and geology, biology, etc (don't even get me started on the flood) With evolution, there's at least real evidence that exists you can seek out if you really have questions. Don't go looking for scientific answers in a religious document.

But it sounds like you're alluding to the belief in young earth creationism, if I'm not mistaken? That the earth and man is only 6,000 years old? Most Christians have realized that's been proven wrong a million times over by multiple different branches of science (biology, astronomy, cosmology, etc). The solar eclipse thing doesn't make sense to me. The universe is expanding, we've proven that, but its only evident on a massive scale ie. Stars and galaxies, not planets and their moons.

As far as the circumcision, that seems very simple. After thousands of years of experience circumcising infants (a controversial practice in its own right) they would have gotten it down pat... they circumcise a baby six days old, it dies. Then the next one they wait 10, it lives. Then wait seven, that one dies...and so on. Trial and error. They probably figured that out quite quickly. Science just explained WHY that happened, the Jews didn't need to know WHY to figure out HOW.

I've had this science versus religion argument more times than I can count, and 10 out of a 10 times it doesn't change anyone's mind, (hence my hesitancy to engage in this discussion), and I'm skeptical in this instance too, but I'll chime in when I can.

Higher intelligence, ,call it aliens,, ,ancient aliens,,I think they have it nailed,theories make sense, ,,

Ancient aliens is beyond ludicrous. I think it's meant as an entertainment show, not any attempt at legitimate scientific discovery. Doesn't stop people from thinking it is and taking it serious though, most unfortunately.

B, ludicrous? They can go to exremes,sure, more entertaining,but for me it makes me wonder,my grandmother, and my dad witnessed a ufo, and on another occasion in same area,,we,meaning family outside at a picnic table, all seen something that we still talk about,those still living anyhow, Hey remember that time,,,,,?? I just know what I and 8 other aunts,uncles,,all seen,,that's all,,not going to push it on anyone,,It definitely changes how you look at things,I don't take the whole show as true,,embellished with a lot of far out ideas I like the basics, €____________That totally convinced me that the universe is a product of intelligent design. )))))B,hap,,____

beathappening wrote:Just skimmed this, so this is just a quick reply. You're still looking at science through the lens of the Christianity, and that's where you'll always have problems. Giants didn't exist. Thats why you can't Google it without finding Hagrid links. They aren't real. Just because the "Bible said so" doesn't make it true. The Bible is not a literal history, should not be treated as a history book, and there are innumerable instances where the Bible is obviously wrong and outright contradicts itself (two completely different genealogies of Jesus in the new testament), or otherwise contradicts what we already know of history from non biblical sources and geology, biology, etc (don't even get me started on the flood) With evolution, there's at least real evidence that exists you can seek out if you really have questions. Don't go looking for scientific answers in a religious document.

But it sounds like you're alluding to the belief in young earth creationism, if I'm not mistaken? That the earth and man is only 6,000 years old? Most Christians have realized that's been proven wrong a million times over by multiple different branches of science (biology, astronomy, cosmology, etc). The solar eclipse thing doesn't make sense to me. The universe is expanding, we've proven that, but its only evident on a massive scale ie. Stars and galaxies, not planets and their moons.

As far as the circumcision, that seems very simple. After thousands of years of experience circumcising infants (a controversial practice in its own right) they would have gotten it down pat... they circumcise a baby six days old, it dies. Then the next one they wait 10, it lives. Then wait seven, that one dies...and so on. Trial and error. They probably figured that out quite quickly. Science just explained WHY that happened, the Jews didn't need to know WHY to figure out HOW.

I've had this science versus religion argument more times than I can count, and 10 out of a 10 times it doesn't change anyone's mind, (hence my hesitancy to engage in this discussion), and I'm skeptical in this instance too, but I'll chime in when I can.

Thanks for the reply. I’m just trying to keep this scientific. I know a lot of those things are what evolutionists believe, I’m just looking for the evidence. Everyone says “it’s out there”, and that creation has been “disproven”.

Where’s the scientific evidence? Give me an example so I can counter it. Prove creationism wrong. Prove evolution right. Not just heresay... I’m looking for observable facts.

Giants did exist. Check that link. Refute it. Tell me why that link is wrong. I’d LOVE to have a reason to think it’s wrong. Just give me an actual reason instead of “there’s no way bruh”. Cause that link is damn convincing. Those are actual newspaper articles. They’re in the archives of those newspapers.

The evidence for the universe expanding is limited to some dude with tights looking though a telescope, scratching his left testicle, then saying “yo that shit’s getting further away”. In all seriousness, it’s based on the color of the lights the stars exude which can indicate movement. Interesting argument, yes, but far from enough to base entire lifetime of ideology upon.

As far as “looking at it through the lens of Christianity”... how so? I’m looking at this strictly from a scientific standpoint. I wouldn’t even necessarily call myself a Christian, as I don’t believe the evidence for Jesus is conclusive enough.

I’m looking at this strictly from a creation vs evolution standpoint.

From a SCIENTIFIC, EVOLUTION standpoint, humans shouldn’t exist. We couldn’t possibly have evolved because we don’t serve a purpose in our ecosystem and actually hurt our biosphere. There is SCIENCE to back that up.

In regards to your arguments, flat out incorrect. Circumcision CAN be done in the 6th day. You don’t die lol. Many children nowadays are circumcised around day 5-7.

Also, the universe expanding doesn’t disprove creation. It actually further adds credence to the creation accounts, as they stated this before modern science did. Creation accounts do generally say the universe is expanding. The Bible for example says the universe is expanding, in Genesis. It said this before any of the post 1800 AD scientific research.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationism

Read this. Really read it. There's a ton of great articles on that site, from conspiracy theories to ufo's to anti-vaxxer stuff, and of course religions (not just your typical monotheistic abrahamic ones).

Every argument you pose has already been addressed, at some point in time. I'm not going to expend the effort and post links to try to prove you wrong, it's a fool's errand and I don't feel like pushing my phone's capacity and data to its maximum for something that has no ascertainable value. Do your own research. Read On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Read a college biology textbook. Educate yourself outside of the religion vs. science argument for awhile and approach the problem from an objective angle, not your subjective Christian one. The information is already out there, but you already believe what you believe, no one's going to change your mind.

Thanks for the link brother. I will gladly check it out.

Again. I don’t want this to be a theory vs theory discussion. I don’t want this to be about the Bible or religion. I’d rather leave religion entirely out of it.

Forget young earth, forget religion. I wanna discuss the evidence for evolution, vs the evidence for creation. I wanna focus on science. I want to discuss this through the lens of mainstream science - without any presumptions about the validity of religious texts like the Bible.

I feel that pointing out the fact that humans are utterly useless and harmful to the ecosystem is a very strong argument in support of creation. It’s a fairly simple argument, and has nothing to do with religion.

I’m not insisting my argument is true - I just don’t know how it can be scientifically refuted. I’d love to hear why this idea is wrong.

I have literally no bias in this argument and there is no reason to take a defensive stance. I’m not “set in my beliefs”, and I’m actually encouraging a scientific, non-religious discussion.



So to sum up my argument:

Why do humans exist if evolution is true? Why is is that humans could literally disappear from the face of the earth, and the world would go on just fine? The world would be better off, if anything.

Every other species plays a crucial role in their ecosystem. Evolution is a natural process, and therefore everything that evolves, evolves for a reason. Every life form on earth plays a critical role in supporting their environment; every plant and animal relies on each other. Except humans... if we disappeared, the world would go on just fine.

So why do we exist? Why would natural, random, unguided forces lead to the emergence of a species that serves no purpose? We actually hurt our biosphere. Why would evolution create a self destruct button?



And another point: Evolutionists/mainstream science say that global warming, pollution, nuclear waste, etc. are “unnatural” events. They say that these man-made issues are destroying our biosphere. And it’s totally true... these are real, serious issues.

BUT... if humans are “natural” beings, then shouldn’t everything we do be deemed “natural” as well? How can something natural create something unnatural? If evolution created the human brain - and the human brain created pollution - didn’t evolution create pollution?

A species doesn't have to be beneficial to its environment to evolve within it. It evolves strictly to survive in the environment. The fact that something is beneficial is not related to its evolution, imo.

It's probably true that if humans left the planet or went extinct, the planet itself would be better off. But, it is just a rock in space and not a sentient being that can appreciate itself. Not to get too philosophical here, but perhaps humans are here simply to enjoy, create, think, and ponder the meaning of it all - which is a purpose, perhaps the highest of all.

And while we're on the topic of creationism vs. evolution, let's discuss an interesting example. If humans do one day leave Earth to colonize other worlds, there is a very real possibility that these various groups of colonists will each evolve to be entirely different species over time. Let's say one group goes to Titan and one group goes to Mars. Then we revisit these groups in 100,000 years. They may not even be recognizable as modern humans anymore. In fact, they would probably be two very different species who have evolved to survive in their vastly different environments. Were these new species of humans created by a divine power? The answer is pretty obviously no. They evolved. So why would Earth be any different?

e_poison wrote:A species doesn't have to be beneficial to its environment to evolve within it. It evolves strictly to survive in the environment. The fact that something is beneficial is not related to its evolution, imo.

It's probably true that if humans left the planet or went extinct, the planet itself would be better off. But, it is just a rock in space and not a sentient being that can appreciate itself. Not to get too philosophical here, but perhaps humans are here simply to enjoy, create, think, and ponder the meaning of it all - which is a purpose, perhaps the highest of all.

And while we're on the topic of creationism vs. evolution, let's discuss an interesting example. If humans do one day leave Earth to colonize other worlds, there is a very real possibility that these various groups of colonists will each evolve to be entirely different species over time. Let's say one group goes to Titan and one group goes to Mars. Then we revisit these groups in 100,000 years. They may not even be recognizable as modern humans anymore. In fact, they would probably be two very different species who have evolved to survive in their vastly different environments. Were these new species of humans created by a divine power? The answer is pretty obviously no. They evolved. So why would Earth be any different?

Good reply. Interesting though, you must admit. I mean think about it...

Bees pollinate, beavers build dams, deer consume grasses - which fattens them up to provide a better food source for predators. Even their poop goes on to help the soil, which supports the process of photosynthesis, which creates oxygen, which benefits our atmosphere, which supports more life. It’s all connected in a system... where everything supports one another.

Every single life form on earth adheres to this idea of serving a purpose, which is crucial to not only their ecosystem - but every other life form within that ecosystem... and the biosphere as a whole

Except humans.

We are the ONLY species who’s utter eradication wouldn’t effect the world at all. We could disappear tomorrow and the world would be completely unaffected. In fact, it would actually BENEFIT the world.

But here’s what makes it really weird: we’re also the most powerful. Like what are the odds of that? We’re not just the most useless species on earth... we’re also the most powerful. It’s the duality there that makes you really have to sit back and question the evolution model.

Your idea that our purpose is simply to observe, appreciate, ponder, etc. is an interesting one. After all, we are the only species capable of doing so. Solar eclipses, rainbows, aurora borealis... all these spectacularly colorful, beautiful events would go completely unnoticed if humans weren’t here to appreciate them. Humans are the only life form capable of recognizing and appreciating them.

And these aren’t just beautiful events... they’re the most beautiful things a human being can possible perceive. Even the most beautiful works of art pale in comparison to the natural beauty of an aurora borealis, a beautiful sunset, or a waterfall filled with rainbows. Humans are hardwired to desire, appreciate, and derive inspiration from beauty and art... and it just so happens that the most beautiful and artistic things the human mind can perceive, already exist and occur in nature.

There is no evolutionary purpose for a species to appreciate beauty. No other species has this characteristic. Only human beings desire and appreciate beauty.

At the same time, there is no evolutionary purpose for beauty to exist. Solar eclipses, rainbows, auroras... these things serve no purpose, and go entirely unnoticed by all other life on earth.

Yet it just so happens that humans - the most useless species species on earth - appreciates the beauty of the most useless phenomenons on earth.

I mean think about how unlikely solar eclipses are. The sun is exactly 400 times further than the moon, yet the moon is exactly 400x smaller than the sun. As a result, they appear the exact same size, from earth. No where else in our solar system can a solar eclipse be seen. They just so happens to be viewable from earth - which just so happens to be the home of the only species in existence capable of appreciating them.

e_poison wrote:A species doesn't have to be beneficial to its environment to evolve within it. It evolves strictly to survive in the environment. The fact that something is beneficial is not related to its evolution, imo.

It's probably true that if humans left the planet or went extinct, the planet itself would be better off. But, it is just a rock in space and not a sentient being that can appreciate itself. Not to get too philosophical here, but perhaps humans are here simply to enjoy, create, think, and ponder the meaning of it all - which is a purpose, perhaps the highest of all.

And while we're on the topic of creationism vs. evolution, let's discuss an interesting example. If humans do one day leave Earth to colonize other worlds, there is a very real possibility that these various groups of colonists will each evolve to be entirely different species over time. Let's say one group goes to Titan and one group goes to Mars. Then we revisit these groups in 100,000 years. They may not even be recognizable as modern humans anymore. In fact, they would probably be two very different species who have evolved to survive in their vastly different environments. Were these new species of humans created by a divine power? The answer is pretty obviously no. They evolved. So why would Earth be any different?

I totally agree with this. Some of the posts in this thread have me scratching my head though!

from a Buddhist standpoint, human "realm" of existence, is meant to attain enlightenment and reach nirvana, thus escaping samsara , or something to that effect.

so that is the humans purpose, connection to the universe, in Buddhism anyway.

Saṃsāra (Sanskrit, Pali; also samsara) in Buddhism has part of the four ages birth, mundane existence and dying again. Samsara is considered to be dukkha, unsatisfactory and painful, perpetuated by desire and avidya (ignorance), and the resulting karma.

Very good points. Thanks for sharing.