Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

If someone gave me a big enough crossword puzzle, I'd not be able to just look at it and see how many answers there were, my eyesight's not that good, but I wouldn't need to know how many answers were needed to complete the puzzle in order to actually complete it.
I'd just need a sufficient number of answers to deduce the remaining ones that I can't directly answer.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

For once this thread is interesting to read..well since I looked last night that is..Well done.:tu:

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Whether you trust my motives or not is irrelevant to simply providing an answer to a question? :confused:


link....or have you changed your mind since then?


Anyhoo, I'm getting tired of your wriggling, squirming, ignoring my questions that it doesn't suite you to answer and general primadonna huffiness. I'm probably going to give up trying to get answers out of you....you can breath a big sigh of relief :D

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

As I've said countless times (and I'm sure you can do a search for them) I'll answer anyone whose motives are genuine.

I don't have a problem with it being taught alongside traditional science - of course your original wording (that I want it taught in science) wasn't deliberately ambiguous was it....?

Oh yes, I'm sure that will stroke your ego :D

Pardon the pun but it'll be a long cold day in hell when I squirm or wriggle from you :)

I'll be happy to answer anything you (or anyone) puts to me, awkward or not, when the intentions are good :)

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Russ, are you stating for the record that Ramrod's intentions are not good?


Didn't last long before the usual suspect started dishing out accusations about agendas though did it?
I was enjoying it too. :(

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

My favourite example of what would be "flawed design" if Man had been Created, is that of the human eye.

For example, the ass-about-face construction of the retina, together with the existence of the blind spot.

A good explanation:


http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml


And a response (with a response) at http://www.2think.org/eye_response.shtml


The "marvelous human eye" is also something often used by Creationists, many of whom say that something so perfect could not possibly have evolved (ignoring that it isn't actually so perfect, & could quite easily have evolved).

This is countered extremely well in the above links, & also at

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Paleontol...reationism.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html


There are also other examples of how humans (& also other animals) have many flaws:

Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature FAQ.



Actually, for a whole wealth of information regarding Creation/Evolution, a visit to TalkOrigins is a must.

Main FAQ (lots of general questions & answers)

What is Evolution?

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

God and Evolution: Can you accept both?

Evolution and Philosophy: An Introduction

29 Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability

Observed Instances of Speciation

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Fossil Hominids


And various other Must-Read FAQs including ones of the age of the Earth, Radiometric Dating & the Geological Time Scale, & more.


----------------------------------


As has already been said before, evolution = science.


Some "Creation scientists", however, seem to work backwards.

Instead of looking at the available data & so on, & coming up with a workable & testable theory, backed up by shed-loads of evidence (such as evolution), they seem to start with the end theory (Creation), & work backwards from that, misquoting, ignoring, & misunderstanding evidence, to try & fit things in with a theory that they have already set themselves on.

Creationism is not science, & should not masquerade itself as such.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

What on earth do you think my motives are? I have been trying to use your words to demonstrate to you that you and other ID/creationist believers are wrong in your stance. :shrug:



err.....I didn't think it was ambiguous, what did you think I was getting at? :confused:


Eh? My intentions are to try to show you how muddle headed I believe your thinking is, using debate and argument. I'm surprised you don't seem to be able to deal with that.....

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Take it to the PM

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Imposing your beliefs on me then?

Imposing your beliefs on me then?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Not at all. A debate is a (in)formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. Thats what we are doing. :shrug:

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:33 ----------

Very well put! :tu:

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Agreed :tu:

No - what you're doing is trying to change my mind. Imposing your way of thinking on me.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

lol, that would be a byproduct of you recognising the validity of my (and other members) arguments here. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm merely trying to get you to understand some of the errors in your thinking (as I see them; thats debate/argument). If I was successful in my endeavour then you would then change your mind of your own free will.....

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Stunning post :tu:

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

One of the interesting things, to me, at the moment, is my impression that 'science', well physics, in particular, tbh, is as 'theoretical' as some accuse 'religion' of being.

Much of the 'science' relating to stuff like strings, quantum gravity, dark matter & dark energy, for example, is not much more than theory - and the Large Hadron Collider failing a commissioning test, didn't help with even beginning to look for 'proof' ;)

I have to say I find the idea of achieving an 'unified' description of our provenance interesting, whether it is due to science or religion, we are here, but we aren't 'really' sure how it happened - yet???? :)

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I've pretty much narrowed it down to Mr & Mrs Angry Snr.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

So what is this?

Just admit it - you're trying to get me to come around to your way of thinking. Please don't flatter yourself by stating me saying this means I'm "recognising the validity of your argument" - it just shows I can see what you're trying to do (based on your own admission).

If I started preaching to you about how to get saved, you'd see what I was up to, right? Does that mean you're recognising the validity of my argument? Or is that different?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

The big difference is that those scientists are probing, testing and trying to work towards understanding. Religion cannot claim to be credably doing any of that since all that we need to know is laid down in the bible, no need to look any further--just a burning need to get non-religious types to accept it's teachings as fact. (Trying to teach ID in schools science lessons is the latest attempt at that.)

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:26 ----------

So whats the point of having an argument? :confused: I always thought it was to get your idea(s) across in such a way that the person you are arguing with has to acknowledge that you are right.......whats wrong with that, for crying out loud?

Nothing wrong with that; and if you could demonstrate to me that you were correct in your argument and I was wrong in mine, I would obviously change my original outlook to your viewpoint :shrug:

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Its not the same. Scientists offer explainations for unanswered questions. They look as the evidence and current knowledge and make a guess, a theory, but they never claim it is anything but a weak theory without any evidence.

Scientists make a distinction between theory and fact and all the degrees inbetween. They treat each with the required respect and attention.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

The problem appears to have been an engineering fault

Just because a house collapses you can't immediately question the principles of statics.

If the collapse occurs repeatedly, you have to accept there's something wrong and try and find a way to adapt the law and fix it.

It is true some scientists will deny and argue new principles they find disturbing, fundamental uncertainty in quantum mechanics for instance, but the community at large will accept them when enough evidence is provided.

Science is more free to learn and adapt over time, science can admit mistakes and make revisions. Religion for the sake of promoting the belief in divine knowledge cannot acknowledge that 'god was wrong'.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I'm sorry, but as I'm pretty sure you don't know every scientist in every laboratory in the world, this looks pretty much like a statement of faith to me - and a dodgy one at that, history is littered with scientists who have done anything *but* what you have described. ;)

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

theres only 3 occasions i enter a church, weddings funerals and rememberance day, and i dont belive in god at all. But i do think that both sides should be taught in schools.

as long as both sides are taught without bias and as truthfully as possible, whats wrong with letting kids decide what they want to belive without having people telling them they are wrong?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Nothing wrong with teaching them about Creation - so long as it is only within RE lessons.

Evolution = science. Based on evidence, facts, etc.

Creation = religion. Based on faith, belief.



And what's wrong with telling kids they're wrong?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Again I'd like to point out that evolution is not an issue of physics, so don't compare it to light, hadrons etc. It's a logical inevitability when presented with creatures that inherit characteristics from their parents, have random mutations, and are faced with a challenge to reproduce.

Take away any of those conditions and it doesn't work, its also subject to random "cock ups". If an individual recieves a very important gene he may get crushed by a falling tree thus delaying the evolutionary jump until the mutation occurs again (if it ever occurs again).

In the case of crocodiles, they haven't evolved much since the dinosaur era because they work well already and don't have much competition.

While light has and will always travel at 3x10^8 meters per second in a vaccum and there's nothing you can do to change it. (At least according to today's evidence).

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Well I meant as a whole. There a loads of scientists who are wacky and come up with crackpot theorys but they tend to get ignored and debunked by other scientists. But you rise the point that science governs itself ;) Its not as if they all agree but this makes science even more credible and Evolution too which is pretty much solid in their eyes.

---------- Post added at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was at 23:25 ----------

I am only going to say people are wrong if they pretend there is evidence which backs up the claim for creationism or if they say its the equal of Evolution in terms of science.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

These sum up my arguement against creationism as a science in a funny, although slightly harsh, way.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...7&d=1176849205

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Love the second one. However, to be honest, science works like that occasionally. Some people will just get entrenched in their position, and just look for evidence that supports it, or retreat to silly positions where they can't be 'caught'. On the whole, and particularly over time, it does work in the way it should, as the majority opinion changes, and silly theories get weeded out or replaced by other silly theories.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I think it realy is that simple. If "Creationism" can be proved, then it gets equal status. If not, its binned.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

:D

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

And my favourite - although sadly I can't locate the cartoon online at the moment - is "Hydrogen: a light, colorless, odorless gas, that given enough time, turns into people."

Now, we can swap crass soundbites or we can try to work towards some kind of mutual understanding and respect for sincerely held opinions. I know which I'd prefer. :dozey:

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I didnt mean any offence, Just found it funny :)

There is enough science for Evolution, certainly more than Creationism. I cant really see any good case for Creationism to be taught as a science even In a state school.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

but science by definition is the best explanation for a subject at any one time. Its constantly up for review and therefore never truly proven. The rules of gravity for example has in resent history been proven to be off by certain calculation when the 2 probes (cant remember the names) went off course at opposite edges of the solar system.

The missing link that I was taught in schools never existed as Homosapiens and Neanderthals existed at the same time

Infinity cant be explained the list is endless

A scientist has faith in what he believes is true so what when that truth is found to be wrong

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

There is plenty of science for Creation. The data sets that are used are the same. They are however interpreted differently. Evolutionary scientists complain about 'selective' use of data. Believe it or not, creationist scientists make the same charge against evolutionists.

I would not expect any school to give parity to the two models of how we came to be here, however to pretend there are no alternatives is simply dishonest.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Which ironically isn't as true as the cartoons posted :D

Science is able to admit mistakes, creationists are not.
Could you admit that the particular god you believe in could make mistakes?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

But the issue is whether it is an alternative that stands up to scientific scrutiny. And creationism does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. It's pseudoscience.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I've not seen it. Evolution happens around us, I dont see why its so hard to believe it happens to Humans too.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

At the end of the day what does it matter? From a scientific viewpoint we are all just gonna die then nothing so who really gives a toss whether we are taught evolution or not?
If death is the end there is no point to anything its all just a waste of time

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Filling a science timetable with lessons on non-scientific subjects takes up precious time that should be spent on science. It would be like teaching about the Saxon invasion in PE lessons.
During my GCSE's, in biology we didn't have time to cover everything on the silibus.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Actually, while I personally believe in Evolution, rather than Creationism, I find it interesting to ponder the following (for which, AFAIK, Science provides no answer).

How was Evolution created? How were the rules and mechanisms it uses defined or designed? After all, logic tells us that any system has to have rules (even systems in nature). How were those rules defined?

Evolution enables beings to change to fit their own needs and/or environment (for instance, humans walking around on two legs rather than 4 paws). How was the system that allows those changes implemented?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Well as I pointed out I was taught incorrectly I was taught about a missing link that wasnt there. Maybe the whole "how we came to be" could just be dropped full stop cuz at the end of the day no one knows for sure what happened.Maybe schools should concentrate on the fact we are here and things relative to the here and now rather than the billions of years ago

---------- Post added at 10:35 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

People have said that belief in creation is a belief magic. Tell me please how the belief that a molten rock cooled and then life "magically" just started is any different at all?????

I can accept evolution happened after life begun on this planet. But I cant accept that life just happened

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Isn't that a little 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'? You speak of the rules and mechanisms in what is essentially a noisy system, that is influenced by a changing environment. It is strange that some commonalities can be found in the resulting behaviour?

Also, have a look at emergent behaviour Behaviour doesn not have to planned to conform to certain rules.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

How we got here is one of the driving forces behind a lot of modern science, whether through cosmology or biology.
If you had been taught properly, then you'd have learnt the tools of science used to investigate the possibilities of a missing link, sounds to me like you had a really bad teacher who used the parrot fashion technique of just giving facts without explaination.

Sounds like you were taught some really basic form if you believe evolutionist claim life just started like that!

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Tell me how life started please and give me definitive proof of it

---------- Post added at 10:56 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------

Ok simple googling makes it quite clear that there are only theories

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issue...rsity/life.asp

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Fi...01Overview.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html

so a scientist can not tell me how life begun but he tells me how life developed into what we know now.
Creation is another theory as to how life started on this planet none of these have definitive proof to be called fact
So without these Facts how can someone dismiss my faith ?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

That's two requests, and requires a definition of life.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Quite easily, the smugness is palpable in this thread at times

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

your obviously wiser than me you define life then show me definitive proof of how it begun

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Simple is an understatment!
How about you actually google some research papers on the subject rather than just a creationist site, an enviromental research site, or a layman's interview?

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------

No, you made the request, you make the definition, wouldn't want any wriggle room now?

Incidently, can the god you believe in make mistakes?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

What I want to know, and I hope the christians amongst us can answer this.

Why does the theory of evolution negate the prescence or work of your god???

Yes, the whole 7 day thing is in the bible, but surely those of you woith faith know that many, if nearly all things in the bible are open to many interpretations and are usually a way of producing thought about the way you live and are not to be taken literally.

I was listening to a guy on the radio, some kind of religious scholar, who advised that the actual miracle of turning water into wine, did not take place and that is only a story, a parable.

Why, can you not see your gods work in evolution?

God may have made us in his image, but he, or she, didn't set a time as to when we'd get there?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Because thats not what evolution is. Nature doesnt change creatures to suit the enviroment. Instead, like viruses, there are random changes in animals. Sometimes a change will mean that version of the animal is more suited to the enviroment than the rest. The rest cannot compete as well, This means they become increasingly smaller while the success of the new version becomes bigger.

I.E early man did not have intellgence or the dexerity to create and use tools. At some point one of the many many verations created a more intellegent human they used this is hunt better and protect themselves better giving them an advantage over the previous men. This meant this version was better at competing for food and so on and this continues.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

:wavey:

I can.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Except when it comes to humans ;)

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

They were just top of the google list so your telling me research papers are telling us deffinately how life begun and not theories?

Just use dictionary.coms definitions http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

And ill ask him when I see him ;)

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Cool, I'll use point 18 from the definition you've chosen.
Life begins when the defendant has been found guilty of a crime and sentanced to life inprisonment.

Do you believe the god you believe in is able to make mistakes?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

A student goes to see his tutor and says to him , "Professor, I'm confused as to what makes a good theory, we have learnt that theories and ideas have changed over time, so how are we to recognise a good theory when we hear one?" The Professor thinks for a few minutes and then says, "consider that I have two clocks, one is completely broken and the other works but gains a few minutes every day. Logically which one is the better timepiece?". "The working clock", says the student.

"Think again" says the professor, "the working clock will never show the right time but the broken clock will at least be accurate twice a day".

"But what use is that" says the student, "we don't know when the 'right' time is. At least with the working clock I'll have an approximation of the time".

"And now" says the professor, "you know what to look for in a good theory. It may not be perfect and is likely to need revision in the light of new discoveries, but it does allow us to make predictions which can be tested to check the validity of otherwise of the theory. This is always preferable to a theory which is given as the 'final answer' and permits no testing at all".

Does science understand everything about everything? No, certainly not and doesn't claim to. What is does offer is a framework by which we can learn more and hope to arrive at a fuller understanding of the universe. Science depends on what is refered to now as the scientific method'. Observations are made, theories are developed to explain these based on what is already 'known', and these theories should make predictions which can be tested. And evolution theory makes predictions about what should be observed every bit as much as quantum theory does.

Everything (and I do mean everything) in science is a theory. There are no absolute facts. Which is sometimes a bit confusing to a non-scientist who expect that science and scientists 'know' stuff. For those who claim that evolution is just a theory (true) and that other 'theories' should be given equal time in classes and children allowed to make their own mind up about what to believe should really consider this; just how many theories should be included? How about the ancient Egyptian theory which states that at the beginning of time the god Amon-Ra masturbated himself and the result was the creation of the universe. Surely just as valid as the Biblical version and with precisely the same level of evidence.

Aerodynamics is only a theory after all. So if a college decided to start teaching its students to design aircraft in the form of a cube with no engines because the teacher has a theory that invisible pixies are actually responsible for holding aircraft up-that would be acceptable would it? Anyone willing to risk flying in such a machine?

If there was the slightest evidence for creationism it would be shouted from the rooftops. There simply isn't any. What creationists do is point out weaknesses or gaps in standard evolutionary theory-all of which is quite normal in science. The other means of attack is try to show that the universe is far younger than evolutionary theory requires. Hence the 'speed of light might have changed' arguement which would throw all the calculations out. Yes it might have changed but there is simply no good reason to suspect it has. It all seems to be a bit straw-clutching to me. Or the other arguement which goes like 'I don't understand how the universe came to be like it is through natural forces-so I don't believe it did' Or my favourite, 'but surely it's better to believe in a all-loving creator god than things being essentially random' Well yes I see the point but I'd also like to believe that people wouldn't fly airliners into building or blow themselves up on the tube. Just wanting or needing something to be the case doesn't make it so.

Faith is faith, it doesn't need proof or evidence, Science does and science are faith are totally separate entities.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I see vast adaptability within type. God's genetic programming system is a masterpiece, lots of contingencies built in and ready to come to the fore when environmental changes favour, say, someone with a built in sun-tan (African) over someone who's as pale as the driven snow (some of my Pictish neighbours up here in Scotland).

What I do not observe is 'beneficial mutation', whether in humans or anywhere else.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

That is a top post. :tu:

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Well thats the main problem with "proving" evolution, beneficial mutations take so long to manifest in a species that no one person can observe them in a life time.

However, consider that current evidence suggest that humans originated in Africa and were black, and became white as they moved to cooler climates. Did God change the code or was the capacity already there and if so, why does a white family not give birth to black children if they move to Africa?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I wish I could say no to that question but I cant ill ask him what he thinks when I see him ;)

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

You need to ask him what you believe?
Or you believe he can make mistakes?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

To be fair the science of Evolution has only been around for a couple of generations. Your unlikely to see any changes in that time or for many many generations its a very slow process. Also if you look at the way humans work we are unlikely to evolve much since its requires the death of weaker variations which is not something that we allow, medically, to happen.

Humans kind of screw up nature.

But you look at how viruses adapt to become resistant to medication. Its because the viruses change so much they allow variations at a much much much faster rate than animals. Then a variation will change enough that its not possible to treat it, which allows its spread and then it becomes the 'new' version of the virus.

For Humans, it would have been our brains and yoour hands that would have allowed us to continue since we are the fastest or the strongest animals but we can use tools, weapons and planning to hunt giving us a advantage.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

its down to perspective isnt it? Isnt the fact we are having this conversation and there isnt faith in him a mistake its just who made the mistake. Eve ? Adam? Satan? or God himself for giving man free will

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Of course the rise in UV levels mean black people are suited better to the sun. Which is increasing, it could be said white people are a change that nature will eventually kill off (but we will likely treat it so i doubt it)

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Aha! You'll not get me twice with that pretending to be Russ stuff ;)
I'm awake now and you've got more hair!
Not to mention, you actually answer questions posed to him...

Most mutations are neutral, rarely they are harmful or beneficial.

Sickle cell anemia, a beneficial mutation which helps protect against malaria.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

White skin is the advantage in areas with less intense sun light. If sunlight was decreasing and there was no treatment availiable to black people, then they would decline.

My point is, if god wrote the human code then he is either modifying it or the code itself has the ability to adapt and is being mistaken for evolution.

Colbert interview about skin evolution

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Are you able to admit your god can make mistakes?
Yes or no, there is no wrong answer.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

The honest answer is I do no know. I have a faith in his existance because I cant accept pure chance and I do hope there is a meaning in all this and not just a pointless waste of time where all we acheive in the end is nothing

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

That's the thing I have asked myself many times, do we require religion because of our own sense of self importance, I think there has to be more to it than just random events, the journey of life has to lead somewhere other than just a hole in the ground

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Why though? That's always puzzled me.
What's wrong with: you're born, you life, you die?

Why does that scare so many people?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Yeah, I never actually thought about White people have an advantage in less intense sunlight? How is that the case?

Either way, its increasing world wide so according to evolution they are better suited to the enviroment. The white/black thing is a example of evolution since they are both for different enviroments if you take out the fact that we have technology to protect ourselfs. White people came about as they were well suited in a enviroment and in theory black people are better suited for now.

If the code has the ability to adapt then that would be evolution would it not?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I can see where you are coming from, but that just seems such a self-centered (or human-centered) view of the world. Does this just apply to humans? What about animals, they don't have a soul, but act on 'instinct' do they? And if it does apply to animals, does that then not make it wrong to eat them? After all, who are we to cut their journey short?

---------- Post added at 12:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 ----------

Take a look at your pale fellow country man, and think Vitamin D deficiency.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

In the link I provided its explained that black pigmentation acts like a sun block and in low intensity areas the body would find it difficult to absorb sunlight for vitamin D production. This doesn't mean black people die like a plant out of sunlight but rather in situations like famine and mortal combat, the low vitamin thing is what may push you over the edge. (if Raiden's explosive upper-cut doesn't get you 1st)

If the code is adapting itself by divine design then that would be evolution but darwin would have got the mechanism wrong.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I'm panspermic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia


I'm not wholly convinced of 'life beginning by sheer chance' or by a fluke chemical reaction. I believe it arrived here from somewhere else in the universe, possibly during the meteor bombardments and then simply took a foothold within our environmental conditions, before then evolving.


The idea of an omnipotent and omnipresent god that created everything is frankly laughable, especially in a day and age where science can answer questions about the universe and close the knowledge gaps that used to be exploited by religion to try and put forward a case for god. Soon there will be no gaps left where religion can hide. Then it will be gone for good and we can all stop killing and hating each other and actually move the human race forward.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Melanin helps protect against UV light causing cancers etc, but it makes skin more reactive, scratches, burns, marks will be more pronounced in high melanin skin, hence why scarring is used in some tribes in a way tattoos are used.
Melanin also reduces the skin's ability to produce vitamin D.
With the reduced levels of UV, vitamin D production would be even lower, so melanin levels reduced to compensate.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Thanks :tu:

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I think the finality of it scares a hell of a lot of people, for me, your description just seem's a bit pointless

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

So how did it begin before it arrived here?

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 ----------

Is that a bad thing?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

It's turtles all the way down.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Life may be Pointless for people who believe you just die but that just makes it all the more important to make the most of the time you have. This is it, its not a test or part of a longer journey imo.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

That's the big question is it not?


And it's gaps like this that you will always find religion lurking. "If it can't be answered or indisputably proven by science then it must be down to the presence of a God, no question".


Question for God: Who made you?

A little case of infinite regression that the religious community always chooses to ignore.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Oh we don't chose to ignore it, we just usually come back by pointing out you're applying human limitations (ie that everything must have been created) to something which is clearly not human. The problem then forms because you don't accept it.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Thats demanding too much from creationism. It's not proof we are looking for (though it would be nice), just a large body of multidiciplinary scientific evidence that supports it's theories (rather like what evolutionary theory has).

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------

That, and fear.It does. It leads to the continuation of our species. Nature doesn't give a damn about the individual, just the continuation of life (imo)

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

but man is a blot on the landscape nature needs to scrape us off if thats the case

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Creationists/religions are just the same, when they state the universe (something seriously not human) needs some higher being to create it.
The irony, as history has shown, is that gods need humans to create them.

---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------


Why?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

oh come on

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

I'm saying I don't understand your statement about us being a blot on the landscape that nature needs to scrape off.
Could you please explain for me?

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------

Some members of that community also choose to ignore awkward questions regarding which human subspecies was made in their god's image...

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Just to address that very briefly - humans were created in the moral image of God, not the physical. Sorry. ;)

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

If you are saying that it is possible that God simply appeared out of nothing with no creator, then why do you argue that the Universe could not have simply appeared out of nothing without a creator?


Do the same rules not apply?


Also, most of you argue the case for intelligent design by talking about the construction of the eye or the flagellum bacteria, stating that it is too complex to have happened by chance(ignoring how evolution and natural selection actually works - it's not a 1 stage process) and must have had a designer. Surely God is the most complex being in the whole of existence, so why does he/she/it not have a creator?

---------- Post added at 14:41 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------

I see that David Icke has entered the discussion. :D

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

See Chris, the dead give away that you're not Russ is that you're actually answering a question posed to him, Russ doesn't always do that :D

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Because I believe God created it.


I suggest you go and ask the 'most of us' you're referring to.

The other rather large giveaway is the fact you're respectful to him :)

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Not forgetting he's respectful to myself and others :)

So anyway, back in post 182, I asked a question in response to your answer, any chance of an answer to that question?
Chris has stated to him the "image" is a non-physical one, being the moral image of his god, however you defined it as physical, a different belief to Chris.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Now children, I'm flattered by the attention ... but shall we stick to the matter at hand? :angel:

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

You were the one who suggested that god didn't need a creator. I was asking you why you thought that?

Why (in the view of creationists) can something as complex as the eye be deemed too complex to have happened through evolution and therefore must have a creator, yet a being like God, who must be the most complex entity in the universe(or wherever he/she/it resides) is not deemed to have had a creator?


How could someone as complex as God have happened by chance?


I just see the hypocrisy in applying one set of logic (if it's complex it must have been created) to explain the existence of God (without any physical evidence I might add), yet refuse to apply the same logic to God him/her/itself.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Trying to discuss the eternal nature of God is like two worms trying to discuss a rainbow. We simply don't have the means to perceive what we would need to perceive in order to have anything approaching a conclusive discussion on the subject.

In any case, comparing the complexity of God with the complexity of the eye is like comparing apples and oranges. God is posited to exist in an entirely different realm, outside of the created universe and unbound by any of its laws (he is held, in fact, to be the author of the laws). There is no reason to expect that such a being must necessarily conform to any of the laws of physics that we know to operate in our universe.

The eye, on the other hand, exists in a physical universe whose laws we claim to understand. The basic position of the 'Intelligent Design' hypothesis is irreducable complexity. That is, given what we know about the laws that govern the universe, and our observations of how things occur within the universe as they follow those laws, it is absurd to suggest that an eye could have arisen spontaneously.

This observation, of processes occuring within the universe and taking account of certain laws, has no necessary impact on a being who is held to exist, by his very definition, outside of the universe and unbound by its laws.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

But thats simply not the case. It is entirely possible to demonstrate how the eye could have been formed through evolution....in any event, evolution doesn't claim that the eye arose fully formed, spontaneously....

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

It's the old "who are we to understand someone like god" cliche that you've tarted up in a slightly classier outfit.


You know this how? Because you have met God in this realm? Did it say this in the bible even? or was it because someone decided that this is the case because it best suited their vision of who God was and then through time it simply became fact(much like the estimate of the Earth being 15,000 years old)?



The evolution of the eye has been explained actually. In fact, I watched a documentary, The Blind Watchmaker, just last week that covered this.

Evolution is not about spontaneous happening. It's about small changes over millions of years.




Next up: If God is so perfect and he created our Earth by his own hand, why did he booby trap it with volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis etc.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

No, it isn't. Perhaps you would prefer it if the discussion was a series of easily-digestible cliches, but it's not, and that's not what I'm suggesting. My point was about sensory capacity, not moral worthiness. I could say something on that subject, but I did not do so in my post above and I'm not planning to do so now either.

I'd be troubled if you genuinely believe that I, or anyone else, could answer this in one post. Theologians and philosophers, among them some of the keenest minds ever to think thoughts on Earth, have been discussing this for as long as anyone can say. If you have a genuine interest in the answers to these questions - above and beyond the obtaining of another soundbite - then you have access to Google anf Wikipedia. Go and read up. It should keep you busy for years.

Just because you can tell a story explaining how something might have happened, does not mean that it happened that way. Richard Dawkins, incidentally, who wrote The Blind Watchmaker (which was a book many years before it was a TV documentary by the way), is what you might call an evangelical atheist. He has an agenda that many perfectly respectable evolutionary scientists are uncomfortable about. So pardon me if I don't take it as gospel just because you saw it on the telly, especially not if Dawkins was behind it in any way.

As I said above, the concept of Irreducable Complexity is that when you dismantle the long, gradual process of evolution you find that there are so many could haves and statistical long shots that it renders the chances of it having happened as absurdly small. So small as to be effectively impossible.

Next up? Sorry, this isn't Grill a Christian. It's a discussion forum thread. The imperfect Earth is not due to original design but by a major cock-up on the part of human beings called 'The Fall'. That is a subject for another thread so I'm saying no more about it here. Feel free to go and start it if you're interested though.

---------- Post added at 18:42 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------

Hopefully answered above, with reference to the hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity. Just because you can describe a process, it does not follow that that process occurred, or is even statistically likely to have occurred.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Thank you for those very kind words.

Careful, some might assume you to be touting Google & Wikipedia as "the new bible".

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

Yet another bunch of non-answering answers.



Oh my goodness, I've heard it all now. What an astonishing piece of naivety, I didn't think it was this bad. I'm quite frankly flabberghasted.


Next you'll be telling me that Noah really did build an ark big enough to house 2 of every species of animal in the world for many years(how he managed to feed them given their was no food supplies is still a mystery - and how he and his family found the time to look after the animals while they were inbreeding to re-populate the world is beyond me).


I'm off for a lie down.

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

And isn't the differences between races accounted by the Cain and Abel story?

Re: Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?
 

And just because you can't explain something isn't conclusive proof that god exists.