Creationism vs Evolution, Equal? - Page 9

Russ · 16-04-2007, 18:26

I don't think we know enough about any supposed 'subspecies' to be sure.

Ramrod · 16-04-2007, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Did I not mention that earlier? The world is in decay

Thats an odd statement.....Why do you think the world is in decay? ....and what do you mean by decay?

Xaccers · 16-04-2007, 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

I don't think we know enough about any supposed 'subspecies' to be sure.

Mongoloids, caucasoids, negroids.
Human evolution into sub species or groups or races if you prefer.
If humans were created in god's image, and humans didn't evolve, then which image of humans is the same as god's?
Is god caucasoid (well he did say "I am" rather than "I is" it's that damn ancient joke again!) or negroid, or mongoloid?
If we all came from one pair of humans, and haven't evolved, then why are there different groups of humans?

**Damien** · 16-04-2007, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Which parts?

Well, Not proven wrong but unlikely. Also the Dinosaurs are much older than man. There is little dispute about that?

Quote:

It's unlike you to be as opressive that, and I'm very surprised. Surely greater understanding of the bible and connected beliefs then there would be no problem. And that understanding should take place on both sides IMO.

Sorry, I didnt find it opressive. I think that religion itself is fine but the bible seems to be what causes some conflict with science. Or maybe as you say not understanding it properly from both sides. The Koran is an example of where people misunderstand it (on both sides).

Quote:

You make it sound as if God has to be governed and explained by science.

No, The other way around. If there was a god then anything that science proved would be a result of that god. I.E Evolution happens but it was god intention

TheDaddy · 16-04-2007, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

My view is that He would have no need for that. Evolutions seems to be on the whole, an adaption based on environment. Genesis states He created us at the dawn of time in His image and there's nothing to suggest a deviation of that. God would not have to evolve (to suggest He does would imply He is subject to a power or need higher than Himself which would be contradictory) so I see no reason to believe we would evolve in order to 'keep up'.

Don't you think that the bible was written to be interpreted by people thousands of years ago, who would perhaps struggle with complex scientific ideas and the such, maybe that is why it is so literal

downquark1 · 16-04-2007, 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

I don't believe in a lot of the closed-book stuff of science

What do you mean by closed-book? Do you mean that the concept of nothing beyond science?

---------- Post added at 19:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:00 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Don't you think that the bible was written to be interpreted by people thousands of years ago, who would perhaps struggle with complex scientific ideas and the such, maybe that is why it is so literal

Plus if god told us everything science wouldn't exist since everything about the universe was known.

Russ · 16-04-2007, 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Thats an odd statement.....Why do you think the world is in decay? ....and what do you mean by decay?

Read Genesis. It won't bite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Mongoloids, caucasoids, negroids.
Human evolution into sub species or groups or races if you prefer.
If humans were created in god's image, and humans didn't evolve, then which image of humans is the same as god's?
Is god caucasoid (well he did say "I am" rather than "I is" it's that damn ancient joke again!) or negroid, or mongoloid?
If we all came from one pair of humans, and haven't evolved, then why are there different groups of humans?

By 'in God's image' I don't an actual image - I take that to mean humanoid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Well, Not proven wrong but unlikely. Also the Dinosaurs are much older than man. There is little dispute about that?

There is little dispute that we don't know the age of T Rex and his mates. We only have guesswork to go on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Sorry, I didnt find it opressive. I think that religion itself is fine but the bible seems to be what causes some conflict with science. Or maybe as you say not understanding it properly from both sides. The Koran is an example of where people misunderstand it (on both sides).

We're in agreement there

Ignorance (diliberate or otherwise) is one of the main reasons for that conflict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

No, The other way around. If there was a god then anything that science proved would be a result of that god. I.E Evolution happens but it was god intention

I'm fine with that - but some people seem to think that God is subject to the same physical laws as us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Don't you think that the bible was written to be interpreted by people thousands of years ago, who would perhaps struggle with complex scientific ideas and the such, maybe that is why it is so literal

Back in the day, very few people knew how to read, so a lot was written in a way people would understand. Couple that with my earlier suggestion that God only included what we needed to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

What do you mean by closed-book? Do you mean that the concept of nothing beyond science?

Yes, the notion that if science can't explain it then it doesn't exist. I can see where that comes from but I'm happy to look a little further.

Ramrod · 16-04-2007, 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Read Genesis. It won't bite.

So you are basing your assumption that the world is decaying on your belief in the myth that Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit? That before they did that, the world was perfect and not in decay?

Russ · 16-04-2007, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

So you are basing your assumption that the world is decaying on your belief in the myth that Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit? That before they did that, the world was perfect and not in decay?

No, I'm basing my belief on the fact that Adam and Eve rebelled against God. And yes, as part of the result the world fell in to decay.

downquark1 · 16-04-2007, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

Yes, the notion that if science can't explain it then it doesn't exist. I can see where that comes from but I'm happy to look a little further.

Without being too pedantic, in his day Newton made a list of things science couldn't explain yet, but no one would dispute the existance of them. I'm trying to find it.

Science is the practice of explain things that exist, in the case of god and miracles its the deciding if they exist or not which is the problem.

Russ · 16-04-2007, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Without being too pedantic, in his day Newton made a list of things science couldn't explain yet, but no one would dispute the existance of them. I'm trying to find it.

Science is the practice of explain things that exist, in the case of god and miracles its the deciding if they exist or not which is the problem.

Oh I agree, but in many corners it seems science (and those who side with it) is of the opinion that unless you can see it, touch it, taste it or feel it then it isn't real. I can see the logic behind that but it's placing human restriction on powers which are above us.

downquark1 · 16-04-2007, 20:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Oh I agree, but in many corners it seems science (and those who side with it) is of the opinion that unless you can see it, touch it, taste it or feel it then it isn't real. I can see the logic behind that but it's placing human restriction on powers which are above us.

Again without being too pendantic, scientists generally define something that exists as something that is observable or has an observable effect. Philosophically you can't disproof the existance of something that doesn't match this criteria. So in that respect we agree.

The common atheist arugment is you could use the arguement for the existance of god for virtually anything (the flying spagetti monster etc.). So its mainly for the sake of sanity and consistancy that they refuse to believe in god. Plus if something does exist and has no observable effects does it really matter if it exists or not?

But in your last sentence you are assuming that there are powers that are above us.

Russ · 16-04-2007, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Plus if something does exist and has no observable effects does it really matter if it exists or not?

Not until people start demanding proof of what I believe in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

But in your last sentence you are assuming that there are powers that are above us.

Yes and I think very few people would claim they don't exist.

Ramrod · 16-04-2007, 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

No, I'm basing my belief on the fact that Adam and Eve rebelled against God. And yes, as part of the result the world fell in to decay.

What makes you say that it's a fact.....It's never been proven?

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:19 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Not until people start demanding proof of what I believe in.

We lets start with the myth of Adam and Eve then....

downquark1 · 16-04-2007, 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Yes and I think very few people would claim they don't exist.

Well I would certainly say there are powers beyond us at the moment. The iphone has yet to be released, Q.E.D

I can offer no evidence what we are capable of in the future and, if anything, beyond that exists.