Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

No answer then?

To you, no.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

The point I am making is that you choose the option that has no objective proof, no research behind it and reject the one that does. You demand hard proof from science but not from the bible.

I demand no such thing but if that's what Ramrod says then that's all that counts I guess.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

A belief isn't point to start a science lesson from.

I thought you were asking me about what I believe?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Appendix, tonsils, to many teeth in our mouths stuff like that for a start

I have a website which touches on this, I'll provide a link when I get back from work.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis etc as well

No - humans.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

The fact that most important organs are duplicated (lungs, kidneys etc), where as the one organ that we really need to live (the heart) doesn't have a duplicate.

What, Dr Who not good enough for you?

I don't really see that as a flaw - as long as it works.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

No - humans.

Which humans though?
Homo sapians caucasoids?
Homo sapians negroids?
Homo sapians mongoloids?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which humans though?
Homo sapians caucasoids?
Homo sapians negroids?
Homo sapians mongoloids?

All of them and more. Every variety of human who lives or has lived is descended from the first, genetically perfect pair.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

All of them and more. Every variety of human who lives or has lived is descended from the first, genetically perfect pair.

Then why are there caucasoids, mongoloids and negroids if humans didn't evolve and don't need to change biologically due to their enviroment?
If we wiped out all the cuacasoids, would they cease to be human?
If not, then how can you not include homo erectus for instance in the group of "image of god"

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

To you, no.

A handy way of avoiding giving an answer.....

I demand no such thing but if that's what Ramrod says then that's all that counts I guess.

link You aren't willing to accept that evolution happened because no one was there to witness it. ie....in your mind, evolution must be witnessed before you will accept that it occured....

I thought you were asking me about what I believe?

Only because you are the resident christian arguing here and this thread is about creationism etc......you have stated that it should be taught in science classes so so I am using your views to argue why we shouldn't have creationism taught in science lessons......

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Then why are there caucasoids, mongoloids and negroids if humans didn't evolve and don't need to change biologically due to their enviroment?
If we wiped out all the cuacasoids, would they cease to be human?
If not, then how can you not include homo erectus for instance in the group of "image of god"

Now hang on ... I don't recall putting any of those suggestions to you

If you go for a strictly Biblical Creationist point of view, rather than the more general Intelligent Design approach, then the book of Genesis recalls God's command to creatures to reproduce after their kind. A bird is still a bird, whether it's a finch or a sparrow. A human is a human, whether black, white or whatever. Variations within kind are not excluded by Genesis. "Evolution with a little 'e' " is a familiar concept to Creationists.

As for the nature of Homo Erectus - I am struck by the way visual interpretations of 'early hominids' have changed over the past century or so. We have gone from picturing Neanderthals as stumbling, stooping, low-browed man-apes to believing we would not easily spot one if he passed us in the street wearing a suit. And Homo Erectus is to all intents and purposes an anatomically modern man. The differences are in the archeology associated with him, his material culture, not his physiology.

I believe the fossil and archaeological record gives us a range of extinct human races and a range of extinct ape species with no necessary progression from one to the next.

[Xaccers]

You stated that animals evolve due to enviromental changes but humans did not, are you now saying that isn't the case, animals do not evolve either?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You stated that animals evolve due to enviromental changes but humans did not, are you now saying that isn't the case, animals do not evolve either?

That's not what I'm saying. I believe humans have varied, I'm just pointing out that even committed evolutionists do not regard that the available evidence shows as much variation as once thought.

Remember Evolution is natural selection. Its not animals changing to meet their enviroment its the enviroment killing those not best suited for it.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

That's not what I'm saying. I believe humans have varied, I'm just pointing out that even committed evolutionists do not regard that the available evidence shows as much variation as once thought.

Pah sorry Chris, mistook you for Russ earlier as you answered a question I posted to him.

Russ, if you get a chance, could you answer my question in post 182 please?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

A handy way of avoiding giving an answer.....

Not at all, just going on previous experiences I don't trust your motives.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

link You aren't willing to accept that evolution happened because no one was there to witness it. ie....in your mind, evolution must be witnessed before you will accept that it occured....

I'm not saying I don't accept it - and please don't put words in my mouth - I'm saying I don't accept it's as black-and-white as that. I'm open to the notion that it's more than just what science has told us.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Only because you are the resident christian arguing here and this thread is about creationism etc......you have stated that it should be taught in science classes so so I am using your views to argue why we shouldn't have creationism taught in science lessons......

Where did I say I thought it should be taught in science classes?

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Russ B

The majority of what you're calling facts I don't have a problem with. But there are some things which you'd likely call 'fact' which I'm not convinced about. Scientists use estimations about the age of the universe for example. This is seen by many as 'fact'. But how can an estimate be fact? I agree it's compelling, but not a fact.

No, I'd call it an estimate - however it is an estimate based on calculations that are derived from measurable phenomenon where by the experiment that created the data is repeatable.

That's what science is - deducing information about something from the data gleaned from repeatable experiments.

The age of the universe is calculated on data that was produced in an experiment that you or I could do again (if we had the money and time). Thus it has credibility and is for me more believable that something written in a dusty book.

It doesn't fit in with most religious peoples views of the universe so they discount it even though they could take the measurements and calculate the age themselves. THIS is what I don't get. Throwing out facts (or estimates based on facts) that don't fit in with what's written in a book.

I don't mean to offend anyone (I just don't understand) but I just can't see how any sane person can do that. How is belief in something written in a book greater than belief in facts?

Originally Posted by Shaun

The age of the universe is calculated on data that was produced in an experiment that you or I could do again (if we had the money and time). Thus it has credibility and is for me more believable that something written in a dusty book.

True, although I'm sure you don't mean to gloss over the fact that in such calculations, certain assumptions are made because aspects of the calculation are not measurable in any sense. The speed of light, for example. There is absolutely no way, short of inventing a working TARDIS, of establishing that the speed of light has always been constant. If it has not, then an awful lot of deeply cherished theories about the age and state of the universe are worthless.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris T

True, although I'm sure you don't mean to gloss over the fact that in such calculations, certain assumptions are made because aspects of the calculation are not measurable in any sense. The speed of light, for example. There is absolutely no way, short of inventing a working TARDIS, of establishing that the speed of light has always been constant. If it has not, then an awful lot of deeply cherished theories about the age and state of the universe are worthless.

Well yes, if it turns out universal constants change based on time or space. (light entering an autobahn), then my education is pretty much screwed and physics goes back to the drawing board.

Fairly certain the speed of light has no bearing on evolution however, except possibly increasing or decreasing the probability of skin cancer.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Well yes, if it turns out universal constants change based on time or space. (light entering an autobahn), then my education is pretty much screwed and physics goes back to the drawing board.

Fairly certain the speed of light has no bearing on evolution however, except possibly increasing or decreasing the probability of skin cancer.

No, but as a side issue it is illuminating ...