Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Russ B

I see a soul on similar level to life force so it wouldn't surprise me if animals and non-humans will be there. After all, strip away the outer shell and we're all the same, every living thing.

I think I can safely say I agree with you on this. Every living creature has the same life force(I have no problems calling it a soul).

The only thing that elevates us in the animal kingdom(we are animals after all) is our intelligence.

But I do believe that our superior intelligence is because of evolution, which is obviously where we disagree.

[Russ]

And opposing thumbs.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Right, you've made your point numerous times in this thread. Any real need for you to continue to post in it?

Admittedly I tend to get very passionate about this topic, so regrettably I end up making statements(sometimes personal) that only end up harming my purpose in the first place.


But my frustrations are usually born out of a lack of answers from the religious community, but mostly by an unwillingness of religion to review new evidence as it arrives and possibly adapt their view of God(I seriously doubt that if God exists then any one person knows him inside out - so why not be willing to learn more and concede where initial thinking may have been flawed?)


It's Friday and all is well. Spread the love(but not in a Jesus way).

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ B

I can see what you're suggesting but I don't redard neanderthals to be close enough to humans to play by the same physical rules.

Current thinking is that neanderthals were just as advanced as humans at that point.

---------- Post added at 12:55 ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ B

Yes, it IS untrue. It's the classic case of taking one part of the bible out of context, adding a touch of ridicule and telling everyone it's right - typical armchair expert tactics.

.......thats what ID proponents do all the time.........see Chris's posts about it being ridiculous that the eye evolved spontaneously (so it must have been designed)....when no one is suggesting that it did evolve spontaneously......

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

.......thats what ID proponents do all the time.........see Chris's posts about it being ridiculous that the eye evolved spontaneously (so it must have been designed)....when no one is suggesting that it did evolve spontaneously......

The eye, the flagella bacteria, all explained convincingly from an evolutionary aspect.


If the whole creationist argument against evolution is based around the eye and the flagella, then it only shows how flimsy and desperate the whole argument really is.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

If the whole creationist argument against evolution is based around the eye and the flagella, then it only shows how flimsy and desperate the whole argument really is.

In fairness, it is quite common in Science for debates to center around a few examples that (appear to) illustrate the point being made particularly well.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by danielf

In fairness, it is quite common in Science for debates to center around a few examples that (appear to) illustrate the point being made particularly well.

possibly true but they don't illustrate the point particularly well at all.....

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

possibly true but they don't illustrate the point particularly well at all.....

Absolutely, and it's fine to criticise it for that. Not for choosing examples per se though. That happens all the time.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by danielf

Absolutely, and it's fine to criticise it for that. Not for choosing examples per se though. That happens all the time.

But the argument just tends to be "We think it's it's too complex to have happened by chance, so it must be down to a creator, so god exists". No evidence is ever provided to support the claim.


What kind of argument is that?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

What kind of argument is that?

.......to teach our kids about......

[peanut]

One you can't question nor expect a straight answer.

The problem is I find a lot of religions misrepresent evolution. They pretend the theory says it happened 'by chance, like magic' which isnt true. Its made it look stupid that it could have happened. When its simply a process of elimination.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

But the argument just tends to be "We think it's it's too complex to have happened by chance, so it must be down to a creator, so god exists". No evidence is ever provided to support the claim.


What kind of argument is that?

The eye and the flagella are supposed to be evidence of items that are too complex to have arisen from evolution (by example, as not everything would be considered too complex). As it is, the evidence doesn't stand up, which is rather unfortunate for them as it leaves the theory unsubstantiated. If the evidence would stand up it would be problematic for the Evolution theory.

Obvously, there is no evidence that a creator exists, that is the implication/speculation. Also, I don't believe they say (out loud), that the creator is (the Christian) God.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by danielf

. Also, I don't believe they say (out loud), that the creator is (the Christian) God.

Because if they did it would prevent ID being forced into schools in the US because it would be teaching a religious belief.
That is the whole purpose behind ID, not to further science, not to further knowledge, but to force the creation beliefs of certain christians upon children without getting caught doing it.

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ B

And opposing thumbs.

Opposable Russ, our thumbs are opposable /pedant

Or are you saying you're against thumbs in general, which would be kinda cool
Although a little bit strange...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Because if they did it would prevent ID being forced into schools in the US because it would be teaching a religious belief.
That is the whole purpose behind ID, not to further science, not to further knowledge, but to force the creation beliefs of certain christians upon children without getting caught doing it.

I know that is the motive behind it, but that's not very relevant in debunking the theory.