Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

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

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

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

I see that David Icke has entered the discussion.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

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?

Because I believe God created it.

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

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?

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

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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

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.

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

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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

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.

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

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.

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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....

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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

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).

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)?

it is absurd to suggest that an eye could have arisen spontaneously.

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.

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

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

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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: 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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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....

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.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

Thank you for those very kind words.

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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

[Action Jackson]

Yet another bunch of non-answering answers.

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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.

[downquark1]

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.

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

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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