Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

[Mr Angry]

I thought The Fall were a dodgy Mark E Smith band from the eighties. Shi*e as they were it's hardly fair to go blaming them for all that's wrong with the world.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by downquark1

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

There's an answer for everything it seems to explain the glaring holes.


Each one more incredible than the next.

---------- Post added at 19:00 ---------- Previous post was at 18:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

Yes it is.

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.

So without evidence you simply make statements of fact about a God you concede to have never met or know anything about in any real way(other than what you have been told?)

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.

Really? Richard Dawkins was in that? And he wrote a book by the same name? I thought it was Russell Harty in a pair of tight shorts. He has an agenda? Is it to tell the world that religion is a load of old cack and actually causes most of our problems? Shame on him for telling the truth

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

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

I thought it was 'cos Rincewind went back in time & dropped a sandwich



Seriously, here's a good Wiki entry about it:

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


And here's an entry on a classic experiment regarding the origin of life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Originally Posted by Chris T

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

As Xaccers has already said, most mutations are neutral rather than positive or negative.

Whether they have a positive or negative effect depends on the environment.


One example of a beneficial mutation is that of sickle cell anaemia.

There are others.


Info on mutations:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

Originally Posted by Chris T

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

Ah, the eye


No one claims that the eye arose spontaneously.


It's possible to demonstrate how the eye could have developed via evolution.


Also, if the eye was Created, rather than being a product of evolution, then it contains some glaring design flaws.

I already mentioned all this back here:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34277680-post207.html


And some links from that post:

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

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

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

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

Ah, Dawkins...


I find his fanatical anti-religion stance rather uncomfortable, & feel he plays into the hands of what he would consider his opponents.

[Action Jackson]

To be honest, believing in god is one thing, but to believe in the bible is another thing. Surely there is no way that anyone could truly believe that we all sprang from 2 people, that Noah built an ark for every animal in the world and re-populated the Earth or that Moses parted the Red Sea. Surely no one could even believe that the Earth is only thousands of years old?


By conceding that some of the events in the bible may be incorrect or simply metaphorical is not conceding that there is not a god, just that maybe in light of new evidence through the ages, it maybe didn't happen exactly like the bible said it did. Religion digs its heels in when it is faced with overwhelming facts and this only harms its cause and makes people question it. Religion, like science, should be able to adapt when new findings are uncovered. We are only just starting to learn about our Universe. Could that not be the case with God for those who believe he exists?


What would be wrong with saying that God created the big bang and then the Earth evolved in the way that science proves that it did? It wouldn't be saying that their was no God, but just adapting what you know to fit what we know in this day and age to be true concerning the formation of the planets. Going down the road with the 7 days argument amongst others is only causing people who are better informed in this day and age to then question the shaky biblical logic.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

By conceding that some of the events in the bible may be incorrect or simply metaphorical is not conceding that there is not a god, just that maybe in light of new evidence through the ages, it maybe didn't happen exactly like the bible said it did. Religion digs its heels in when it is faced with overwhelming facts and this only harms its cause and makes people question it. Religion, like science, should be able to adapt when new findings are uncovered. We are only just starting to learn about our Universe. Could that not be the case with God for those who believe he exists?

The trouble is the Abraham religions and some others are based around ideas that have suppose to have come from an all knowing being.

Read Leviticus. It has some examples of cherry picking morals. There's a lot of good advice in there, such as personal hygene and not eating animals that died suspeciously, but there's also the odd thing about stoning spirit talkers, taking slaves etc. All which have supposed to have been relayed directly from god.

If you openly admit these principles have changed you undermine divine authority. Naturally the principles can be adapted but this will split the organised religion into seperate philosophies and undermine good religious work or destroy the tyranical mind hold. Whatever your point of view.

[Action Jackson]

Originally Posted by downquark1

The trouble is the Abraham religions and some others are based around ideas that have suppose to have come from an all knowing being.

Read Leviticus. It has some examples of cherry picking morals. There's a lot of good advice in there, such as personal hygene and not eating animals that died suspeciously, but there's also the odd thing about stoning spirit talkers, taking slaves etc. All which have supposed to have been relayed directly from god.

If you openly admit these principles have changed you undermine divine authority. Naturally the principles can be adapted but this will split the organised religion into seperate philosophies and undermine good religious work or destroy the tyranical mind hold. Whatever your point of view.

So why do modern day Christians not adhere to the laws that were laid down by Leviticus?

If these were set down by God then surely they must follow these?

You ask any Christian about Leviticus and you can see how uncomfortable they are with the whole thing. Very rarely will they concede defeat because that would be denouncing their religion in their view, but they seem to simply adopt a selective memory when it comes to Leviticus and other aspects of the old testament, preferring to concentrate on The New Testament when God seemed altogether more decent.

The standard response to explain the Old Testament atrocities is usually to state that God 'mellowed' when Jesus arrived and made things good between God and man(or some twaddle along those lines).

[Tezcatlipoca]

Guys, this is meant to be "Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?", not a more general religious discussion on the rest of the Bible...

[downquark1]

Question for Chris, if you discarded the old testament how many holes would be left?

(for sake of the topic this includes creation story)

[Ramrod]

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.

For a start, you said that it was an absurdity to suppose that an eye simply arose spontaneously. We have demonstrated that it didn't arise spontaneously, and the process by which that probably occurred. Also, it probably is statistically likely for it to occur since we have many examples of less functional eyes in the animal kingdom.....creatures with single celled light receptors, others with groups of cells recognising movement, inverted views, all the way up to us....
Of course this doesn't prove that the process occurred but it demonstrates how it might (and probably did) occur. Contrast that with the creationists argument of 'it just happened because god willed it and thats that' (you might as well say 'it's magic') and you might see why us atheists are a tad exasperated at creationists trying to rubbish our account of evolution by picking holes in it when creationists only have a big black hole where their explanation should be......

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------


I like the avatar AJ




---------- Post added at 20:36 ---------- Previous post was at 20:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Matt D

Also, if the eye was Created, rather than being a product of evolution, then it contains some glaring design flaws.

I already mentioned all this back here:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34277680-post207.html


And some links from that post:

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

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

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

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

You sir, are a dude!

Towny, would you like to reconsider your position on 'the eye' in light of the information above?

---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

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

....and that, I think, is the nub of the matter.
Why should the christian version of the creation be taught as science when there are so many other gods that have been and are worshipped, each also without a shred of evidence for their existence (other than wishful and circular) thinking?

I'm wondering where it would leave us athiests if ID was taught in Science.After all it is very much against the ethos of our beliefs and why should we be forced to have our children forced to learn something we firmly believe to be twaddle and unscientific.Could we insist that we can withdraw our children from any science lessons on ID?Or could we perhaps be allowed to have a chance to put our point of view about religion in RS lessons?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I'm wondering where it would leave us athiests if ID was taught in Science.After all it is very much against the ethos of our beliefs and why should we be forced to have our children forced to learn something we firmly believe to be twaddle and unscientific.Could we insist that we can withdraw our children from any science lessons on ID?Or could we perhaps be allowed to have a chance to put our point of view about religion in RS lessons?

Well since it can't be proved there is a god, and since it can't be proved there is no god. Perhaps believing there is no god is a leap of faith (albeit a smaller one) and that should be taught in RS.

[Xaccers]

I have to agree with what Chris said about the eye.
It is an absurdity to suggest that the eye simply arose spontaniously, which is why it's no suprise that the people saying "the eye developed spontaniously" are creationists, not evolutionists.
I've never heard an evolutionist say that the eye simply arose spntaniously, it's always been discussed in the form of how it was likely to have developed, from light responsive cells (you have some of these at the back of your knees if memory of jet lag treatments serves) through to more developed organs.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I have to agree with what Chris said about the eye.
It is an absurdity to suggest that the eye simply arose spontaniously, which is why it's no suprise that the people saying "the eye developed spontaniously" are creationists, not evolutionists.
I've never heard an evolutionist say that the eye simply arose spntaniously, it's always been discussed in the form of how it was likely to have developed, from light responsive cells (you have some of these at the back of your knees if memory of jet lag treatments serves) through to more developed organs.

Cells are very canny things, as you know whenan embryo is growing you start of with stem cells, stem cells have the ability to become anything, Skin tissue, liver tissue, eye tissue etc.

There smaller organisms that when required can change their cells back into stem cells and use them for different things when required.

Not forgetting creatures that can spontaneously change sex and grow back limbs

I'm not saying that cell in creature just spontaneously became eye tissue, but the scope is there for them to change for the benefit of the organism. Life is all about having the edge on your competitor for food and survival, one one organism started producing light sensitive cells, so would others and the complexity would increase through generations until you had the wonderful organ we know have.

Lets not forget that insects deveoped eyes but in a completely different way, a way that suited them. I would have thought if one person was controlling what organs we had he would have given insects small versions of our eyes - mean if the eye is so complex and difficult why would you throw out the design you'd spent ages doing?? and go with something completely different.

Also what of the mole a creature that lives underground all it's life - Wht does it have eyes, the eyes it has are bordering on useless. That's not very intelligent design is it?

If the mole was a creature that had been designed to do the job it does why was he given eyes. Unless of course once upon a time he didn't live underground, but then saw a niche market for a mammal that could live underground safe from predators?

Also evolution moves at different speeds for different organisms. We're very complex and therefore changes to use are relatively slow also we are a special case as we don't need to evolve very much any more becuase we have the power to change the environment around us. However, we are all getting bigger - I'm 6'5" and would be considered a giant of a man only a couple of hundred years ago. How tall will my desendants be in say 50,000 years

Bacteria/viruses because they are simple organism and their life cycle is short and reproduction cycle high can evolve very quickly - MRSA has become resistant to penicilan very quickly and viruses can change to airborn variants quickly.

The evidence of an organisms ability to change their physical properties are all around us today

[Action Jackson]

Can I just clarify something?


Do the creationists on the forum believe that evolution does not exist in any shape or form(God made us how we are today and we haven't changed at all since then) or is it the viewpoint that although you believe we were created by God, we have actually evolved and are different to what we were at the time of creation.


In other words, do you actually believe in evolution, regardless of how you think we primarily arrived here?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

Can I just clarify something?


Do the creationists on the forum believe that evolution does not exist in any shape or form(God made us how we are today and we haven't changed at all since then) or is it the viewpoint that although you believe we were created by God, we have actually evolved and are different to what we were at the time of creation.


In other words, do you actually believe in evolution, regardless of how you think we primarily arrived here?

Read the thread. I believe in some evolution in animals, not in humans.