Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by danielf

Am I correct in thinking that only humans (i.e., not neanderthals, apes, dolphins, and invertrebrates etc.) have a soul and therefore could posibly go to heaven?

Pssst, see my sig

That Thorax bloke, how did he know we'd have this conversation?

---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Look everyone here has a point and a belief but can anyone answer me this question where did everything come from?

We don't know yet.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by danielf

Am I correct in thinking that only humans (i.e., not neanderthals, apes, dolphins, and invertrebrates etc.) have a soul and therefore could posibly go to heaven?

The bible doesn't tell us that - it's up to the individual to decide. God does put us higher up the pecking order, as he gave us the world to control however 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.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Pssst, see my sig

That Thorax bloke, how did he know we'd have this conversation?

---------- Post added at 10:32 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------



We don't know yet.

exactly no one can say for sure no one so these arguements are always mute because no one knows the answer

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

That Thorax bloke, how did he know we'd have this conversation?

I've been waiting SO long to say this, but that Thorax character was a typical armchair expert if that's the sort of thing he'd come out with.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

But science does not answer that. Why do things have to be linear? because we are? we have a start and a beggining does not mean everything does.
Isnt this the biggest pardox there is? if the universe ends what comes next and next and next and next infinately. How could time have begun? what was there before? nothing? but nothing is something but then you have to ask then where did everything come from and so resumes the paradox

I agree with you that these are very fundamental questions to which science does not (to my knowledge) have any real answers. However, to resolve the paradox by saying: oh, there must be some bloke in charge who doesn't need a beginning is rather unsatisfactory imo. It doesn't really solve the paradox anyway. It just 'explains' it away.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Then they can't be relatives.

<pantomime>

Oh yes they can?

</pantomime>

Originally Posted by danielf

I agree with you that these are very fundamental questions to which science does not (to my knowledge) have any real answers. However, to resolve the paradox by saying: oh, there must be some bloke in charge who doesn't need a beginning is rather unsatisfactory imo. It doesn't really solve the paradox anyway. It just 'explains' it away.

and the opposite does what exactlly different?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

I've been waiting SO long to say this, but that Thorax character was a typical armchair expert if that's the sort of thing he'd come out with.

Not untrue though is it?
When did you last see an animal doing crossword puzzles?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

and the opposite does what exactlly different?

Hold up its hands and says: as much as we'd like to know, we can only guess at this point. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is preferable.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

exactly no one can say for sure no one so these arguements are always mute because no one knows the answer

Difference is, science is willing to admit the unknown, religion isn't, there is always the answer of "god"

---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ B

<pantomime>

Oh yes they can?

</pantomime>

So neandethals are decendants of Noah's family?

---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 ----------

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

and the opposite does what exactlly different?

It speaks the knowable truth of saying "we don't know" so is accurate
Religion speaks the belief of "god" which isn't knowably true, so is inaccurate.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

But science does not answer that. Why do things have to be linear? because we are? we have a start and a beggining does not mean everything does.
Isnt this the biggest pardox there is? if the universe ends what comes next and next and next and next infinately. How could time have begun? what was there before? nothing? but nothing is something but then you have to ask then where did everything come from and so resumes the paradox

It wasn't the lack of a scientific answer that put me off, it was the need to have blind faith that something is as it is, and have to take that without questioning it.

The point being that children are very inquisitive, and usually clever enough to work out that the Creation bible story is so full of holes and far fetched that it cannot be taken as serious series events to the creation of the universe.

However, when you start to try and combine bible and science a la ID, you are purposely trying to confuse children into believing something, and that is why it is wrong.

Originally Posted by danielf

Hold up its hands and says: as much as we'd like to know, we can only guess at this point. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is preferable.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Difference is, science is willing to admit the unknown, religion isn't, there is always the answer of "god"

---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------



So neandethals are decendants of Noah's family?

My points have never been different. Science can not proove to me God does not exist. Religion can not proove science is wrong either. No one can answer the questions that I need answered to change my mind. Religion could be right you never know you believe it isnt but you can not be sure.
I have openly admitted in this thread to subjects I do not know. I have a faith in God but I follow no orthadox religion

Originally Posted by Xaccers

It speaks the knowable truth of saying "we don't know" so is accurate
Religion speaks the belief of "god" which isn't knowably true, so is inaccurate.

But sciencists will happily keep telling me im wrong though

[peanut]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Look everyone here has a point and a belief but can anyone answer me this question where did everything come from?

IKEA

[danielf]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

My points have never been different. Science can not proove to me God does not exist. Religion can not proove science is wrong either. No one can answer the questions that I need answered to change my mind. Religion could be right you never know you believe it isnt but you can not be sure.
I have openly admitted in this thread to subjects I do not know. I have a faith in God but I follow no orthadox religion

That's pretty much my opinion. I prefer to take the rational approach, and not believe in God and all the other parafernalia that come with it.

However, given that Science and Religion are so distinct, do you agree then that creationism/ID should not be taught in Science classes?

---------- Post added at 10:49 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

But sciencists will happily keep telling me im wrong though

Where has this happened? Any self respecting scientist would come to the conclusion that, at best, there is no proof. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

My points have never been different. Science can not proove to me God does not exist. Religion can not proove science is wrong either. No one can answer the questions that I need answered to change my mind. Religion could be right you never know you believe it isnt but you can not be sure.
I have openly admitted in this thread to subjects I do not know. I have a faith in God but I follow no orthadox religion

The bible says science is wrong, not "may be wrong" not "could be right" but wrong wrong wrong.
Science on the other hand says the bible may be right, god may exist, evolution may be wrong, improbable but still not discounted totally.
This is why most religious people in science alter their religious beliefs to fit with science rather than do what ID proponants do, which is alter the science to fit with their religous belief