Evolution vs. Creation

[Pendragon]

I imagine I can get pretty irritating, and I apologise, and that comment was not directed to you. I was reacting to the position that I am unable to reject creationism because creationists and I agree on a very few points, a fairly condescending position in itself, in my opinion. I was in no way thinking of you when I made that statement, but rather to those Intelligent Design scientists who persist in pushing ideas such as irreducible complexity when, in actual fact, they have been unable to come up with anything fitting their own definition of irriducibly complex in nature. There certainly are respectable arguments for creation, but those are not them. Again, I apologise if I've offended you.

Joe, mon ami, I image we all seem a bit irritating from time to time as we defend our positions, and try to see the other's points without making offensive remarks when we get frustrated. We are all only human. But we have continued to be gentlemen with each other, and that counts for a lot. Don't worry yourself. You manage to be very unoffensive while sticking to your guns, and that in itself is admirable. Respect for those one disagrees with is sadly lacking in many these days. My hat is off to you, a philosopher and a gentleman!

[Scheherazade]

Uncle Pen explains this quite thoroughly and reasonably. Please, I don't want a debate. As my Secret Santa clue says, "I try to veer away from the religious threads because I don't want no arguments."

That is, I try. Sometimes, I can't help it. And besides, if I see someone on my side and if I agree completely with what he/she says, why add to the ruckus?

I know that arguments and discussions will take you to greater heights to make you understand and comprehend fully about the subject, but as I said, I'll leave it to my companions.

I'm a creationist, that is all.

Lain,

We all respect your right (not) to take part in these discussions and / or to believe in whatever theory that suits your belief system.

However, whenever you do decide to take part and express your (dis)agreement, please do not rely on bigger fonts to make your points in this part of the Forum, where the discussions are often heated and people's sensitivities are at their highest.

[Stanislaw]

Please try to make your points with your arguments, not with the size/color of your fonts.

sorry...that was in my younger brasher days...

[Laindessiel]

Lain,

We all respect your right (not) to take part in these discussions and / or to believe in whatever theory that suits your belief system.

However, whenever you do decide to take part and express your (dis)agreement, please do not rely on bigger fonts to make your points in this part of the Forum, where the discussions are often heated and people's sensitivities are at their highest.

I'm sorry Scher. Got a bit carried away. Never to do it again.

[dramasnot6]

No. That was supposed to be humorous! And I'm definitely not generalizing all the scientists in different fields, Winter. All I'm saying is that WE don't come from animals, which is what they are saying! It's completely ludicrously ridiculous. We came from the ashes; made by God. (Read the book of Genesis, man.)

What would explain the millions of genetic links and similarities to other primates then? Is it just a coincedence we share over 98% of our DNA with them?

[Whifflingpin]

"Is it just a coincidence we share over 98% of our DNA with them?"

Although I happen to accept that evolution has occurred, and that Genesis is not a material description of the origin of species, I don't think that the "98% of DNA" argument proves anything at all. If God created all living species instantaneously out of dust, there is no reason why He should not have endowed them with similar DNA. 98% of the functionality of living things is the same, after all.

[dramasnot6]

If God created everyone out of dust, why do some consider themselves not to be animals like all other creatures? What else could we be?

[Whifflingpin]

I don't think anyone denies that we are animals. It appears, however that we differ from other animals in a unique way.

The difference can be described in many ways, but it is clear that we have some mental/emotional/spiritual capacity that, as far as we can tell, is not shared by any other animal species. For example, we have the ability to see a joke, or discuss ethics, or consciously to reflect upon ourselves and our origin.

If this capacity is unique in kind, then it is difficult to see how it may be arrived at by evolution.

[Pendragon]

If God created everyone out of dust, why do some consider themselves not to be animals like all other creatures? What else could we be?

Many think animals have no souls, and that man does, so he is superior. I don't completely agree with them, but they will still believe what they want. An animals such as a dog, cat, or other pet has been known to risk death delibertly to save its owner's life. Sounds like love to me...

[Whifflingpin]

"An animals such as a dog, cat, or other pet has been known to risk death delibertly to save its owner's life. Sounds like love to me..."

I wouldn't want to argue with your conclusion, and certainly not to get involved with discussion on souls. But, in this respect, I think it is likely that only humans would have the capacity to risk their lives knowingly to save strangers, or even enemies.

[Redzeppelin]

If God created everyone out of dust, why do some consider themselves not to be animals like all other creatures? What else could we be?

Perhaps the ability to reason - our ability to contemplate ourselves, our lives, our universe (kind of like the conversation we're having now ). Animals (as far as I'm aware) are not self-aware in that they have self-consciousness. As well, the Bible makes a clear distinction between humans and animals - that we (not the animals) were created "in God's image."

The answer is we are divinely created human beings.

[Lioness_Heart]

um... I don't want to offend anyone, but isn't evolution kind of proved? Like with the Galapagos birds and stuff?

[Redzeppelin]

"Proved"? Hardly. Evolution is termed a "theory" because it is based upon speculations. That some things in nature appear to point in evolution's direction doesn't "prove" anything. The only way you can "prove" evolution is to find the "transitional forms" that theorists theorize occurred to bring us where we are. And, from what I've heard, even Darwin admitted that evolution worked at a "micro" level, but not a "marcro" level.

Science would like us to believe it's proved, and people routinely talk about it as if it is. It's not. There is some convincing evidence on evolution's side of the table, but evolution still can't answer all questions.

[Scheherazade]

The creationists had at least 2000 years to make their cases whereas the Evolutionists only couple of hundred years. Considering the short time they have had, I think they are doing a pretty good job and closer to be a fact than Creationist theory, me thinks.

[Redzeppelin]

The creationists had at least 2000 years to make their cases whereas the Evolutionists only couple of hundred years. Considering the short time they have had, I think they are doing a pretty good job and closer to be a fact than Creationist theory, me thinks.

Perhaps. But do you think it really took 2000 years to come up with the Genesis narrative? One of the primary reasons it seems that atheists reject the creation story is that it sounds too much like an unbelievable fairy tale - I don't think fairy tales take 2000 years to compose. (Besides, it's only fairy-tale-ish if one assumes that nothing beyond humanity and nature exists.)

"Fact" is an interesting term - evolution appears "closer to fact" because it jives with how WE view the world. To a child, the idea that the sun "sets" (moves downward towards the horizon) is far more believable than the reality that it doesn't move anywhere - the earth turns away from it - but, based on observation, that's what it appears to do. We accept that which conforms to our view. When an atheist says evolution is more "factual," all the atheist is really saying is "this is more believable to me because the evidence supports my world view." I don't believe any evidence exists that is capable of convincing either side of the coin that the other is "right": first you make a choice to believe, then you "see" the "evidence."