Evolution vs. Creation

No real offense taken. I know I'm capable of coming on strong as well- and I enjoy how you keep me on my toes. But perhaps because I'm a bit older (twice your age if I'm guessing correctly) I'm less interested in "winning" an argument than in winning my opponent's respect (not to say that you are guilty of the first - just clarifying my priorities). I would rather lose every argument I posed but feel like I'm among friends who love a good argument than to win a debate at the cost of a potential intellectual friendship (much more valuable to me than any "point" I could make).

I understand you point thoroughly. Thanks - I appreciate the time you took to respond. I look forward to our future discussions (I'm sure there'll be many :) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

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! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laindessiel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

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...:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laindessiel

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?

"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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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...

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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

"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.