Org Mobile Site
Thread: Evolution v Creationism
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Well, do animals have cars?
Sooo... cars is what dictates we have a soul and animals dont? Or what do you mean?Well, do animals have cars?
There's so much seperating us from animals its hard to know where to begin....
But I know, that's not proof for creationsim any more than DNA similarities are for evolution.
Hmm, where were we...
But I know, that's not proof for creationsim any more than DNA similarities are for evolution.
Hmm, where were we...
Originally Posted by :
Well, do animals have cars?
I'm fairly sure I've seen a chimp driving an automobile in a movie. Heck, they even recently went into space, long after it happened in real life. Hollywood gives chimps their wheels so they can cruise the zoos and pick up chimpcks, and lets them blast into space so they can find intelligent life somewhere in this universe.Well, do animals have cars?
Originally Posted by :
We would be very complex robots...but clearly there is no metaphysical "me" inside my body/mind anywhere making choices. So in that sense we are just robots.
Biological robots... hmmm...We would be very complex robots...but clearly there is no metaphysical "me" inside my body/mind anywhere making choices. So in that sense we are just robots.
I think it would be very difficult for science to replicate using a robot machine the biological processes of a cell. So far we can do all kinds of surgery with a DNA strand, but we certainly can't create a cell out of chemicals that are just lying around without using other cells.
If we can't reproduce the cell on our own, I think we've got a VERY long way to go in creating a robot as complex as human beings. And if we did... we would be in one sense nearly as powerful as a God. I'm not sure that's a good idea. I don't like some of the things we are trying with cloning, for example. As soon as cloning starts happening for humans I'm seriously going to fight for legal protections for them.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
There's so much seperating us from animals its hard to know where to begin....
Please, begin anywhere, and give me as many examples of such as you care to. I'm genuinely curious.There's so much seperating us from animals its hard to know where to begin....
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
Please, begin anywhere, and give me as many examples of such as you care to. I'm genuinely curious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOK49CnJj-4Please, begin anywhere, and give me as many examples of such as you care to. I'm genuinely curious.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.
It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.
It's interesting that the just is what we fear, that if our mind is only chemicals moving inside our brains, we're suddenly becoming lesser in some way. If our consciousness stems from our biological robots are we then less conscious?Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.
It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Soul implies that there is some part of us separate from our biological body and mind--but that's a problematic claim. But, we are more conscious that any other animal, so I wouldn't say "just".
More aimed at Rhyfelwyr, but most relevant in this context.Soul implies that there is some part of us separate from our biological body and mind--but that's a problematic claim. But, we are more conscious that any other animal, so I wouldn't say "just".
So... at what point is the consciousness of a child higher than of an animal? Is that the point where the soul enter the body?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
I don't understand why people talk about emotion as a human trait that seperates us from animals, to me it just looks like animal instinct at its worst. I'm a bit of a stoic.
You haven't given this one much thought have you? I don't understand why people talk about emotion as a human trait that seperates us from animals, to me it just looks like animal instinct at its worst. I'm a bit of a stoic.
For starters, why shouldn't I murder if I can get away with it and it's logically beneficial for me? An even more important question is how could I decide that's it's beneficial for me without emotions?
One simple example is if you got to choose between two times at the dentist. One is next week and the second is a month from now. You're not busy at any of the times. Logically, which time is better? Neither, so how do you logically choose?
Also, one well-known state of lack of emotions is known as apathy, hardly the state any human strives for.
And finally, when did you logically decide that God exist? Remind you that knowing things are in the realm of emotions.
To summarise, while logic thinking is a great tool, it's the emotions that drives us.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
There's so much seperating us from animals its hard to know where to begin....
I can give a few fairly advanced traits that animals have (and some humans lack). Self-restraint (choose a large reward later instead of a small one now), logic thinking (solving a problem in your mind before even trying and then use that experience to solve a even more complicated one), preparation (adapt so when you got bad luck one day, you gotten enough resourses to handle that. This in a non-natural way, so it requires more than instinct) and lying (not a nice achivement, but it is harder than telling the truth). There's so much seperating us from animals its hard to know where to begin....
That's a few ones I got in mind at the moment, but feel free to add stuff that separates us from the animals and I'll see at least some of the research on that area.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOK49CnJj-4
A few notes, stupidity=lack of soul or "the ghost in the machine"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOK49CnJj-4
Second, it's hard to determine purpose with lack of communication. Simply put, the dog may very play around in that video and not really caring about capturing the squirrel (that hardly act scared anyway).
How can we be certain that an animal doesn't have a philosophical thought, when we don't know how to fully communicate with them? Parrot and ape conversations were they learnt a bit of human language would be quite interesting to see.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Well, do animals have cars?
Yes, but they're not happy about it.Well, do animals have cars?
Things like logical thought are just our brain doing its 'robotic' bit, doesn't really say anything about whether or not we have a 'soul'. For the self-restraint thing, waiting for a better reward is not what I had in mind. Animals don't actually deny themselves just for the sake of it like us folks do. We are by nature very restrained compared to any animal.
As for the things with emotions, I think we act the way we do because of morals, not just our genes hardcoding us with emotions to manipulate how we act. When I see people get angry and go in a rage, it just looks completely ridiculous, honestly some people give Darwin credit. Animal-like emotions such as hate, fear, anger, some elements of 'love', they are the polar opposite things like morality which people should base their actions upon.
I guess I am coming from the Stoic position, maybe this can clarify things a bit. Just replaced the 'logos/nature' with 'God/godliness' and you have my position. Taken from Wikipedia:
As for the things with emotions, I think we act the way we do because of morals, not just our genes hardcoding us with emotions to manipulate how we act. When I see people get angry and go in a rage, it just looks completely ridiculous, honestly some people give Darwin credit. Animal-like emotions such as hate, fear, anger, some elements of 'love', they are the polar opposite things like morality which people should base their actions upon.
I guess I am coming from the Stoic position, maybe this can clarify things a bit. Just replaced the 'logos/nature' with 'God/godliness' and you have my position. Taken from Wikipedia:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
What are these morals by the way?
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
What are these morals by the way?
Godliness. Try to be more specific and you end up with everything breaking down.What are these morals by the way?
Right, well that was my attempt to garner some interest shot down.
Is this the "ascribed, current view of Christian Godliness" held by yourself, or something slightly more useful?
Else that really is so much marsh gas.
Is this the "ascribed, current view of Christian Godliness" held by yourself, or something slightly more useful?
Else that really is so much marsh gas.
Well are you asking what the morals are? Ten Commandment etc?
Or are you asking what makes them morals, or how are they universal, or something like that?
Or are you asking what makes them morals, or how are they universal, or something like that?
Yes, what they are is interesting. Obviously the come from God so why or how are not relevant.
"whatsoever you require that others should do unto you, that do ye to them" covers a lot of stuff. Also, you should remove yourself from all carnal things and primitive emotions because these things are selfish and remove you from the logos as the Stoics say, or God as I say.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
More aimed at Rhyfelwyr, but most relevant in this context.
So... at what point is the consciousness of a child higher than of an animal?
Depends on the animal.More aimed at Rhyfelwyr, but most relevant in this context.
So... at what point is the consciousness of a child higher than of an animal?
Originally Posted by Ironside:
Also related, if the soul exist and are of a more eternal state, but the soul's expression is dependant on the brain the soul inhabit (shown by personality changes, or even better, split personality), how can it be any certainy that animals don't have a soul?
Exactly...or rocks or trees for that matter.Also related, if the soul exist and are of a more eternal state, but the soul's expression is dependant on the brain the soul inhabit (shown by personality changes, or even better, split personality), how can it be any certainy that animals don't have a soul?
Originally Posted by :
A few notes, stupidity=lack of soul or "the ghost in the machine"?
A few notes, stupidity=lack of soul or "the ghost in the machine"?
Second, it's hard to determine purpose with lack of communication. Simply put, the dog may very play around in that video and not really caring about capturing the squirrel (that hardly act scared anyway). [/quote]
Intelligence is the defining human factor.
Originally Posted by :
How can we be certain that an animal doesn't have a philosophical thought, when we don't know how to fully communicate with them? Parrot and ape conversations were they learnt a bit of human language would be quite interesting to see.
How can we be certain trees don't have a philosophical thought? They can communicate with each other...How can we be certain that an animal doesn't have a philosophical thought, when we don't know how to fully communicate with them? Parrot and ape conversations were they learnt a bit of human language would be quite interesting to see.
Who says animals don't have souls?
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
Who says animals don't have souls?
Maybe they do, but they are not bound by the same rules as us regardless.Who says animals don't have souls?
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Maybe they do, but they are not bound by the same rules as us regardless.
Lousy laws of physics. Never there when you need them. Maybe they do, but they are not bound by the same rules as us regardless.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
Lousy laws of physics. Never there when you need them.
You know what I mean. Lousy laws of physics. Never there when you need them.
I am a bit late with quoting that, but...
According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics.
source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...TZhMzJiZjJmMzI
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Actually, plenty of scientists believe that there is a role for a Creator in our universe, and your position sounds quite mainstream.
... I have to post this:Actually, plenty of scientists believe that there is a role for a Creator in our universe, and your position sounds quite mainstream.
According to a 1998 survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), nearly 95 percent of NAS biologists are atheists or agnostics.
source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...TZhMzJiZjJmMzI
What a lot of words. I'm too tired to read them, so sorry if this is has been mentioned before: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_li...3481305829426D. Rhy, watch that. It's mainly aimed at YECs, but the general idea comes accross. You should learn a lot from it.
Okay. So what I have gleamed from scanning the past 2 pages is that the Creationists among seem to have very little knowledge of scientific theory, combined with a good dose of Argumentam ad ingorantiumum, Argumentum ad verecundiam, and enough Straw Men to fill Ohio.
They also tend to be religious, which is yet another logical fallacy, unfortunately I am unable to remember what this fallacy is called, but it's the one where it is dependent on an outside condition of the arguer to be true, as opposed to being uncaring as to the arguer, as all arguments must if they are logically correct. Anyway, I'm sure someone will remind me.
Anyhoozle, unless something can be explained by process of natural law (or Occams Razor if you prefer), it is up to the theory maker (In this case creationalists) to provide the scientific explaination. Not our job to do your work.
So yeh, the ball is in your court creationalists. Evolution is as much natural Law as Magnetism or Gravity.
Okay. So what I have gleamed from scanning the past 2 pages is that the Creationists among seem to have very little knowledge of scientific theory, combined with a good dose of Argumentam ad ingorantiumum, Argumentum ad verecundiam, and enough Straw Men to fill Ohio.
They also tend to be religious, which is yet another logical fallacy, unfortunately I am unable to remember what this fallacy is called, but it's the one where it is dependent on an outside condition of the arguer to be true, as opposed to being uncaring as to the arguer, as all arguments must if they are logically correct. Anyway, I'm sure someone will remind me.
Anyhoozle, unless something can be explained by process of natural law (or Occams Razor if you prefer), it is up to the theory maker (In this case creationalists) to provide the scientific explaination. Not our job to do your work.
So yeh, the ball is in your court creationalists. Evolution is as much natural Law as Magnetism or Gravity.
Thanks for that link. It really cheered me up. 
Evolution and Creationism both seek to explain a set of phenomena and both have assumptions that undergird their efforts.
That said, Creationism's central assumption -- an omnipuissant creator -- is the bigger "given." Evolution, by contrast, only takes on the central assumptions common to science -- that their is an explanation for all phenomena and that evidence and testing are central to determining the validity of an assertion regarding some phenomenon.
The Theory of Evolution has, to date, "passed" all such evidentiary and logical tests.
I, personally, can accept the flow of evolution running back to the "Big Bang." Whereupon we arrive at a conundrum: from whence came that impossibly dense singularity?
For me, the answer is simple: "Let there be light."
That said, Creationism's central assumption -- an omnipuissant creator -- is the bigger "given." Evolution, by contrast, only takes on the central assumptions common to science -- that their is an explanation for all phenomena and that evidence and testing are central to determining the validity of an assertion regarding some phenomenon.
The Theory of Evolution has, to date, "passed" all such evidentiary and logical tests.
I, personally, can accept the flow of evolution running back to the "Big Bang." Whereupon we arrive at a conundrum: from whence came that impossibly dense singularity?
For me, the answer is simple: "Let there be light."
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho:
What a lot of words. I'm too tired to read them, so sorry if this is has been mentioned before: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_li...3481305829426D. Rhy, watch that. It's mainly aimed at YECs, but the general idea comes accross. You should learn a lot from it.
Okay. So what I have gleamed from scanning the past 2 pages is that the Creationists among seem to have very little knowledge of scientific theory, combined with a good dose of Argumentam ad ingorantiumum, Argumentum ad verecundiam, and enough Straw Men to fill Ohio.
They also tend to be religious, which is yet another logical fallacy, unfortunately I am unable to remember what this fallacy is called, but it's the one where it is dependent on an outside condition of the arguer to be true, as opposed to being uncaring as to the arguer, as all arguments must if they are logically correct. Anyway, I'm sure someone will remind me.
Anyhoozle, unless something can be explained by process of natural law (or Occams Razor if you prefer), it is up to the theory maker (In this case creationalists) to provide the scientific explaination. Not our job to do your work.
So yeh, the ball is in your court creationalists. Evolution is as much natural Law as Magnetism or Gravity.
What a lot of words. I'm too tired to read them, so sorry if this is has been mentioned before: https://www.youtube.com/view_play_li...3481305829426D. Rhy, watch that. It's mainly aimed at YECs, but the general idea comes accross. You should learn a lot from it.
Okay. So what I have gleamed from scanning the past 2 pages is that the Creationists among seem to have very little knowledge of scientific theory, combined with a good dose of Argumentam ad ingorantiumum, Argumentum ad verecundiam, and enough Straw Men to fill Ohio.
They also tend to be religious, which is yet another logical fallacy, unfortunately I am unable to remember what this fallacy is called, but it's the one where it is dependent on an outside condition of the arguer to be true, as opposed to being uncaring as to the arguer, as all arguments must if they are logically correct. Anyway, I'm sure someone will remind me.
Anyhoozle, unless something can be explained by process of natural law (or Occams Razor if you prefer), it is up to the theory maker (In this case creationalists) to provide the scientific explaination. Not our job to do your work.
So yeh, the ball is in your court creationalists. Evolution is as much natural Law as Magnetism or Gravity.
Oh, spoil sport!
Seamus Fermanagh, Oh, so now "God" created the Big Bang, huh?
I hope you were sarcastic in that post.
One question though: The christian religions have had to retreat against science for some couple of hundred years now.
Not without a fight, mind you, the church has always put up a valiant fight but lost in the long run.
So now you believe the church is forced to commit: "Ok, so science was right about everything and church was wrong about everything, but God still created the big bang!"
May I ask you, when WILL the church wave the white flag? Say we get scientifical answer to the big bang, will you have some other outpost to hide behind?
And mind you, we are, as I write, planning to send up technology to inspect the very beginning of the big bang.
Where is your next retreat?
"Ok, so science explained everything beyond the big bang, but still hasn't explored all dimensions. God is in one of these dimensions, I ASSURE YOU!".
Can you actually define the last religious retreat?
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Evolution and Creationism both seek to explain a set of phenomena and both have assumptions that undergird their efforts.
That said, Creationism's central assumption -- an omnipuissant creator -- is the bigger "given." Evolution, by contrast, only takes on the central assumptions common to science -- that their is an explanation for all phenomena and that evidence and testing are central to determining the validity of an assertion regarding some phenomenon.
Great insights as always Seamus you got what I was getting at in one sentence, though I would disagree that creationism's metaphysical assumptions are "bigger" the reason being that there is really no value neutral way to distinguish between metaphysical assumptions.Evolution and Creationism both seek to explain a set of phenomena and both have assumptions that undergird their efforts.
That said, Creationism's central assumption -- an omnipuissant creator -- is the bigger "given." Evolution, by contrast, only takes on the central assumptions common to science -- that their is an explanation for all phenomena and that evidence and testing are central to determining the validity of an assertion regarding some phenomenon.
Che Roriniho thanksfor that link 
Oh dear do you see the flaw here the creationists have tried to use numbers
cretinist maths is funny
Oh dear do you see the flaw here the creationists have tried to use numbers
cretinist maths is funny
Ironically, there is a lot of unpleasant sneering by some anti-religionists in this thread, which smacks of an "holier-than-thou" attitude.
You might advance your opinions more effectively with a little more humility and a lot more respect.
Thank you kindly.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
Ironically, there is a lot of unpleasant sneering by some anti-religionists in this thread, which smacks of an "holier-than-thou" attitude.
MUCH agreed.Ironically, there is a lot of unpleasant sneering by some anti-religionists in this thread, which smacks of an "holier-than-thou" attitude.
Look; I am not a religious person and I know better than to just write off those that have faith as being some sort of morons. Non-religious people do NOT have all the answers and cannot explain WHY the Big Bang happened. There is orderliness and logic in the universe, and morality does exist. Did it all happen spontaneously? Maybe. But the more I look at the universe through the eyes of a philosopher and a scientist, rather than a theologian, I see the possibility of a designer or a creator of it all.
I don't think He intervenes in everyday affairs nor sends prophets down or whatnot, nor do I think we have a single thing correct about him that we claim to "know". However, dismissing creationism as being stupid is also the height of arrogance when you don't have all the answers yourself. I don't know if there's a God, and neither does anyone else truly know, one way or the other.
Originally Posted by :
Non-religious people do NOT have all the answers
The problem there is that they don't make that claim in the first place do they .Non-religious people do NOT have all the answers
Whereas certain people do claim to have all the answers and that all the answers are available in one handy little book .
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO