Jump to content
31 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

A person needs a lot of logic to conclude that evolution happened, where as those who think that it's 'intelligent design' just need tradition and the ability to repeat myths.

 

My thoughts exactly. To really understand evolution requires logic, but creationism is just faith and very little thinking for oneself

Just two thoughts.

 

Science seems to change it's mind often. We're all fooled to believe what we know is the truth until someone smarter shows us it's actually wrong.

 

For this reason blindly following science is just as "insane" as blindly following religion.

 

My thoughts exactly. To really understand evolution requires logic, but creationism is just faith and very little thinking for oneself
Although faith often plays the greater part (as I guess it must), logic is often there also...

 

EDIT: Damn, I don't know how long it's been since I got involved in one of these threads. PM you sucked me in. Nooooo... :D

At least the theory of evolution shows extensive proof, rather than then myth of creationism

Evolution and creation are not competing theories. I do not think there is enough content in evolution to even label it a theory. It is basically just a tautology. Now young earth "creationism" which is what most people are attacking is not even a myth--it is a fairly recent mis-interpretation of the Bible. Now if we look at the actual creation myth in Genesis we find that there are several similar creation myths that collaborate with it. Most of them are much more similar to "creationism" than the actual (some have said de-mytholized) account in Genesis. The belief in a Creator is widely held outside of any western influence, including the Bible.

 

So, on one hand we have a tautology that is basically undeniable (evolution). One the other hand we have an almost universal belief in a Creator. Explain how proof is involved with either one.

I do not think there is enough content in evolution to even label it a theory.

Actually I think it's just the other way around. There is so much compelling/logical data behind evolution that it can't be just a theory, where as creationism is just based on tradition and unsubstantiated implications.

Actually I think it's just the other way around. There is so much compelling/logical data behind evolution that it can't be just a theory, where as creationism is just based on tradition and unsubstantiated implications.

What is the content of evolution as a theory? The contents of a theory are not data, at best they explain data. What are the falsifiable specifics of its model as oppossed to some other model? What kind of data could disprove evolution?

×
×
  • Create New...