Creationism: Right or Wrong?

[b said:
Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 02 2004,6:23)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Question: Why do you think gorillas and other primates have such a resemblance to humans?
Click to expand...

Looks have very little to do with anything.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. I think there is much more relevance to their simularity than that, as we were made 'in god's image.'
 
That doesn't make us God, and it doesn't make monkeys human.

Except, again, for Tek7. We're still not sure what he is.
rock.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The hyrax is so unlike other animals that it is placed in a separate order (Hyracoidea) by itself. It is said to be the elephant's nearest living relative. This is true to a certain extent, but misleading since the relationship stems from a remote ancestor common to hyraxes, sea cows (dugongs and manatees) and elephants. These three are unlike other mammals, but they share various if disproportionate physiological similarities in teeth, leg and foot bones, testes (that do not descend into a scrotum) and other more obscure details.
Click to expand...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Sep. 02 2004,7:49)]So what then, it's pure coincidence?  I think someone needs to address this.
Click to expand...
Similiarites are evidence of a single designer using attributes from one creation and using them in another creation which is required to survive in similiar enviroments.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 03 2004,10:37)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Sep. 02 2004,7:49)]So what then, it's pure coincidence?  I think someone needs to address this.
Click to expand...
Similiarites are evidence of a single designer using attributes from one creation and using them in another creation which is required to survive in similiar enviroments.
Click to expand...
That's it?

Why would god choose to do that? I don't think it's because he needed practice before he made the real thing.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Why would god choose to do that?
Click to expand...

It makes perfectly logical sense.  If there are attributes that will make an animal successful in one enviroment, why not carry those attributes over to others who also need to be successful in similiar enviroments?

People do it, all off road SUV's have the same attributes, wider tire base, larger wheels, 4x4 capabilities yatta yatta yatta.  A Yukon and an Expidition look a like, only because they share attributes that makes SUVs successful in their intended enviroments.  But yet to the individual owners, they are different vehicles all together.

Edit::::

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]That's it?
Click to expand...

Yep. Now, you can either accept the statement that similiarities is evidence for a single designer or proof me wrong.
 
You are grossly oversimplifying. Couldn't simularities between organisms just as easily point to common ancestry? More easily, I'd wager, as micro evolution is what accounts for adaptability of organisms. There is no logical conclusion that can be drawn from this, only hypothesis. Don't ask for proof if you can't give it either. Logic, actually, is on my side, so you are in no position to do so.
 
Re:Duckbilled Platypus

They are a wonder of creation aren't they?  Despite all the uniqueness of this creature, it is a completely unchanged today compared to its fossilized ancestors.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Sep. 03 2004,12:28)]You are grossly oversimplifying.  Couldn't simularities between organisms just as easily point to common ancestry?  More easily, I'd wager, as micro evolution is what accounts for adaptability of organisms.  There is no logical conclusion that can be drawn from this, only hypothesis.  Don't ask for proof if you can't give it either.  Logic, actually, is on my side, so you are in no position to do so.
Click to expand...
I will reiterate:



Similiarities is evidence of a single designer\creator.


This is a factual statement.  

Lets take a look at the reverse of this statement, as it pertains to why humans and apes have common attributes:

Similiarities is evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.


Now here is the kicker, evidence is just that, evidence.  It is nothing more, no matter how much you try and twist it.  You judge the evidence based on your a priori belief that there is no God.  Mine comes from a priori belief that there is a God.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 03 2004,12:51)]I will reiterate:



Similiarities is evidence of a single designer\creator.


This is a factual statement.  

Lets take a look at the reverse of this statement, as it pertains to why humans and apes have common attributes:

Similiarities is evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.


Now here is the kicker, evidence is just that, evidence.  It is nothing more, no matter how much you try and twist it.  You judge the evidence based on your a priori belief that there is no God.  Mine comes from a priori belief that there is a God.
Click to expand...
A factual statement? Pardon me but, how can that possibly be a factual statement? And in your mind, the rising and setting of the sun, and the presence of mountains, and the number of veins in an ambilical cord--all point to a creator. It's a moot point. Logically thinking, you would see that it makes much more sense to believe that the presence of such similar organisms points to common ancestry. That's how it is with every other species.
 
<span id='ME'><center>Gods_Peon shakes his head</center></span>



Your whole statement Mr. Bill is nothing more then a guess based on your preconcieved notion that there is no God.  You have taken a piece of evidence and filtered it based on what you think is logical.  It is totally subjective.

Prove to me, that the similarities are not evidence of a creator. I am not asking you to prove evolution, just that the evidence like similiarities between apes and humans are not evidence for creation.
 
I think u can't prove that it is gods doing, just like u can't say for sure that its ancestry.
It depends on how u look at it, and what kind of backround u come from.
I personally think its ancestry, but even if there was absolute proof that there is no god, u would still be skeptical because of your faith.
So I guess I agree with u about evidence GP. No matter what Bill says u'll always find a way to twist it to prove your faith.
 
No if u show me proof that there is a god and he created the universe, real conclusive proof I'll believe u. But u can't and the only logical conclusion is evolution and ancestry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top