Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Umm why shamed sg?

Because we wasn't top o' course

[DanaC]

ahhhh I beg your pardon hon, of course that is shaming.

[Happy Monkey]

It was hard to decide whether to resurrect this thread, or put this in the humor thread:

Originally Posted by Roy Comfort

Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved in their pre-human state alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half)."

[ZenGum]

I'm too lazy to search, was that posted here?

[Happy Monkey]

No, Roy Comfort is a creationist nutter. That's from his blog ( See the "put this" link).

[Happy Monkey]

Another tossup. This is just the first bit:

Originally Posted by John Kocsis' letter to the editor

One of the many problems with Darwin's theory of evolution pertaining to mankind is that neither Charles Darwin nor his worshippers take into account extra-terrestrial life.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'll consider his argument that man didn't evolve from apes, when he shows me a man from another planet.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...when he shows me a man from another planet.

And then explains how that man spontaneously appeared without prior iterations. As far as I know Darwin's theory does not specify location at all.

[Pie]

Hey, we're all Martians anyways.

[Mystic Rythm]

The creation is a birth of something that has a soul and I believe it is beyond any science to infuse the energy seed of life.

[Pie]

Your beliefs are your beliefs; they cannot be tested or validated.
That is both consolation and condemnation.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by Mystic Rythm

The creation is a birth of something that has a soul and I believe it is beyond any science to infuse the energy seed of life.

We are changing the subject here, since evolutionary science does not mean Darwin is creating animals from scratch in the back room. Your statement does raise some interesting questions though:

You talk about living things having a soul. Can you detect or otherwise prove the existence of a soul? I will go ahead and assume you cannot, feel free to correct me if I am assuming too much.

Given that you cannot prove the existence of a soul, it stands to reason that you could not detect the presence or absence of a soul. So, assuming that science did create a seemingly living animal it would be indistinguishable from that of a truly living animal by your reckoning. In fact, without the ability to observe or detect souls you have no reason to assume that all naturally occurring life has souls. One begins to wonder what could possibly justify such a belief in the first place.

Let's all have a though experiment at this point. The question is "Do I have a soul?" Why or why not?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Phage0070

And then explains how that man spontaneously appeared without prior iterations. As far as I know Darwin's theory does not specify location at all.

Reread what I said.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Reread what I said.

Nothing about what you said precludes the possibility of extraterrestrial apes.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'll consider his argument that man didn't evolve from apes, when he shows me a man, or a fucking ape, from another planet. Happy?