tgamble

talkcity discussion boards
<a href="http://tcboards.talkcity.com/cgi-bin/WebX.cgi?11@18.h9VgajbcsZc^1@.ef00980" target="_blank">http://tcboards.talkcity.com/cgi-bin/WebX.cgi?11@18.h9VgajbcsZc^1@.ef00980</a>

YOU [that is, me]:
That life evolved and evolves is a fact of science.... Populations evolve, which is hardly the same thing as "an animal creating something greater than itself".

RESPONSE ...
This post is not meant, in any way to be scientific for I know little about science. So to begin, I'm not sure your meaning here but let me try ... That life evolved and evolves is a fact of science, I have no problem with for it is quite understandable. The evolution of population, as I see it, does not evolve into some diiferent but into a better and more evolved and efficient population. The evolution of the animal evolves into a more proficient animal but not into something different like a new species. If this were possible and to use a silly argument, why would it not also be possible for an animal to evolve into a lower species, like a tree? Sounds stupid but you get the point ...

YOU ...
Why? Humans are animals by definition. To deny that is as silly as denying that we're vertebrates or mammals. It's a classification based on chararteristics and has nothing to do with value or worth.

RESPONSE...
Humans are animals by todays definition! Yes we are vertebrates because we have a spine, a backbone. This does not mean that we came from birds, or reptiles, nor did they come from us. Yes we are mammals because we have a backbone and feed from our mother's breast as do horses, dogs, rats and whales. But we do not come from these animals, nor do they come from us. This is all too obvious. The point I'm getting at is that each species came from the elements as creation evolved enough to create that species, if it is a different species.

While we have many similarities it is not silly to say that we are not mere animals but we are human beings, not yet recognized as a separate species by the scientific community. The lower animals, like the rat and horse or whale have more in common than the animal and the human. You may argue this with respect to the physical make-up of each, but in the spiritual, or cognitive aspect of mankind we differ to such a degree that we cannot be the same species. Besides our reasoning ability and thought processes, our adaptablity is also far greater than the animal and sets us far apart from the mere animal. Hope this makes sense to you.
... seefan

animals evolving into trees...

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

BLoggins02

This actually sounds like someone who is intelligent but merely ignorant about the processes of evolution. His arguments seem well constructed and logically sound, even if his premises are flawed...


.... nah, scratch that, he's definitely a moron

CodeMason

Creationists can't be intelligent, because in an intelligent discussion they are slaughtered by the facts, thus they adaptively respond by being idiots, ie., immune to all forms of rational thought.

yygke

Evolutionists can't be intelligent, because in an intelligent discussion they are slaughtered by the facts, thus they adaptively respond by being idiots, ie., immune to all forms of rational thought.

LianaLi

What a creative arguement! Wanna back it up?

Patiently waiting,
Liana

ex-robot

Maybe he/she was trying to say that creationists can turn around simple rhetoric by evolutionists and apply it to them just as easily in "their" minds.

xr

CodeMason

Actually, it's quite sad that he did turn around my rhetoric that way. Because it has a part about them evolving resistance to any arguments. It's not nearly as amusing when you talk of evolutionists evolving.