• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...1920212223...30
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003

ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide

Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?

Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers

i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes? confused
/end vent


Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Delete Topic

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Dr. Rowan Williams is probably the best Arch-Bishop of Caterbury ever.

The Church of England would be a much darker place without him. If only his American counterparts were as enlightened. frown


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Tao Star


Tao Star

Pooh-Bah
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 1662
Posted:ditto

what a refreshing man, he's so sensible! we could do with more like him, and not only in the church.


I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted:I think this thread is a +1 to my hunch that christians are responsible for practically everything that is wrong with the world.

"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Dear Mcp - nope, only 30% - the rest is shared equally by Jews and Muslims... wink

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:33.3% and call it quits. biggrin

In the battle of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution -

Evolution wins by a knockout, then procedes to do intelligent design's momma and steal his house. W00T spank


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Sorry Jeff - I forgot to add atheists, which would make the last 10%..

BTW 100% - 30% (x-tians) = 70% : 2 (J/M) = 35%... umm

dunno where you've been in math class.. umm wink tongue


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 4145
Posted:A historical quote from Aldous Huxley's grand-great-something-ancestor:

(quoted from Mrs. Isabella Sidgwick)
Then the Bishop rose, and in a light scoffing tone, florid and he assured us there was nothing in the idea of evolution; rock-pigeons were what rock-pigeons had always been. Then, turning to his antagonist with a smiling insolence, he begged to know, was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey? On this Mr Huxley slowly and deliberately arose. A slight tall figure stern and pale, very quiet and very grave, he stood before us, and spoke those tremendous words words which no one seems sure of now, nor I think, could remember just after they were spoken, for their meaning took away our breath, though it left us in no doubt as to what it was.
 Written by: actual quote, from someone who could remember


If the question is put to me would I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet who employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.



He was not ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth. No one doubted his meaning and the effect was tremendous. One lady fainted and had to carried out: I, for one, jumped out of my seat; and when in the evening we met at Dr Daubeney's, every one was eager to congratulate the hero of the day.

just thought some might find this amusing smile


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: FireTom


Sorry Jeff - I forgot to add atheists, which would make the last 10%..

BTW 100% - 30% (x-tians) = 70% : 2 (J/M) = 35%... umm

dunno where you've been in math class.. umm wink tongue


100%/3 = 33.3% blame for all. rolleyes


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:ubblol give you that one wink smile

Besides, Birgit: I love it! This is the kind of reaction I'd love to call my own... I mean in terms of aristocratic expression... smile

Thanks to you, too smile

Good night


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted:There's hardly any jews, so they don't count. And muslims have some extremely stupid ideas, but at least some of them have reasoned arguments behind them. <insert anti-christian rant here.>

And after all, all these religious types are in a minority, is there any chinese state religion? That's the biggest country on earth, folled by india and russia surely? Hinduism kicks ass, and nobody can really argue with roman catholics. They just build really fancy churches.

so this 100% you speak of is about what, like 25% of the human population?


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:More importantly than your mathematical bigotry, how did y'all make the title of the thread disappear?

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

KaelGotRice
GOLD Member since Jul 2003

KaelGotRice

Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
Location: Angel's Landing, USA

Total posts: 1584
Posted: Written by: mcp



And after all, all these religious types are in a minority, is there any chinese state religion? That's the biggest country on earth, folled by india and russia surely? Hinduism kicks ass, and nobody can really argue with roman catholics. They just build really fancy churches.



so this 100% you speak of is about what, like 25% of the human population?





The Chinese are all communists, and everyone knows that all communists are athiest heathens. Also, all indians are hindus, all Russians defected to become ballerinas, so they don't count, and Buddhists are really philosophers so they could be knocked off the face of the earth.



wink



I just think white Christians are mad because just like with african and latino black/mexi-Christ, once China goes Christian, Asian Jesus will be superior for sure.



ubbloco


To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ubbrollsmile.gif" alt="" />

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted: Written by:

The Chinese are all communists, and everyone knows that all communists are athiest heathens



Communism is just a blip in Chinese history. Before the Communist Revolution, a number of religious and philosophical systems were practiced in China. Traditionally Taoism and Confucianism provided ethical guides to the proper behavior of individuals and officials. Both of these systems originated in China during the so-called Golden Age of Chinese thought, several centuries before the beginning of the Christian era (Chinese Cultural Studies: Philosophy and Religion in China).


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: Stone



Communism is just a blip in Chinese history.



I'm fairly certain that the Chinese have no history. Otherwise I'd have learned about it in school, no?

And I still wanna know why there's no title to this thread anymore. Dangit.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted: Written by:

I'm fairly certain that the Chinese have no history. Otherwise I'd have learned about it in school, no?



Let me guess, youre an American; went to school in America, right? wink


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted:I think the main thing this thread has decided is that there is no such thing as an education in america. (there's no bad education, no good education and no passable education.) So he didn't really go to school, just sat in a building for a while.

kael: Bring it ON! Asian Jesus will surely loooooose in a cheerleading contest with Shiva. Shive can hold more pom poms. Sorry, but you lose.

And surely communists are pagans? Only pagans / barbarians could believe in equality.

Stone: You obviously not only have the wrong end of the stick, but have gone and fetched it and brought it back already. If chinese religions were any good, they would have rampaged over the entire world killing billions. Plus, they also wouldn't have enslaved themselves to a corrupt government if they had any sense. Well blatently they have some, because they aren't christian.


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

KaelGotRice
GOLD Member since Jul 2003

KaelGotRice

Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
Location: Angel's Landing, USA

Total posts: 1584
Posted:Semi-serious post this time, although offtopic. (I've been feeling down lately so I'm going to rant) Stone, I'm part chinese, despite being raised and 'educated' in America most of my life. wink



The more I think about it, the more I come to this conclusion.



If I ever have kids. I'm not going to put them in public schools. In fact, I'm more likely to tutor them myself until college or hire someone.



I've realized that all the way into highschool, the only positive things I got from public schooling were a few good teachers here and there that inspired a lifetime of learning for me. I also got a few crazy awesome friends. However, I learned more on my own through reading at the library, watching discovery/history channel, reading articles online/meeting people, and especially just by LIVING LIFE outside and traveling.



Other than that, the basic public education I recieved did more harm than good. Public education, at least in American society is remarkably akin to brainwashing a future generation of mindless/too lazy to think consumers. Most of my classmates could barely pass judgment as "civilized human beings" while claiming to be superior to others constantly.



Those of us who fear for the future of a peaceful, loving, compassionate humankind in search of progression, what do we do in this society?



frown


To do: More Firedrums 08 video?
Wildfire/US East coast fire footage
LA/EDC glow/fire footage
Fresno fire

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ubbrollsmile.gif" alt="" />

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:OK - this thread is degenerating into nonsense and I am apologising for having some part in it.



Patriarch I would really like to know whether you are serious about the statements you made on page 21 (cars and forks). Because clearly you are taking an advocates position, defending ID with ridiculed arguments. This might not be of much benefit.



Amongst the fact, that not ALL Indians are Hindu, some seem to misinterprete WHAT hinduism actually is and I would ask those to inform themselves about it.



ONE brief overview can be found HERE



 Written by:



Hinduism differs from Christianity and other Western religions in that it does not have a single founder, a specific theological system, a single system of morality, or a central religious organization. It consists of "thousands of different religious groups that have evolved in India since 1500 BCE." 1



Hinduism has grown to become the world's third largest religion, after Christianity and Islam. It claims about 837 million followers - 13% of the world's population. 2 It is the dominant religion in India, Nepal, and among the Tamils in Sri Lanka. According to the "Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches," there are about 1.1 million Hindus in the U.S. 3 The "American Religious Identification Survey" is believed to be more accurate. 4 They estimated smaller number: 766,000 Hindus in 2001. Still, this is a very significant increase from 227,000 in 1990. Statistics Canada estimates that there are about 157,015 Hindus in Canada. 5





If jews do not count, then why is there so much fuzz about them? MCP - I respect your opinion, but have to say it seems like deriving from ignorance of todays political situation. Hence I have to admit that I was surprised myself, that Israel only contains of 5 Million inhabitants - able to hold the entire arab league in check.



@ all: It would also help to understand your irony, jokes if you'd use graemlins, like wink < this one for example...



Sorry to notice, that this discussion is turning to a level that has been criticised just a short while ago - I had my share in this and (as initially stated) apologise for it.



Please let's not take this board ad absurdum.

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1143684783)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Hi Kael, I know your post was in jest, but your statement just seemed wrong to me.

To answer your question: Those of us who fear for the future of a peaceful, loving, compassionate humankind in search of progression, what do we do in this society?

I suppose I lean towards secularism, where religion and supernatural beliefs are not seen as the key to understanding the world, and are instead separated from governance and reasoning. From that perspective Ive been doing Landmark Education. Which is the only organisation Ive found that can help us deliver world peace.

smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: FireTom


Patriarch I would really like to know whether you are serious about the statements you made on page 21 (cars and forks). Because clearly you are taking an advocates position, defending ID with ridiculed arguments. This might not be of much benefit.




Of course I was serious. I believe that both cars and forks were intelligently designed.

I don't quite understand the meaning of your second sentence.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Either, cars and forks, underwent sort of an (artificial) evolution, didn't they? Trial and error... that's the basis. If they would have been intelligently designed, there wouldn't have been any reson to change them - they would have been perfect from the start.



Second sentence - IMHO - ID is besed on human arrogance. Some simply cannot accept the fact that nature and life is the governing force and that evolution is necessary. Some want to stand "above the dust", which is one excuse for violently abusing the rest of "creation".



It's like a childs view on existence.



Sure enough, for some of us, planet earth is the center of this/ our very universe (in a higher sense).



And there is nothing wrong with this view, as long as we accept that people on another planet claim the same for them.



Personally I put more faith in evolution than in the existence of a supreme being - why? Because mankind prooved a billion times over (still counting) that otherwise we're doomed...



So either ID'ers are fatalists and evolutionaries are optimists, or vice versa - take it as you like.



I stated in an early state of this discussion that I can even imagine both right next to each other, but this also would be a question of faith and demand a philosophical approach.

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1143697032)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004

Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear

Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: FireTom


Either, cars and forks, underwent sort of an (artificial) evolution, didn't they? Trial and error... that's the basis. If they would have been intelligently designed, there wouldn't have been any reson to change them - they would have been perfect from the start.



if the universe were intelligently designed, there wouldnt be any reason for life to evolve? it would've been perfect from the start?
thats quite and old argument is it not?

you could say that in order for something to evolve it must first be able to reproduce, in which case cars didnt evolve, they were designed by something more intelligent.


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted:Since when is a spork the middle of a spoon and fork? Surely it came after the spoon and fork, not in between them? It's not a middle stage.

Everybody else: I'm using american sarcasm, so no smilies.

So I don't quite get what this creationist thread is arguing, firstly it was that creationism was the idea that the world started maybe 10,000 years ago, people popped out of the sunny garden of eden, did all the biblical things spread over all of the earth and in britain started to get ready for the dark ages, while other countries started getting then forgetting to be advanced.

But now the argument seems to be that natural selection is an actual process, that does in fact occur and the earth is as old as everybody says it is. But there was at the start a helping hand from god to get life started, and at occassional future points (if I were to use my intelligence for evil,) I would say at the points of sudden (over thousands rather than millions of years) change.

This is based on the idea that human scientists haven't been able to create life properly in the supposed conditions availible to creat life back when life was created. (life being back then self replicating molecules of some kind.) This seems to me sort of weakened by the idea that the 'reason' we exist in this universe is because this universe can support and develop our kind of life. We wouldn't be here otherwise. Surely the same argument can be applied to our planet.

ah it's the Strong anthropic principle. Since we're on earth, earth must at some point in it's past been able to produce life.

Then there's this whole thing on intelligent design. A spork is designed by the limited intelligence of human beings, as are cars. They get better when we have new ideas and apply them. Cool huh!

Human unfortunately, aren't. Men have nipples? Why is that? That's not good design. Plus our eyes have a layer of black tissue over the light receptors, not transparent black, but opaque black. That also seems like something I wouldn't have done if I wanted people to see. We have a vestigial tail and nails and stuff, what are they for? You don't normally see planes with vestigial sunroofs attached to them do you? If somebody designed us, they took a template, made all the changes, but forgot to rub out the old bits.

This has all probably come up in past posts, but it makes me less in the mood to kill all creationists to say it here.

plus, surely if you're going to have a nudging god argument, you're going to have to go back to the big bang to sort it out, which nobody knows what caused it, so we might as well have god sat there.

Meanwhile, why is god such a megalomaniac to keep changing stuff through the process of evolution but not actually make his presence known? He seems a bit like a nutjob to me.

It's probably cos he's the only god, and never gets laid. Well obviously he is non human, completely alien to use in all he knows and does and we'll never understand him or how he exists. He's just a giant alien that supposely loves us, much like mork out of mork and mindy.

and finally, if anybody is too stupid to understand occams razor and why it's probably correct all of the time, why bother with them?


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: Mr Majestik



 Written by: FireTom



Either, cars and forks, underwent sort of an (artificial) evolution, didn't they? Trial and error... that's the basis. If they would have been intelligently designed, there wouldn't have been any reson to change them - they would have been perfect from the start.





if the universe were intelligently designed, there wouldnt be any reason for life to evolve? it would've been perfect from the start?

thats quite and old argument is it not?



you could say that in order for something to evolve it must first be able to reproduce, in which case cars didnt evolve, they were designed by something more intelligent.





Why would you assume that intelligence can only produce a perfect design? We create things all the time that are not perfect.



 Written by: ]

Since when is a spork the middle of a spoon and fork? Surely it came after the spoon and fork, not in between them? It's not a middle stage.[/quote





That is one among several possible theories, but not the only one that fits the physical evidence. While sporks certainly have the appearance of being in between forks and spoons, the conclusions that we can draw from this evidence can vary wildly.



One might point to the fact that the spork contains incomplete vestiges of tines that are either developing or being lost. The spork could be called a "transitional form" between a spoon and a fork.



Another might see the spork as a combination of the features of both spoons and forks, and conclude that it must have been designed by someone who saw both and combined them in his head.



Another might theorize that their similarity of form indicates that they all arose at about the same time, and that perhaps they share a common ancestor (like a butter knife).



 Written by: ]

So I don't quite get what this creationist thread is arguing, firstly it was that creationism was the idea that the world started maybe 10,000 years ago, people popped out of the sunny garden of eden, did all the biblical things spread over all of the earth and in britain started to get ready for the dark ages, while other countries started getting then forgetting to be advanced.



But now the argument seems to be that natural selection is an actual process, that does in fact occur and the earth is as old as everybody says it is. But there was at the start a helping hand from god to get life started, and at occassional future points (if I were to use my intelligence for evil,) I would say at the points of sudden (over thousands rather than millions of years) change.[/quote



Creationism (and ID, as we discussed earlier) does indeed accept that natural selection is an actual process. Creationism disputes that this process is the best, or the correct, explanation for the development.



While ID certainly can accept things such as the world being billions of years old, gradual evolution from a single ancestor, and other things of this nature, Creationism does not. Creationism accepts that evolution is happening, but posits that it has happened rapidly from a large variety of common ancestors that were made at approximately the same time. Creationism accepts the type of evolution that we observe happening in the present, but does not accept certain theories about macroevolution that happened in the past (plants and animals evolving from a common ancestor, for example).



 Written by: ] This is based on the idea that human scientists haven't been able to create life properly in the supposed conditions availible to creat life back when life was created. (life being back then self replicating molecules of some kind.) This seems to me sort of weakened by the idea that the 'reason' we exist in this universe is because this universe can support and develop our kind of life. We wouldn't be here otherwise. Surely the same argument can be applied to our planet.



ah it's the Strong anthropic principle. Since we're on earth, earth must at some point in it's past been able to produce life.[/quote





It is not based on those experiments, although those experiments provide data that support the theory that abiogenesis could not have happened.



One cannot say that abiogenesis must have happened merely because we exist. One cannot say that a Rubiks cube must have been solved by chance merely because a solved on is found. One also has to consider the alternative theory.



 Written by: ] Men have nipples? Why is that? That's not good design. Plus our eyes have a layer of black tissue over the light receptors, not transparent black, but opaque black. That also seems like something I wouldn't have done if I wanted people to see. We have a vestigial tail and nails and stuff, what are they for? You don't normally see planes with vestigial sunroofs attached to them do you? If somebody designed us, they took a template, made all the changes, but forgot to rub out the old bits.[/quote





Just because something is designed differently from the way you would have done it is not evidence that it was not designed, it is merely evidence that you did not design it. Vestigial tines on a spork do not prove that it was not designed, it just happened to be designed that particular way.



If poor design is considered evidence against a designer, then it may follow that excellent design should be considered evidence in favor of a designer.



 Written by:



Meanwhile, why is god such a megalomaniac to keep changing stuff through the process of evolution but not actually make his presence known?



Creationism posits that God is not changing stuff through the process of evolution, but that evolution is merely occurring according the natural laws He created. He has in fact made his presence known, both through creation generally, and through specific revelation (such as the Bible.)



If you are asking to see God in person, this will also occur in the future. Were it to occur now, it would kill you, so it is merciful for God to not personally manifest himself at this time.


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:You've long since lost the debate. rolleyes

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Although this is not about winning or loosing, Jeff Patriarch is defending this position as the last man standing I guess - much like Peter Sellers in one of his great movies...

Patriarch, I don't consider mankind consisting of very much intelligence (incl. myself) - otherwise they would not create that much suffering amongst themselves and others and deliberately kill their host.

You are talking about the design of a "supreme being" - a perfect being! One would assume that the design of the ultimatively supreme and perfect being to be less flawed than it actually is... but maybe then I am living in a dream world...

Good luck with this discussion


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:MCP, men have nipples because we all start as female prptotype, then turn into males later during pregnancy. You should check out some of Robert Winstons documentaries like the BBC Human Body series.

Patriarch, there is NO scientific evidence to support that evolution happened rapidly from a large variety of common ancestors that were made at approximately the same time. Nil None!


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: FireTom


Patriarch...

You are talking about the design of a "supreme being" - a perfect being! One would assume that the design of the ultimatively supreme and perfect being to be less flawed than it actually is... but maybe then I am living in a dream world...




Your assumption is correct. The world as originally created was indeed less flawed. After creation was finished it was found to be "very good." Humans were capable of living forever, the land left to itself would grow food for us, childbirth was painless, we did not have to kill animals for food, and God would personally meet with us.

Of course, Adam chose to disobey God and fell from this state, taking the rest of creation with him. Thankfully, it will all be restored someday.

If your complaint about the world as it exists is that God should have designed a world free from death, suffering, and evil, then your complaint is justified. God should have, and He did. Man has temporarily screwed things up, but God will fix it soon.

If the complaint is about things like men having nipples, that's just silly. It's comparable to the complaint that God shouldn't have made our eyes the way he did, because a different design might have let us see better. One can complain because he didn't give us eyes like trilobites that can see 360 degrees with perfect focus at all distances. One can complain that we can't fly, or move objects with our thoughts.

This is like a trash can complaining that it doesn't have headlights. We make trash cans to perform a particular function, and we only give it the capabilities that it needs. To be perfect, we would have to actually be "like God." God chose merely to make us in his image, and we should be content with that. Man was created less than perfect, but still very good. This does not indicate a lack of design, but merely which design was chosen.


Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted:Stone: I do know why men have nipples! ubblol I was just using that as an example.

The design of our eyes is [censored] thou. God could have not put a black layer over the recepters and given us less effective receptors. That would be sane. Not: oh bugger, their eyes are too good, I'll just put some black stuff over them to make them normal. What? This supposely perfect being is a bit lazy isn't he? He's designed a lot of things badly for somebody that's all-knowing and omnipotent. (And when I say badly, I mean it doesn't perform it's function very well, or it has useless parts) I'm not complaining that he didn't give us wings or stuff, I'm complaining that he didn't even take the time to make us right. I don't think god had crap eyes, or a vestigial tail. Or even any coporal form whatsoever.

I mean, if the garden of eden was sooo disease free, why did god create natural selection, because essential then, it's natural selection that's made diseases and caused us to die younger and easier. (or otherwise god nudging natural selection that way.) Surely natural selection is our punishment for original sin?

and actually, I think you'll find that Eve chose to disobey god. Adam just went along with Eve. (I think we know who wore the pants in that relationship.)

Why we're on the point of literal truth of the bible: Where are the people being turned into pillars of salt? And the interesting attitude that the husband of the that women that got turned into salt (name escapes me) displayed when a bunch of men came round to his house threatening him? So is gang rape of your daughter an acceptable behaviour in an 'emergency' situation? That's an interesting part of the bible that never got turned into law.

back on track:

so does creationism allow for there to be a process which made lots of animals different? Or did god create them all individually?

The spork, also known as the runcible spoon, was made for eating pickles in victorian times. Before that: nada. Perhaps indigineous folk made it, but that doesn't matter, because in our western sphere that's not known, so it was designed after the spoon and fork. Not inbetween.

<One cannot say that abiogenesis must have happened merely because we exist. One cannot say that a Rubiks cube must have been solved by chance merely because a solved on is found. One also has to consider the alternative theory. >

Yes you can. This is called reason and occams razor. simply: You can say that abiogenesis must have happened because we exist.

And the other argument: You can't say that god created us just because we exist. (because there are other, simpler explainations. and simpler explainations with more evidence are better in the scientific method.)

And anyway, don't they make rubics cubes solved, and then you have to mess them up?


Soooooo finally: You seem to be happy with god creating the laws that allow evolution and then he sits back and watches them go make new stuff.

Why is it that you're so unhappy with the idea that he did this 100 million (or whatever) years ago, as apposed to 10000 years ago? Just because you want the bible to be the literal truth?

Some bible scholars accept that most of the bible is written in a more 'emotional way' that we would write factual books today. (mostly cos our brains have changed) And it has to be read in a special way in order to understand the weird parts using the specific form of language they use. Usually one where literal facts are not as important as the emotional journey and imagery, which tell the actual message.


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: mcp


I mean, if the garden of eden was sooo disease free, why did god create natural selection, because essential then, it's natural selection that's made diseases and caused us to die younger and easier. (or otherwise god nudging natural selection that way.) Surely natural selection is our punishment for original sin?




As the discussion has demonstrated in the past, different meanings can be given to the words natural selection. If you use the term to refer to the concept that people with inferior traits will be less likely to reproduce, then you are correct that this did not start operating until the original sin.

 Written by: mcp


and actually, I think you'll find that Eve chose to disobey god. Adam just went along with Eve. (I think we know who wore the pants in that relationship.)




Actually, the Bible teaches that it was through Adams sin, not Eves that sin entered the world. Eve was deceived as to the consequences of her action because she believed the snake, and was in a sense less culpable. However, the Bible says that Adam was not deceived. Adam sinned knowing full well what he was doing, and it was through his act that death entered the world. Neither was wearing pants at the time. wink

The next section seems clearly off topic, but Ill go along for the fun of it.
 Written by: mcp


Why we're on the point of literal truth of the bible: Where are the people being turned into pillars of salt?


To my knowledge, only one person was turned into salt. As I remember, it occurred somewhere near the south end of modern day Israel.

 Written by: mcp


And the interesting attitude that the husband of the that women that got turned into salt (name escapes me) displayed when a bunch of men came round to his house threatening him? So is gang rape of your daughter an acceptable behaviour in an 'emergency' situation? That's an interesting part of the bible that never got turned into law.



His name was Lot. The reason it was not turned into law was because the story was a description of what he did, not a law as to what we are to do. The Bible describes many evil things that people have done, including this one. Of course, the Law of the Bible forbids what Lot tried to do. I would also point out that God saved the daughters from the gang rape by striking the men blind, and sending lot and his daughters out of that city.


 Written by: mcp


so does creationism allow for there to be a process which made lots of animals different? Or did god create them all individually?

Creationism affirms that God created many different kinds of animals. Creationism also accepts wide variation in the traits of these animals. Thus, poodles, great danes, and wolves likely all had two common ancestors on Noahs Ark. However, these ancestors were dogs, not reptiles.

 Written by: mcp


<One cannot say that abiogenesis must have happened merely because we exist. One cannot say that a Rubiks cube must have been solved by chance merely because a solved on is found. One also has to consider the alternative theory. >

Yes you can. This is called reason and occams razor. simply: You can say that abiogenesis must have happened because we exist.

And the other argument: You can't say that god created us just because we exist. (because there are other, simpler explainations. and simpler explainations with more evidence are better in the scientific method.)




1. There is no scientific evidence that supports abiogenesis or explains any mechanism by which it could have occurred without intelligent intervention. All of the experiments to date show that it could not have happened in nature.

2. Referring to occams razor is hardly useful. The theory that God simply created life is probably the simpler explanation, but this is a matter of personal opinion. Besides we know that the simplest explanation isnt always the correct one.

It used to be thought that mice would spontaneously generate from grain and old rags left in the corner of a barn, or that maggots would spontaneously generate from rotting meat. This was a simple explanation, and no doubt you could appeal to occams razor in favor of it. Experiments were done to prove this theory. You could leave meat out to rot, and maggots would grow in it simple cause and affect.

Of course, we know now that the correct explanation was more complex.

 Written by: mcp



And anyway, don't they make rubics cubes solved, and then you have to mess them up?



True, and creationists believe that this it the primary way in which evolution works. The original organisms were superior, and have been collecting errors, and losing information in their genes since then.

 Written by: mcp


Soooooo finally: You seem to be happy with god creating the laws that allow evolution and then he sits back and watches them go make new stuff.

Why is it that you're so unhappy with the idea that he did this 100 million (or whatever) years ago, as apposed to 10000 years ago? Just because you want the bible to be the literal truth?




I might as well ask why people would be unhappy with the idea that this happened only thousands of years ago. Just because they dont want the Bible to be true?


Delete

Page: 1...1920212223...30

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow

     Show more..