Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
ok so first read this https://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
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?
/end vent
ok so first read this https://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
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?
/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?
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
They must have had some pretty f**king fast radishes back in Eden to have needed cheetahs.
Patriarch917, you must Think!. What has been done to your mind by your family and peers is unforgivable but you can overcome it. You must have doubts. The inconsistancies and contradictions are countless. You can be rational again but you have to have the strength and will to admit your mistake and to face your own mortality. I wish you luck, but now all I can offer is my pity.
Written by: Patriarch917
According to Genesis 1:30, God intended for animals to eat plants, just like the first humans. Especially after the flood, plants would have been scarce since there seems to have been an ice age for quite some time afterward. This would have induced many animals to start eating meat. Men were specifically allowed to eat meat after the flood, so it is not inconcievable that animals first started to eat each other at this time. However, I would not be surprised to learn that both humans and animals started eating meat right after the fall.
They must have had some pretty f**king fast radishes back in Eden to have needed cheetahs.
Patriarch917, you must Think!. What has been done to your mind by your family and peers is unforgivable but you can overcome it. You must have doubts. The inconsistancies and contradictions are countless. You can be rational again but you have to have the strength and will to admit your mistake and to face your own mortality. I wish you luck, but now all I can offer is my pity.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
IMO, Patriarchs viewpoint is wrong; but, one think he can't be fairly accused of is not thinking.
It's obvious from his clearly written posts that he's done a lot of thinking, and he argues well.
I'm certainly not used to seeing such restrained and well thought out reasoning from someone who is basically supporting a fundamentalist viewpoint.
As for Cheetahs, I believe he's already addressed that question when he claimed that,prior to the fall, Cheetahs did not run fast as they didn't need to catch meat.
One of the main problems with fundamentalists is that they do not, or cannot, engage in reasoned debate- when one appears who can, it seems counter-productive to knock him/her down.
Disagree yes, debate yes; but, IMO, to accuse him of irrationality at the very time he's being considerably more rational than most fundamentilists seems counter-productive.
IMO, Patriarchs viewpoint is wrong; but, one think he can't be fairly accused of is not thinking.
It's obvious from his clearly written posts that he's done a lot of thinking, and he argues well.
I'm certainly not used to seeing such restrained and well thought out reasoning from someone who is basically supporting a fundamentalist viewpoint.
As for Cheetahs, I believe he's already addressed that question when he claimed that,prior to the fall, Cheetahs did not run fast as they didn't need to catch meat.
Written by: Patriarch917
5. Finally, God did not originally design cheetahs to eat meat. After man sinned, animals (and later men) began to eat each other. The fact that a particular breed of cats has to run fast to catch it’s food is evidence of the corrupting influence of sin.
One of the main problems with fundamentalists is that they do not, or cannot, engage in reasoned debate- when one appears who can, it seems counter-productive to knock him/her down.
Disagree yes, debate yes; but, IMO, to accuse him of irrationality at the very time he's being considerably more rational than most fundamentilists seems counter-productive.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
I believe in God and Evolution.
Sorted
I believe in God and Evolution.
Sorted Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
Written by: Patriarch917Written by: onewheeldave
I don't see how this diminishes the possibility that the matter itself could simply have existed forever.
because because matter falls apart, a basic principle of physics and the natural world is entropy-the natural propensity of matter to decayWritten by: ]If you choose to believe that matter and energy were not created by something (or someone) that is not matter and energy, then you must choose to believe that matter and energy have always existed. [/quote
mmmmnopeFaith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
addict
577 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
577 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Bah.. I looked over the full thread but didn't read it. After the first few pages I realized that there were immutable opinions on both sides and it wasn't much worth the discussion. However, this thread made me look up a show I hear on the radio every-so-often. Listening to evangelical bible thumping can be very, very amusing and sad all at the same time, making me giggle..
Anyways, the show is a hoot, and if you do nothing else, listen to the very first episode. Be fully prepared for the WTF at the end, afterall, this show is supposed to show how ID is irrefutable:
https://www.creationmoments.net/radio/archives.php
The first episode link is:
https://www.creationmoments.net/radio/listen.php?t=1
Bwahahah.. I love this show, it gives "Leap of Faith" a whole new meaning :P.
Bah.. I looked over the full thread but didn't read it. After the first few pages I realized that there were immutable opinions on both sides and it wasn't much worth the discussion. However, this thread made me look up a show I hear on the radio every-so-often. Listening to evangelical bible thumping can be very, very amusing and sad all at the same time, making me giggle..
Anyways, the show is a hoot, and if you do nothing else, listen to the very first episode. Be fully prepared for the WTF at the end, afterall, this show is supposed to show how ID is irrefutable:
https://www.creationmoments.net/radio/archives.php
The first episode link is:
https://www.creationmoments.net/radio/listen.php?t=1
Bwahahah.. I love this show, it gives "Leap of Faith" a whole new meaning :P.
Definition of poi- A Hawaiian food made from the tuber of the taro that is cooked, pounded to a paste, and fermented.
Ahnold discussing poi - "It is naht a toober!"
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
There is ample evidence for a large global flood. Even people who do not agree with the flood as described in the Bible believe that at one time virtually all of the earth was under water at some point. This is why we find fossils of water creatures on tops of mountains.
Things can be fossilized extremely rapidly, so rapidly that we can observe them. You are probably aware of the examples of the fossilized hat, the fossilized ham, and the fossilized water wheel.
If there were a global flood, one of the things you would expect to find is millions of dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the earth. This is exactly what we find in the fossil record.
Normally, when an organism dies, it rots or is eaten by scavengers. In order to preserve something as a fossil, the best method is to bury it quickly in the absence of oxygen. The conditions of the global flood are a better explanation of the fossils. The fact that we don’t see animals being fossilized today except in extreme circumstances (like floods) cuts against the theory that uniform process operating today can account for all the fossils.
The grand canyon is a perfect example of how the same evidence can be interpreted differently depending on your starting assumptions.
If you start with a premise of uniformity, you will look at the river in the bottom, theorize that that river is responsible for carving out the canyon, estimate how fast that much water could carve out a canyon of that size, and guess that the age is very, very old.
If you start with the premise that there was once a global catastrophe, like a flood, you may instead theorize that runoff of great deal of water could have carved out such a canyon in a short amount of time, and that the current size of the river in the bottom indicates processes that are operating now, but not in the past.
In other words, one person theorizes that a little bit of water and a whole lot of time created the canyon, another theorizes that a whole lot of water and a little bit of time created it.
Neither theory can be verified by an experiment. We cannot create a global flood to see if it can make a canyon of that size, and we cannot start a river and see what sort of canyon it makes in a million years.
The grand canyon is one of the favorite pieces of evidence for the flood, and I suggest anyone who is interested do some research, especially on the folded rock layers.
https://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
If you were to flatten out the land in the earth to a uniform sphere, there is enough water to cover the earth a mile deep.
The Bible says, as I remember, that the “fountains of the great deep were burst opened” and that it also rained. This implies that a lot of the water probably came from underground, and would have been accompanied by a lot of volcanic activity. Some theorize that there was a lot more water vapor in the air before the flood, acting as a canopy which would have shielded us from UV, and produced a more uniform climate with less severe seasons. It is theorized that destruction of this protective canopy has done a lot to change our planet.
The volcanic eruptions are thought to have put up a tremendous amount of ash, creating an ice age for hundreds of years after the flood. This would have been similar, though on a much larger scale, to the volcano eruption in Indonesia that cooled the earth during the early 500s.
It is critical to the discussion, but it is not critical to this thread. If you want to start a thread about the characteristics of Yahweh, and why some people believe in certain things, I will be happy to discuss it with you there.
Written by: jeff(fake)
But for that hypothesis to work there would need to be evidence for a large global flood and a mechanism by which an organism could be fossilised extremely rapidly, so rapidly that it would be possible to observe it. Looking at the grand canyon on Google Earth (36"06'29.19" N 113"13'35.01" W) shows geography akin to to gradual erosion and bears little likeness to areas which have experienced flooding in the past.
There is ample evidence for a large global flood. Even people who do not agree with the flood as described in the Bible believe that at one time virtually all of the earth was under water at some point. This is why we find fossils of water creatures on tops of mountains.
Things can be fossilized extremely rapidly, so rapidly that we can observe them. You are probably aware of the examples of the fossilized hat, the fossilized ham, and the fossilized water wheel.
If there were a global flood, one of the things you would expect to find is millions of dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the earth. This is exactly what we find in the fossil record.
Normally, when an organism dies, it rots or is eaten by scavengers. In order to preserve something as a fossil, the best method is to bury it quickly in the absence of oxygen. The conditions of the global flood are a better explanation of the fossils. The fact that we don’t see animals being fossilized today except in extreme circumstances (like floods) cuts against the theory that uniform process operating today can account for all the fossils.
The grand canyon is a perfect example of how the same evidence can be interpreted differently depending on your starting assumptions.
If you start with a premise of uniformity, you will look at the river in the bottom, theorize that that river is responsible for carving out the canyon, estimate how fast that much water could carve out a canyon of that size, and guess that the age is very, very old.
If you start with the premise that there was once a global catastrophe, like a flood, you may instead theorize that runoff of great deal of water could have carved out such a canyon in a short amount of time, and that the current size of the river in the bottom indicates processes that are operating now, but not in the past.
In other words, one person theorizes that a little bit of water and a whole lot of time created the canyon, another theorizes that a whole lot of water and a little bit of time created it.
Neither theory can be verified by an experiment. We cannot create a global flood to see if it can make a canyon of that size, and we cannot start a river and see what sort of canyon it makes in a million years.
The grand canyon is one of the favorite pieces of evidence for the flood, and I suggest anyone who is interested do some research, especially on the folded rock layers.
https://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
Written by: jeff(fake)
And while we're on the topic: where did all the water come from and where did it go?
If you were to flatten out the land in the earth to a uniform sphere, there is enough water to cover the earth a mile deep.
The Bible says, as I remember, that the “fountains of the great deep were burst opened” and that it also rained. This implies that a lot of the water probably came from underground, and would have been accompanied by a lot of volcanic activity. Some theorize that there was a lot more water vapor in the air before the flood, acting as a canopy which would have shielded us from UV, and produced a more uniform climate with less severe seasons. It is theorized that destruction of this protective canopy has done a lot to change our planet.
The volcanic eruptions are thought to have put up a tremendous amount of ash, creating an ice age for hundreds of years after the flood. This would have been similar, though on a much larger scale, to the volcano eruption in Indonesia that cooled the earth during the early 500s.
Written by: jeff(fake)
I think it's critical to the discussion as it is the sole reason for you being a creationist. Why do you see fit to worship the rascist, blood-thirsty, baby eating, mass murdering and egotistical volcano god of the ancienct Isrealites? Why not Allah or The Flying Spaggetti Monster? You have yet to make a comment to explain your dismisal of those hypothesises which are of equal validity to your own.
EDIT:I'm really trying not to be offensive but the actions reputed to be caused by Yahweh over the millennia can be described as nothing but evil.
It is critical to the discussion, but it is not critical to this thread. If you want to start a thread about the characteristics of Yahweh, and why some people believe in certain things, I will be happy to discuss it with you there.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Faithinfire, your post is a Q.D.A (Quote Disaster Area)
I've got no idea what point you're trying to make, but do feel free to clarify.
Nethertheless, I did actually spot something important in there, presumably from Patriarch- it is indeed true, according to science, that the nature of matter is to decay, and that the fundamental sub-atomic particles that make up matter, do have a limited (albeit, only over incredible time-scales) life before they decay.
Thus, according to science, they could not have existed for ever, as this is longer than their possible life-span.
So, thanks for that (whoever wrote it); though, I would point out that it could be a dubious argument for a creationist to use, as it seems to be relying on scientific arguments, whilst, in other areas, denying the validity of science.
Written by: faithinfireWritten by: Patriarch917Written by: onewheeldave
I don't see how this diminishes the possibility that the matter itself could simply have existed forever.
because because matter falls apart, a basic principle of physics and the natural world is entropy-the natural propensity of matter to decayWritten by: ]If you choose to believe that matter and energy were not created by something (or someone) that is not matter and energy, then you must choose to believe that matter and energy have always existed. [/quote
mmmmnope
Faithinfire, your post is a Q.D.A (Quote Disaster Area)
I've got no idea what point you're trying to make, but do feel free to clarify.
Nethertheless, I did actually spot something important in there, presumably from Patriarch- it is indeed true, according to science, that the nature of matter is to decay, and that the fundamental sub-atomic particles that make up matter, do have a limited (albeit, only over incredible time-scales) life before they decay.
Thus, according to science, they could not have existed for ever, as this is longer than their possible life-span.
So, thanks for that (whoever wrote it); though, I would point out that it could be a dubious argument for a creationist to use, as it seems to be relying on scientific arguments, whilst, in other areas, denying the validity of science.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
wrong topic by the way... it should read:
Intelligent Design, i.e. Evolution... not vs.... but what difference does it make anyways...
wrong topic by the way... it should read:
Intelligent Design, i.e. Evolution... not vs.... but what difference does it make anyways...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
I think I'm going to need more explanation of that - I don't see how a system based on an higher being designing creatures could be the same as one based almost entirely on chance.
Unless the designer implemented an evolutionary system as part of it's grand plan.
I think I'm going to need more explanation of that - I don't see how a system based on an higher being designing creatures could be the same as one based almost entirely on chance.
Unless the designer implemented an evolutionary system as part of it's grand plan.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think the title is correct. 1, ID, is the new word for creationisum: God made it all. Evolution is the evidence based theory that says all life evolved.
Written by: FireTom
wrong topic by the way... it should read:
Intelligent Design, i.e. Evolution... not vs.... but what difference does it make anyways...
I think the title is correct. 1, ID, is the new word for creationisum: God made it all. Evolution is the evidence based theory that says all life evolved.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think what Fire Tom is saying that evolution is "intelligent design", that God let us be creators "in his likeness" (as it says in the bible).
In other words, why could both not occur?
This is my philosophy on it. but hey, what do i know?!
I think what Fire Tom is saying that evolution is "intelligent design", that God let us be creators "in his likeness" (as it says in the bible).
In other words, why could both not occur?
This is my philosophy on it. but hey, what do i know?!
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
It depends how literally you take the part about god creating man in his image - if that happened, then we obviously couldn't have evolved by chance from apes.
If you take it a bit less literally though, god could still have created the earth and given it the initial spark of life with a mechanism for life to grow into different species, then let it run for a while by itself.
It depends how literally you take the part about god creating man in his image - if that happened, then we obviously couldn't have evolved by chance from apes.
If you take it a bit less literally though, god could still have created the earth and given it the initial spark of life with a mechanism for life to grow into different species, then let it run for a while by itself.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Patriach, take everything you've said, then replace God with Flying Spagetti monster.
You are irrational, but I refuse to believe that you are beyond help. I think perhaps the self evident ridiculusness of your arguments will become apparent even to you.
Did you even look at the grand canyon on google earth? There is a clear raised alluvial flood plain. If that canyon had been carved by the flood then that flood plain would have been at the bottom. It's a clear example of an overbanking river which has gradually worn down into the bedrock. Learn your geography (and your biology before you post more ridiculous links). It's simply not possible to hold a discussion with you when you wear your ignorance as a badge of honour.
Patriach, take everything you've said, then replace God with Flying Spagetti monster.
You are irrational, but I refuse to believe that you are beyond help. I think perhaps the self evident ridiculusness of your arguments will become apparent even to you.
Did you even look at the grand canyon on google earth? There is a clear raised alluvial flood plain. If that canyon had been carved by the flood then that flood plain would have been at the bottom. It's a clear example of an overbanking river which has gradually worn down into the bedrock. Learn your geography (and your biology before you post more ridiculous links). It's simply not possible to hold a discussion with you when you wear your ignorance as a badge of honour.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
I thought that was a bit arrogant and harsh Jeff. I don't agree with Patriarch, but I still respect him enough to listen to his views.
Why can't we just say "ah that's interesting, I just don't view life the same as you"
Bov, I dont think the bible should be taken literally by anyone, it was written 2000 years ago in Aramaic then translated! (a few times!) I very much doubt it has any relevance today. Still, a highly enjoyable romp! (still prefer harry potter though). :P
I thought that was a bit arrogant and harsh Jeff. I don't agree with Patriarch, but I still respect him enough to listen to his views.
Why can't we just say "ah that's interesting, I just don't view life the same as you"
Bov, I dont think the bible should be taken literally by anyone, it was written 2000 years ago in Aramaic then translated! (a few times!) I very much doubt it has any relevance today.
Still, a highly enjoyable romp! (still prefer harry potter though). :P Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
i dont think insulting somone is helping this debate in any way, you belive one thing, he belives another being a bit more constructive would hellp.
the bit bout the canion sub structure was better though
Written by: jeff(fake)
Patriach, take everything you've said, then replace God with Flying Spagetti monster.
You are irrational, but I refuse to believe that you are beyond help. I think perhaps the self evident ridiculusness of your arguments will become apparent even to you.
i dont think insulting somone is helping this debate in any way, you belive one thing, he belives another being a bit more constructive would hellp.
the bit bout the canion sub structure was better though
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I did look at your coordinates, but I'm not sure exactly what particular geographic feature you are referring to. Is your theory of where a global flood would have left a plain your own, or do you have a link to a source that I could look at?
I assume you saw the photos in my previous links of the evidence that suggests the layers of the grand canyon were bent and folded while soft and pliable. Here’s another link that deals with the uplifting of the canyon layers in general. It is a short, non-technical article.
https://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/grandcanyon.asp
The significance is that if the layers were indeed bent and folded while soft and pliable, this would indicate that they were laid down together, quickly, then folded soon afterward. This is the sort of action you would expect from a large flood.
Some may see delving deeply into flood geology as being ancillary to the discussion of ID, creation, and naturalistic evolution. If you like, we could drop it in favor of discussing a biological topic.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Did you even look at the grand canyon on google earth? There is a clear raised alluvial flood plain. If that canyon had been carved by the flood then that flood plain would have been at the bottom. It's a clear example of an overbanking river which has gradually worn down into the bedrock.
I did look at your coordinates, but I'm not sure exactly what particular geographic feature you are referring to. Is your theory of where a global flood would have left a plain your own, or do you have a link to a source that I could look at?
I assume you saw the photos in my previous links of the evidence that suggests the layers of the grand canyon were bent and folded while soft and pliable. Here’s another link that deals with the uplifting of the canyon layers in general. It is a short, non-technical article.
https://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/grandcanyon.asp
The significance is that if the layers were indeed bent and folded while soft and pliable, this would indicate that they were laid down together, quickly, then folded soon afterward. This is the sort of action you would expect from a large flood.
Some may see delving deeply into flood geology as being ancillary to the discussion of ID, creation, and naturalistic evolution. If you like, we could drop it in favor of discussing a biological topic.
SILVER Member
no excuses. no apologies.
1,799 posts
Location: aotearoa, New Zealand
no excuses. no apologies.
1,799 posts
Location: aotearoa, New Zealand
Posted:
or you could just go with the flow of the conversation, keeping in mind how this relates to what you are discussing, as it Is pertinent to the discussion.
or you could just go with the flow of the conversation, keeping in mind how this relates to what you are discussing, as it Is pertinent to the discussion.
those that know, dont say. those that say, dont know.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I'm in a much better mood now I'm no longer sick so I think a different approach would be more productive.
For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology. But by what means could intelligent design be disproven? Without providing a mechanism by which it can be disproved then it remains a matter of faith.
I'm in a much better mood now I'm no longer sick so I think a different approach would be more productive.
For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology. But by what means could intelligent design be disproven? Without providing a mechanism by which it can be disproved then it remains a matter of faith.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
This topic is funny.
I'm not sure why anyone debates this point any more.
Richard Dawkins has been on TV a lot recently arguing this case mostly along the lines of... "In no other area of science do we constantly have to prove the obvious."
I suggest that anyone who has even the slightest idea that ID may be a viable contender to evolution has a look HERE. Its out of date but this guy is the absolute of king of rational thought.
In the immortal words of Bill Hicks...
"Why is it that people who believe in creationism always look really unevolved?"
Jeff - "For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology." - This is an argument being used by some scientists in the US at the moment relating to the flagellum of a specific bacteria (this is a kind of "outboard motor" attached to the bacteria which cannot work without all 40 or so parts). Of course, this is not irreducible complexity though. It is just that we do not have any evidence of previous incarnations of such a creature. Its more to to with human stupidity than the lack of scientific ablity to prove the ID fanatics wrong.
There are lots of illogical theories that are gaining support around the globe at the moment. I'm just evjoying sitting back and laughing about it
For some light relief from the insanity of the world go buy this.
This topic is funny.
I'm not sure why anyone debates this point any more.
Richard Dawkins has been on TV a lot recently arguing this case mostly along the lines of... "In no other area of science do we constantly have to prove the obvious."
I suggest that anyone who has even the slightest idea that ID may be a viable contender to evolution has a look HERE. Its out of date but this guy is the absolute of king of rational thought.
In the immortal words of Bill Hicks...
"Why is it that people who believe in creationism always look really unevolved?"
Jeff - "For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology." - This is an argument being used by some scientists in the US at the moment relating to the flagellum of a specific bacteria (this is a kind of "outboard motor" attached to the bacteria which cannot work without all 40 or so parts). Of course, this is not irreducible complexity though. It is just that we do not have any evidence of previous incarnations of such a creature. Its more to to with human stupidity than the lack of scientific ablity to prove the ID fanatics wrong.
There are lots of illogical theories that are gaining support around the globe at the moment. I'm just evjoying sitting back and laughing about it
For some light relief from the insanity of the world go buy this.
newbie
5 posts
Location: Columbia, SC
5 posts
Location: Columbia, SC
Posted:
Hello, everyone. I've always found discussion on this topic to be interesting so please forgive my trespass in the middle of your discussion.
As per Jeff's comment, let me respond by saying "I like spaghetti."
As for the query: "Why can't evolution co-exist with intelligent design?" I think the question invites much unwarranted debate due to the equivocal nature of the terms.
Creationists (at least the somewhat mentally grounded ones) accept the premise of evolution insofar as it is consistent with the evidence. The point of contention arises when this evidence is given gravity beyond its empirical value. Can this observed and scientific evolution intra-species be stretched to assume inter-species evolution?
Darwin proposed that his finches evolved by allotropic theory - natural selection favoured certain beaks in their respective environs, and thus they would out-compete their (inter alia) inferior beaked brethren, resulting in a speciation between geographical confines. But the end result is simply birds with different beaks – but still birds. As of yet, we have yet to find any evidence that a bird can produce any sort of non-bird: this is a leap that inter-species evolution must make.
Then to follow the theory of evolution to its logical conclusion would be to assume that modern man shared a common ancestry with the modern banana, as we all evolved from the same macromolecule. This sounds absurd on its face, but naturalistic evolution must concede this point. Even so, we must then make the leap of life from non-life; i.e. organic evolution. This phenomenon has never been observed and is a mere assumption. Again, this is a leap of faith, under girded by naturalistic philosophies – the application of certain presuppositions to the scientific inquiry.
In summary, it’s not the theory of evolution that most creationists have a problem with. It’s the cognizance that atheistic philosophies have been applied to the sciences and cast upon evidence an interpretation that merely begs the question. The only way to justify these leaps in naturalistic evolution is to cling tightly to the gods of time and chance; but to justify it under these conditions would be to assume an inherent property of matter that has never been observed before…not very scientific.
My point isn’t to ridicule evolutionary theory…just to point out that both sides have their “flying spaghetti monsters” as Jeff so eloquently stated. Some may find solace in clinging to time and chance…but it is every bit as religious (and in my opinion, less philosophically sustainable) than clinging to the notion of an omnipotent being.
Hello, everyone. I've always found discussion on this topic to be interesting so please forgive my trespass in the middle of your discussion.
As per Jeff's comment, let me respond by saying "I like spaghetti."
As for the query: "Why can't evolution co-exist with intelligent design?" I think the question invites much unwarranted debate due to the equivocal nature of the terms.
Creationists (at least the somewhat mentally grounded ones) accept the premise of evolution insofar as it is consistent with the evidence. The point of contention arises when this evidence is given gravity beyond its empirical value. Can this observed and scientific evolution intra-species be stretched to assume inter-species evolution?
Darwin proposed that his finches evolved by allotropic theory - natural selection favoured certain beaks in their respective environs, and thus they would out-compete their (inter alia) inferior beaked brethren, resulting in a speciation between geographical confines. But the end result is simply birds with different beaks – but still birds. As of yet, we have yet to find any evidence that a bird can produce any sort of non-bird: this is a leap that inter-species evolution must make.
Then to follow the theory of evolution to its logical conclusion would be to assume that modern man shared a common ancestry with the modern banana, as we all evolved from the same macromolecule. This sounds absurd on its face, but naturalistic evolution must concede this point. Even so, we must then make the leap of life from non-life; i.e. organic evolution. This phenomenon has never been observed and is a mere assumption. Again, this is a leap of faith, under girded by naturalistic philosophies – the application of certain presuppositions to the scientific inquiry.
In summary, it’s not the theory of evolution that most creationists have a problem with. It’s the cognizance that atheistic philosophies have been applied to the sciences and cast upon evidence an interpretation that merely begs the question. The only way to justify these leaps in naturalistic evolution is to cling tightly to the gods of time and chance; but to justify it under these conditions would be to assume an inherent property of matter that has never been observed before…not very scientific.
My point isn’t to ridicule evolutionary theory…just to point out that both sides have their “flying spaghetti monsters” as Jeff so eloquently stated. Some may find solace in clinging to time and chance…but it is every bit as religious (and in my opinion, less philosophically sustainable) than clinging to the notion of an omnipotent being.
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Eminese... We've been over this already.
Natural selection and evolution are not one and the same thing.
Your post is about Neo-Darwinism NOT evolution.
aside from which
we share over 60% of our DNA with bananas
Eminese... We've been over this already.
Natural selection and evolution are not one and the same thing.
Your post is about Neo-Darwinism NOT evolution.
aside from which
Written by:
Then to follow the theory of evolution to its logical conclusion would be to assume that modern man shared a common ancestry with the modern banana,
we share over 60% of our DNA with bananas
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Damn it, I'm cringing looking at my earlier posts now. Might have just been the flu or random mood swings.
Damn it, I'm cringing looking at my earlier posts now. Might have just been the flu or random mood swings.
Written by: SeyeThere is a bacteria which uses a reduced flagellum motor as a means of toxin injection. It's a derived mechanism rather than a ancesteral form but it does show that the bacterial flagellus could have existed in a simpler form.
Jeff - "For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology." - This is an argument being used by some scientists in the US at the moment relating to the flagellum of a specific bacteria (this is a kind of "outboard motor" attached to the bacteria which cannot work without all 40 or so parts). Of course, this is not irreducible complexity though. It is just that we do not have any evidence of previous incarnations of such a creature. Its more to to with human stupidity than the lack of scientific ablity to prove the ID fanatics wrong.
Written by: EminenseConcede the point? Naturalist evolution doesn't have any trouble at all with it! The scientific consensus is that all life shares a common ancester, not just man and bananas. At the time our common ancestor was just a glorified amoeba. Differences like plants and hands took about a billion years to come about.
Then to follow the theory of evolution to its logical conclusion would be to assume that modern man shared a common ancestry with the modern banana, as we all evolved from the same macromolecule. This sounds absurd on its face, but naturalistic evolution must concede this point.
Written by: EminenseWhat property is that? Neo-darwinism doesn't make any claims which violate the known laws of chemistry or physics.
...but to justify it under these conditions would be to assume an inherent property of matter that has never been observed before…not very scientific.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Wrong, sorry
Some sub-atomic particles decay; but certainly not all of them. Electrons and electron-neutrinos do not decay, protons may decay (but over incredibly long spans - their half-life is at least 10^32 years based on current evidence) and neutrons only decay if not bound up within an atomic nucleous.
So basically we'd only notice any kind of decay if protons do decay, and even then we'd have to wait for the Universe to be a thousand trillion trillion times as old as it is today for half of all protons to have decayed...
Written by: onewheeldave
Nethertheless, I did actually spot something important in there, presumably from Patriarch- it is indeed true, according to science, that the nature of matter is to decay, and that the fundamental sub-atomic particles that make up matter, do have a limited (albeit, only over incredible time-scales) life before they decay.
Thus, according to science, they could not have existed for ever, as this is longer than their possible life-span.
So, thanks for that (whoever wrote it); though, I would point out that it could be a dubious argument for a creationist to use, as it seems to be relying on scientific arguments, whilst, in other areas, denying the validity of science.
Wrong, sorry
Some sub-atomic particles decay; but certainly not all of them. Electrons and electron-neutrinos do not decay, protons may decay (but over incredibly long spans - their half-life is at least 10^32 years based on current evidence) and neutrons only decay if not bound up within an atomic nucleous.
So basically we'd only notice any kind of decay if protons do decay, and even then we'd have to wait for the Universe to be a thousand trillion trillion times as old as it is today for half of all protons to have decayed...
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
What I was saying was, that intelligent design is an evolutionary process (IMO)...
don't want to pull this thread down, but who knows whether under gods long old beard comes a hairy chest and some monkey heart?
To deny the possible co-existence of both theories at the same time is the old: "I'm righter than right"-position.
After all the possibility would be there that (to put up a totally abstruse one) a genetic pool was sent by spacecraft to this planet being sent to evolute, which - according to plan - it lately did. To regard ourselves a part of an entire organism is another view. Much like parasites who are not parasites, but live with their host in harmony... decision being a lethal virus vs. a benefit *turns off preacherman*
No really I can find aspects to unite both theories without proving the other wrong
Watch Karpov vs. Ugly Joe and you find the outcome just a logical consequence - hence it was both, evolution and design...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1138726111)
What I was saying was, that intelligent design is an evolutionary process (IMO)...
don't want to pull this thread down, but who knows whether under gods long old beard comes a hairy chest and some monkey heart?
To deny the possible co-existence of both theories at the same time is the old: "I'm righter than right"-position.
After all the possibility would be there that (to put up a totally abstruse one) a genetic pool was sent by spacecraft to this planet being sent to evolute, which - according to plan - it lately did. To regard ourselves a part of an entire organism is another view. Much like parasites who are not parasites, but live with their host in harmony... decision being a lethal virus vs. a benefit *turns off preacherman*
No really I can find aspects to unite both theories without proving the other wrong
Watch Karpov vs. Ugly Joe and you find the outcome just a logical consequence - hence it was both, evolution and design... EDITED_BY: FireTom (1138726111)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
It's true that ID and evolution could both be right, but at the moment there isn't any good evidence that organism have been intelligently designed.
It's true that ID and evolution could both be right, but at the moment there isn't any good evidence that organism have been intelligently designed.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Evolution is such a broad term it can mean whatever you want. A bit like God. Combine the two and you have a plethora of nothingness.
Neodarwinism and ID are not compatible. The intelligent part of ID is about a conscious, transcendent being designing the universe to be the way it is. If the designer is Dawkins blind watchmaker then its not ID.
Evolution is such a broad term it can mean whatever you want. A bit like God. Combine the two and you have a plethora of nothingness.
Neodarwinism and ID are not compatible. The intelligent part of ID is about a conscious, transcendent being designing the universe to be the way it is. If the designer is Dawkins blind watchmaker then its not ID.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Theoretically organisms could have been intelligently designed at the begining. After that they would evolve in a neo-darwinian fashion. As I mentioned earlier though there simply isn't reason to supsect an intelligent designer.
Theoretically organisms could have been intelligently designed at the begining. After that they would evolve in a neo-darwinian fashion. As I mentioned earlier though there simply isn't reason to supsect an intelligent designer.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
I think the problem most IDers have as much with theories of abiogenesis (the origin of life) as "macroevolution" (a meaningless concept that the IDers came up with themselves). Being able to accept that evolution occurs is a different thing from accepting that life arose spontaneously out of non-living matter...
I think the problem most IDers have as much with theories of abiogenesis (the origin of life) as "macroevolution" (a meaningless concept that the IDers came up with themselves). Being able to accept that evolution occurs is a different thing from accepting that life arose spontaneously out of non-living matter...
"Moo," said the happy cow.
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Evolution (which broadly speaking means opening out from a common envelope) and ID are in many ways wholly incompatible. Much more so than old skool creationism, or a lot of somewhat off the wall but plausible pagan beliefs.
One says that humanity is just one step from an omnipotent being
The other says we're just a complex organism which isn't really that special at all (except in our destructive capabilities)
As for 'we are like our mighty intelligent designer' or 'we are made in God's image'... No species which is currently altering environmental conditions so as to render itself extinct really has the right to call itself intelligent, let alone god-like.
Now if you drop the biblical references, with their specificity towards a certain conception of God as transcendent, conscious and thus intelligent (and the nonsense about humans being made in his image... ), then you go down a much more interesting path.
One where you get pm's from Jeff saying your semantic wranglings mean that you're no longer talking about (his conception of) God.
Written by:
I think what Fire Tom is saying that evolution is "intelligent design", that God let us be creators "in his likeness" (as it says in the bible).
In other words, why could both not occur?
Evolution (which broadly speaking means opening out from a common envelope) and ID are in many ways wholly incompatible. Much more so than old skool creationism, or a lot of somewhat off the wall but plausible pagan beliefs.
One says that humanity is just one step from an omnipotent being
The other says we're just a complex organism which isn't really that special at all (except in our destructive capabilities)
As for 'we are like our mighty intelligent designer' or 'we are made in God's image'... No species which is currently altering environmental conditions so as to render itself extinct really has the right to call itself intelligent, let alone god-like.
Now if you drop the biblical references, with their specificity towards a certain conception of God as transcendent, conscious and thus intelligent (and the nonsense about humans being made in his image... ), then you go down a much more interesting path.
One where you get pm's from Jeff saying your semantic wranglings mean that you're no longer talking about (his conception of) God.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
From the OED
poor paranoid neodarwinists... they think the whole world's full of irrational ID types.
Written by:
macroevolution" (a meaningless concept that the IDers came up with themselves
From the OED
Written by:
Macroevolution
1.Major evolutionary change, usually over a long period; the evolution of genera or higher taxa.
1937 T. DOZHANSKY Genetics & Origin of Species i. 12 For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and micro-evolution
poor paranoid neodarwinists... they think the whole world's full of irrational ID types.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [intelligent design v * evolution] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [866 replies]
- Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com