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?
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
I agree, it would have been very easy to drop into returning insults with insults, Patriarch at least has my respect for not doing so.
I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, we each have our own minds.
It's more the manner in which the disagreeing is done that frustrates me. As I said earlier, it's just repeating the same statements and taking the bible as fact when it's definately not been proven as such. To be honest, it just reminds me of arguing with a child whose only response is 'I'm right because I know I am' and is just completely pointless.
The only difference here aside from age is that the response is 'That's your interpretation of the evidence, but since the bible says different, you're wrong.'
There's just no arguing with that - it just gets repeated as the answer to everything until people are too fed up to continue.
Heh, I imagine that I probably come across the same way on more than the odd occasion *mumbles something about fountains and windmills*
.
But at least I base my arguements on more than just blind faith.
I agree, it would have been very easy to drop into returning insults with insults, Patriarch at least has my respect for not doing so.
I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, we each have our own minds.
It's more the manner in which the disagreeing is done that frustrates me. As I said earlier, it's just repeating the same statements and taking the bible as fact when it's definately not been proven as such. To be honest, it just reminds me of arguing with a child whose only response is 'I'm right because I know I am' and is just completely pointless.
The only difference here aside from age is that the response is 'That's your interpretation of the evidence, but since the bible says different, you're wrong.'
There's just no arguing with that - it just gets repeated as the answer to everything until people are too fed up to continue.
Heh, I imagine that I probably come across the same way on more than the odd occasion *mumbles something about fountains and windmills*
.But at least I base my arguements on more than just blind faith.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm genuinely surprised that you feel Patriarch is simply justifying his beliefs with 'it's in the bible'.
I've known many creationists who do do that, but it seems to me that he's going to lengths to show evidence and reason for those beliefs.
To be honest, I'm saddened by some of what I feel are quite prejudiced posts on this thread, especially as I'm so used to seeing this kind of thing coming from fundamentalist/creationists, whereas here it's from the opposing side.
I suspect it's partly due to the 'many against one' nature of this thread- being in the majority against an individual seems to make the people who make up that majority very forgiving when others post in a way which, in any other context, would be seen as not acceptable.
At the end of the day, I disagree fully with Patriarchs position and share the unease felt by many here about the possibility of ID being taught in schools- nevertheless, in terms of rational, reasoned and polite debate, I have to say that Patriarch, IMO, has achieved far more in this thread, than those who are opposing him.
Anyway, there's no real point in getting into a further debate on this, I'm just putting forward my feelings on the matter.
I would hope that some will reflect on what I'm saying about the 'many against one' factor- from previous unpleasant experiences on this board where I've been in that position, I can assure you it's most unpleasant.
I'm genuinely surprised that you feel Patriarch is simply justifying his beliefs with 'it's in the bible'.
I've known many creationists who do do that, but it seems to me that he's going to lengths to show evidence and reason for those beliefs.
To be honest, I'm saddened by some of what I feel are quite prejudiced posts on this thread, especially as I'm so used to seeing this kind of thing coming from fundamentalist/creationists, whereas here it's from the opposing side.
I suspect it's partly due to the 'many against one' nature of this thread- being in the majority against an individual seems to make the people who make up that majority very forgiving when others post in a way which, in any other context, would be seen as not acceptable.
At the end of the day, I disagree fully with Patriarchs position and share the unease felt by many here about the possibility of ID being taught in schools- nevertheless, in terms of rational, reasoned and polite debate, I have to say that Patriarch, IMO, has achieved far more in this thread, than those who are opposing him.
Anyway, there's no real point in getting into a further debate on this, I'm just putting forward my feelings on the matter.
I would hope that some will reflect on what I'm saying about the 'many against one' factor- from previous unpleasant experiences on this board where I've been in that position, I can assure you it's most unpleasant.
"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
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
This is one of the most important questions anyone can ask from a holistic belief system. I will do my best to explain the Bible’s position on the matter.
In the beginning, the world was created perfect. We humans were created as sinless, innocent, immortals, and we were put in a position of authority over the new creation. We were intended to be the princes of this world, having been given that authority by our father the King.
Sadly, man was not satisfied with this. Puffed up with pride, man wanted to be “like God.” Man rebelled against the authority of God, in an act which is generally referred to as “the Fall.” Man was cast down from his position of authority, and has been allowed a taste of what life without God’s authority is like.
What many people don’t know is that it wasn’t just man that was corrupted. We were supposed to be the rulers of this universe, and when we fell all creation fell with us. Not just man, but all creation is currently under a curse. We wanted to be free to have things our own way, to rule creation as we saw fit. You can judge for yourselves what kind of job we have done on our own. Pointless suffering abounds, the world is degenerating, and the only sure things are death and taxes. Religion is just man’s attempt to make himself right again, but this is like a dead man trying to make himself come alive. Nothing we can do can pay for the crimes we have committed.
However, God has not permanently cast us away. He sent his Son the messiah to be an innocent sacrifice, the only one with the bankroll big enough to pay the penalty for our wrongs. What many people don’t know is that the Bible says that the messiah’s sacrifice was not just to redeem us, but to redeem all creation from the curse.
And so, we now have an opportunity to be restored to our original condition by accepting the offer of the messiah to take our punishments upon him. God is willing to forgive the rebellion, and to let us back into the kingdom free of charge. God is waiting patiently, to give everyone who needs it the opportunity to return to him before the end.
The end, of course, refers to the end of this corrupt state of suffering and death. The Bible says that at that time God will recreate the world and give us incorruptible bodies that will be free from suffering and death, and that we will once again get to live the lives that we were supposed to.
It’s obvious that this universe was not intended to be explored by people with finite life spans. The space age won’t truly begin until we all have eternal life with which to enjoy creation.
Written by: Sethis
Explain for faithless people like me why there is suffering in an intelligently designed world? And why is so much of it pointless? And why is so much of it caused by religion?
This is one of the most important questions anyone can ask from a holistic belief system. I will do my best to explain the Bible’s position on the matter.
In the beginning, the world was created perfect. We humans were created as sinless, innocent, immortals, and we were put in a position of authority over the new creation. We were intended to be the princes of this world, having been given that authority by our father the King.
Sadly, man was not satisfied with this. Puffed up with pride, man wanted to be “like God.” Man rebelled against the authority of God, in an act which is generally referred to as “the Fall.” Man was cast down from his position of authority, and has been allowed a taste of what life without God’s authority is like.
What many people don’t know is that it wasn’t just man that was corrupted. We were supposed to be the rulers of this universe, and when we fell all creation fell with us. Not just man, but all creation is currently under a curse. We wanted to be free to have things our own way, to rule creation as we saw fit. You can judge for yourselves what kind of job we have done on our own. Pointless suffering abounds, the world is degenerating, and the only sure things are death and taxes. Religion is just man’s attempt to make himself right again, but this is like a dead man trying to make himself come alive. Nothing we can do can pay for the crimes we have committed.
However, God has not permanently cast us away. He sent his Son the messiah to be an innocent sacrifice, the only one with the bankroll big enough to pay the penalty for our wrongs. What many people don’t know is that the Bible says that the messiah’s sacrifice was not just to redeem us, but to redeem all creation from the curse.
And so, we now have an opportunity to be restored to our original condition by accepting the offer of the messiah to take our punishments upon him. God is willing to forgive the rebellion, and to let us back into the kingdom free of charge. God is waiting patiently, to give everyone who needs it the opportunity to return to him before the end.
The end, of course, refers to the end of this corrupt state of suffering and death. The Bible says that at that time God will recreate the world and give us incorruptible bodies that will be free from suffering and death, and that we will once again get to live the lives that we were supposed to.
It’s obvious that this universe was not intended to be explored by people with finite life spans. The space age won’t truly begin until we all have eternal life with which to enjoy creation.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
But Patriarch - this would imply that mankind has "free will" and therefore "freedom of choice"... If god created mankind after his own image, he himself is in not better state. He makes mistakes and errors. He gets tempted and he does whatever pleases him the most at the time.
The son/ messiah has been here 2 millenia ago and mankind really has neither acknowledged that for any good than political reasons, nor has it turned to the better... it seems to be worse than ever.
The "slogans" that you recite are what I hear from "spiritual" people who exploit the despare of average joes. It's very much to me like the saying "the earth is the center of the universe" - mankind came to the INSIGHT that in fact this planet is not even the center of THIS galaxy... Whereas this doesn't matter too much, because it's OUR center of the universe.
As long as we acknowledge and respect, that every lifeform in the universe might have the same view - it's perfectly fine with me. But the said "slogans" are usually used by priests, kings and perpetrators to mankind, who claim the pristine rith to be superior and to rule upon everyone else...
To me this is a childs view on the universe and mankind - unwilling to detach from simplistic explanatory models of the universe and how it works. It's like many religions who are stuck in their 3000+ years of existance and traditions unwilling to open their minds in a fashion that they miss the point.
IF Jesus was the messiah - how come that the Hebrew didn't and don't acknowledge him? THEY are the ones who are the chosen people and who are in direct connection between the world and god. Jesus was one of THEM - he was a Hebrew. (Yeah right, now I can already hear you saying: well look at the suffering since... ) But if you take the Bible and show it to a Muslim, or a Hindu you will certainly get different opinions to the subject... Now: Are they wrong and you are right?
ID really would need a "creator" in the first place - and as the existance of such "creator" is not scientifically proven (yet) - it is good to raise questions against. However you find me confused, Patriarch, since otherwise you depend on rocksolid scientific evidence, rather than belief...
Anyways I too want to applaud you for staying calm and not giving in to personal assaults.
But Patriarch - this would imply that mankind has "free will" and therefore "freedom of choice"... If god created mankind after his own image, he himself is in not better state. He makes mistakes and errors. He gets tempted and he does whatever pleases him the most at the time.
The son/ messiah has been here 2 millenia ago and mankind really has neither acknowledged that for any good than political reasons, nor has it turned to the better... it seems to be worse than ever.
The "slogans" that you recite are what I hear from "spiritual" people who exploit the despare of average joes. It's very much to me like the saying "the earth is the center of the universe" - mankind came to the INSIGHT that in fact this planet is not even the center of THIS galaxy... Whereas this doesn't matter too much, because it's OUR center of the universe.
As long as we acknowledge and respect, that every lifeform in the universe might have the same view - it's perfectly fine with me. But the said "slogans" are usually used by priests, kings and perpetrators to mankind, who claim the pristine rith to be superior and to rule upon everyone else...
To me this is a childs view on the universe and mankind - unwilling to detach from simplistic explanatory models of the universe and how it works. It's like many religions who are stuck in their 3000+ years of existance and traditions unwilling to open their minds in a fashion that they miss the point.
IF Jesus was the messiah - how come that the Hebrew didn't and don't acknowledge him? THEY are the ones who are the chosen people and who are in direct connection between the world and god. Jesus was one of THEM - he was a Hebrew. (Yeah right, now I can already hear you saying: well look at the suffering since...
) But if you take the Bible and show it to a Muslim, or a Hindu you will certainly get different opinions to the subject... Now: Are they wrong and you are right?ID really would need a "creator" in the first place - and as the existance of such "creator" is not scientifically proven (yet) - it is good to raise questions against. However you find me confused, Patriarch, since otherwise you depend on rocksolid scientific evidence, rather than belief...
Anyways I too want to applaud you for staying calm and not giving in to personal assaults.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I'll be stepping back from this thread since I can't keep my temper any more here. As a parting shot I'd like to point out that there still hasen't been any response on how we can see a galaxy millions of light years away if we are only 6000 years old. I bid you all adui for now but I will be back.
I'll be stepping back from this thread since I can't keep my temper any more here. As a parting shot I'd like to point out that there still hasen't been any response on how we can see a galaxy millions of light years away if we are only 6000 years old. I bid you all adui for now but I will be back.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
Pride is a sin. If we were created sinless and perfect, where did the flaw come from?
A taste? 4 millenia isn't a "taste", it's the entire history of the human race. If it was a few generations or so, then it would be a taste.
Doesn't that attitude scare you? Even a little? We were supposed to be masters of the universe? Isn't that even a *little* egotistic?
Isn't freedom and independance the founding principles of America? More to the point, aren't they basic human rights? Surely if we were created perfect then we would be able to govern ourselves efficiently?
Crimes we've committed? You mean, like the crimes Adam and Eve committed? I'm personally unsure of what exactly I've done to piss God off so much. What has each individual who has suffered done to deserve their suffering? Isn't it just a *little* unfair to blame all of humanity for "crimes" committed millenia ago?
Well, it wasn't really that much of a sacrifice, was it? I mean, for most of us, we stay dead. He got up days later and ascended into heaven. Easy enough for him to die, he's already guaranteed a place on the right hand of God. Much more difficult for us to do so and be confident of where we'll end up. 2000 years later and the great sacrifice doesn't appear to have done very much. We're just as sinful as ever. Surely God *knew* that this would be the result when he sent his son down? Being omniscient and all.
So what was the point in all the millenia of suffering in between? Why didn't he just "reset the system" straight after the Fall? Why wait thousands of years and punish billions of people for sins that they didn't commit in the first place, and aren't their fault?
But surely when we're all safe and immortal and so on, then we won't really care about where we are physically? We'll be in heaven (or hell, if you're unlucky) and living forever at the side of God. What is the brilliance of a binary star system compared to that? Surely we'll have more contructive things to do than sit on a spaceship going slower than the speed of light for millenia?
Hmm. Maybe I should have said all of this in a PM
Anyway, that's my opinion. Feel free to rebuke it. 
Written by: Patriarch917
In the beginning, the world was created perfect. We humans were created as sinless, innocent, immortals...
man was not satisfied with this. Puffed up with pride, man wanted to be “like God.”
Pride is a sin. If we were created sinless and perfect, where did the flaw come from?
Written by: Patriarch917
Man was cast down from his position of authority, and has been allowed a taste of what life without God’s authority is like.
A taste? 4 millenia isn't a "taste", it's the entire history of the human race. If it was a few generations or so, then it would be a taste.
Written by: Patriarch917
We were supposed to be the rulers of this universe, and when we fell all creation fell with us.
Doesn't that attitude scare you? Even a little? We were supposed to be masters of the universe? Isn't that even a *little* egotistic?
Written by: Patriarch917
We wanted to be free to have things our own way, to rule creation as we saw fit.
Isn't freedom and independance the founding principles of America? More to the point, aren't they basic human rights? Surely if we were created perfect then we would be able to govern ourselves efficiently?
Written by: Patriarch917
Nothing we can do can pay for the crimes we have committed.
Crimes we've committed? You mean, like the crimes Adam and Eve committed? I'm personally unsure of what exactly I've done to piss God off so much. What has each individual who has suffered done to deserve their suffering? Isn't it just a *little* unfair to blame all of humanity for "crimes" committed millenia ago?
Written by: Patriarch917
However, God has not permanently cast us away. He sent his Son the messiah to be an innocent sacrifice, the only one with the bankroll big enough to pay the penalty for our wrongs.
Well, it wasn't really that much of a sacrifice, was it? I mean, for most of us, we stay dead. He got up days later and ascended into heaven. Easy enough for him to die, he's already guaranteed a place on the right hand of God. Much more difficult for us to do so and be confident of where we'll end up. 2000 years later and the great sacrifice doesn't appear to have done very much. We're just as sinful as ever. Surely God *knew* that this would be the result when he sent his son down? Being omniscient and all.
Written by: Patriarch917
The end, of course, refers to the end of this corrupt state of suffering and death. The Bible says that at that time God will recreate the world and give us incorruptible bodies that will be free from suffering and death, and that we will once again get to live the lives that we were supposed to.
So what was the point in all the millenia of suffering in between? Why didn't he just "reset the system" straight after the Fall? Why wait thousands of years and punish billions of people for sins that they didn't commit in the first place, and aren't their fault?
Written by: Patriarch917
It’s obvious that this universe was not intended to be explored by people with finite life spans. The space age won’t truly begin until we all have eternal life with which to enjoy creation.
But surely when we're all safe and immortal and so on, then we won't really care about where we are physically? We'll be in heaven (or hell, if you're unlucky) and living forever at the side of God. What is the brilliance of a binary star system compared to that? Surely we'll have more contructive things to do than sit on a spaceship going slower than the speed of light for millenia?
Hmm. Maybe I should have said all of this in a PM
Anyway, that's my opinion. Feel free to rebuke it. After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Geek
1,261 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Thats possibly the most stupid thing I've ever read!
Written by: Patriarch917
That the Bible has not yet been disproved on this point.
Thats possibly the most stupid thing I've ever read!
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
@Jeff: I don't get the point of your question, Jeff - but I respect your decision
Without any research and profound knowledge of physics and astronomy: "how we can see a galaxy millions of light years away?" I'd say that the light travelling from another galaxy takes some time to reach earth, therefore we are able to see them (now) - as for the reference: "if we are only 6000 years old?" I don't know what you are talking about.
If you mean that mankind itself might has been created 6000 years ago and put on this planet... we would still see that light coming as the planet(s) have been created in the 5 days before (which may well be 5 Billion years --- remember you don't have to take everything in the Bible literally). If you try to question creationism, let your anger aside and come up with more sophisticated questions...
@Sethis: Man you don't get it, do ya? We are ALL children of Adam and Eve. If the description of god in the Bible is accurate, he's a naggin' ol' pedantic technician, mean and angry. He takes an eye for an eye and condemns for a loooooooong time. Just look at the Hebrews and how his very own people have to suffer, just because they stood aside when the romans killed his only son. 2000 years of homelessness and suffering and in the end almost genocide. Now for about 5 decades a constant war with no certain outcome...
He grants ONE - no really, only ONE chance/ lifetime to make it up to him - either you get it, or you are doomed for eternity... and especially: it doesn't matter HOW good of a person you have been in this one single lifetime - if you do not choose his son as the messiah and deliverance, you still go to hell. Meaning that George, big W.B. will certainly go to heaven, whilst in the case of Tenzin Gyatso (the actual ruling Dalai Lama) it is very much clear that he'll go to hell...
Guess what my choice would be... ?
Clearly
But apart from that and honestly, I recommend you watching the flick "Bruce Almighty" and you may get a different view...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1139062954)
@Jeff: I don't get the point of your question, Jeff - but I respect your decision
Without any research and profound knowledge of physics and astronomy: "how we can see a galaxy millions of light years away?" I'd say that the light travelling from another galaxy takes some time to reach earth, therefore we are able to see them (now) - as for the reference: "if we are only 6000 years old?" I don't know what you are talking about.
If you mean that mankind itself might has been created 6000 years ago and put on this planet... we would still see that light coming as the planet(s) have been created in the 5 days before (which may well be 5 Billion years --- remember you don't have to take everything in the Bible literally). If you try to question creationism, let your anger aside and come up with more sophisticated questions...
@Sethis: Man you don't get it, do ya? We are ALL children of Adam and Eve. If the description of god in the Bible is accurate, he's a naggin' ol' pedantic technician, mean and angry. He takes an eye for an eye and condemns for a loooooooong time. Just look at the Hebrews and how his very own people have to suffer, just because they stood aside when the romans killed his only son. 2000 years of homelessness and suffering and in the end almost genocide. Now for about 5 decades a constant war with no certain outcome...
He grants ONE - no really, only ONE chance/ lifetime to make it up to him - either you get it, or you are doomed for eternity... and especially: it doesn't matter HOW good of a person you have been in this one single lifetime - if you do not choose his son as the messiah and deliverance, you still go to hell. Meaning that George, big W.B. will certainly go to heaven, whilst in the case of Tenzin Gyatso (the actual ruling Dalai Lama) it is very much clear that he'll go to hell...
Guess what my choice would be... ?
Clearly
But apart from that and honestly, I recommend you watching the flick "Bruce Almighty" and you may get a different view...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1139062954)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Written by: FireTomI'll respond to that because it was slightly cheeky! In the creation the Heavens and the Earth were created simultaniously. You could still have Intelligent design without an early creation but not a literal Biblical interpratation.
I don't get the point of your question, Jeff - but I respect your decision
Without any research and profound knowledge of physics and astronomy: "how we can see a galaxy millions of light years away?" I'd say that the light travelling from another galaxy takes some time to reach earth, therefore we are able to see them (now) - as for the reference: "if we are only 6000 years old?" I don't know what you are talking about.
If you mean that mankind itself might has been created 6000 years ago and put on this planet... we would still see that light coming as the planet(s) have been created in the 5 days before (which may well be 5 Billion years --- remember you don't have to take everything in the Bible literally). If you try to question creationism, let your anger aside and come up with more sophisticated questions...
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
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:
The questions before jeff's post are good, but each of them deserves a lot of time and attention to fully explore. Questions that essentially ask "why would God decide to do it that way" inquire into the character of God, and deserve their own thread. Even if such threads were locked in the past, I’m sure that we can discuss it in at least as mature a manner as we have approached this subject.
Jeff(fake)’s question is more directly on topic. 100 years ago, I would have been hard pressed to answer this question, because my reasoning would have been dominated by the false assumption that time is a constant value throughout the universe.
Before the invention of the telescope a seemingly valid criticism of the Bible would have been the Bible’s claim that the stars “could not be numbered.” Any patient astronomer at the time with a good set of eyes could have charted and counted all the stars that could be seen, and taken it as disproving the Bible. However, we know now that the claim was indeed factually true… Abraham was indeed incapable of counting the stars.
In the same way, before Einstein this problem of how light could have traveled the extreme distances between the stars and the earth would have been hard to reconcile with the 6 days of creation. This has led to several theories that the text might have to mean something besides six days as we understand them (they were long periods of time, or there was a long time gap between the first two verses of Genesis). Now we have the experimentally verified theory that time is not constant, but is distorted by both speed and gravity.
Cosmology is a “robust” science… meaning that we don’t really have a good grasp of what’s going on. Why, for instance, does everything seem not only to be moving away from us, but also speeding up. Is “dark energy” pushing it? How do I evaluate a claim such as “95% of the mass of the universe is “dark matter” that doesn’t follow the same rules as regular matter. Have you heard the theory about nearly massless particles the size of universes? The uniform distribution of background temperature presents a lightspeed problem even for those who believe the universe is billions of years old, since even that is not enough time to explain the now tiny variation (1 part in 100,000, as I remember).
Creation cosmology is such a new field, I am not willing to commit to any particular explanation at this point. The most interesting one I’ve heard so far has the universe exploding out of a “white hole” with the event horizon passing the earth on what is called the “fourth day” of creation. This embodies many concepts, but for those who aren’t familiar… basically a white hole is the opposite of a black hole – matter is actually escaping the event horizon (the “big bang”). The event horizon is the sphere around the center of mass at which point there is enough gravity to capture light. At this point, time nearly (and perhaps actually) stops.
Most of us have probably heard that experiments show that time slows down the closer you are to a gravity source. Many of us probably have heard of the experiments that show clocks at the top of buildings run faster than clocks at the bottom. In other words, time isn’t the same everywhere. Apply the numbers to the mass that we’re dealing with, and you can have billions of years going by at one point in the universe while time slows to a crawl at another spot.
As I said though, cosmology is not well understood by anyone compared to most other fields, and I don’t claim to have any special knowledge on the subject. It’s to early at this point to claim a definite opinion on the subject.
The questions before jeff's post are good, but each of them deserves a lot of time and attention to fully explore. Questions that essentially ask "why would God decide to do it that way" inquire into the character of God, and deserve their own thread. Even if such threads were locked in the past, I’m sure that we can discuss it in at least as mature a manner as we have approached this subject.
Jeff(fake)’s question is more directly on topic. 100 years ago, I would have been hard pressed to answer this question, because my reasoning would have been dominated by the false assumption that time is a constant value throughout the universe.
Before the invention of the telescope a seemingly valid criticism of the Bible would have been the Bible’s claim that the stars “could not be numbered.” Any patient astronomer at the time with a good set of eyes could have charted and counted all the stars that could be seen, and taken it as disproving the Bible. However, we know now that the claim was indeed factually true… Abraham was indeed incapable of counting the stars.
In the same way, before Einstein this problem of how light could have traveled the extreme distances between the stars and the earth would have been hard to reconcile with the 6 days of creation. This has led to several theories that the text might have to mean something besides six days as we understand them (they were long periods of time, or there was a long time gap between the first two verses of Genesis). Now we have the experimentally verified theory that time is not constant, but is distorted by both speed and gravity.
Cosmology is a “robust” science… meaning that we don’t really have a good grasp of what’s going on. Why, for instance, does everything seem not only to be moving away from us, but also speeding up. Is “dark energy” pushing it? How do I evaluate a claim such as “95% of the mass of the universe is “dark matter” that doesn’t follow the same rules as regular matter. Have you heard the theory about nearly massless particles the size of universes? The uniform distribution of background temperature presents a lightspeed problem even for those who believe the universe is billions of years old, since even that is not enough time to explain the now tiny variation (1 part in 100,000, as I remember).
Creation cosmology is such a new field, I am not willing to commit to any particular explanation at this point. The most interesting one I’ve heard so far has the universe exploding out of a “white hole” with the event horizon passing the earth on what is called the “fourth day” of creation. This embodies many concepts, but for those who aren’t familiar… basically a white hole is the opposite of a black hole – matter is actually escaping the event horizon (the “big bang”). The event horizon is the sphere around the center of mass at which point there is enough gravity to capture light. At this point, time nearly (and perhaps actually) stops.
Most of us have probably heard that experiments show that time slows down the closer you are to a gravity source. Many of us probably have heard of the experiments that show clocks at the top of buildings run faster than clocks at the bottom. In other words, time isn’t the same everywhere. Apply the numbers to the mass that we’re dealing with, and you can have billions of years going by at one point in the universe while time slows to a crawl at another spot.
As I said though, cosmology is not well understood by anyone compared to most other fields, and I don’t claim to have any special knowledge on the subject. It’s to early at this point to claim a definite opinion on the subject.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I've seen Bruce Almighty... it's great. If I was God then I'd act more or less like Bruce, except with more flying, more lightsabers, more fire and more lightning bolts 
I've seen Bruce Almighty... it's great. If I was God then I'd act more or less like Bruce, except with more flying, more lightsabers, more fire and more lightning bolts
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Okay....I watched this thread early on...and it held it's own well.
However now...I am disappointed with the amount of insults being thrown around.
Why is someone's belief system stupid though it is not your own?
Why is someone stupid for having faith?
I'd like to thank Patriarch for his approach on this, and not buckling under everyone coming down on you. I also apologize as it was unwarrented and I wish I had have caught this sooner.
I would also like to say that while I disagree with you, I admire the strength of your convictions, and the cool head with which you present yourself. Thank you.
OWD...thank you too, for attempting to be the voice of reason.
So, as a mod...stop the insults or I will delete the thread. That type of behaviour is not welcome here and I don't give a crap whether or not you think the universe was created in a millisecond by a purple, people eater from a mud puddle as a food farm, by god, or that we evolved...you *will* respect the right of everyone here to voice their opinions here, in accordance to the rules, without making them feel unwelcome.
Okay....I watched this thread early on...and it held it's own well.
However now...I am disappointed with the amount of insults being thrown around.
Why is someone's belief system stupid though it is not your own?
Why is someone stupid for having faith?
I'd like to thank Patriarch for his approach on this, and not buckling under everyone coming down on you. I also apologize as it was unwarrented and I wish I had have caught this sooner.
I would also like to say that while I disagree with you, I admire the strength of your convictions, and the cool head with which you present yourself. Thank you.
OWD...thank you too, for attempting to be the voice of reason.
So, as a mod...stop the insults or I will delete the thread. That type of behaviour is not welcome here and I don't give a crap whether or not you think the universe was created in a millisecond by a purple, people eater from a mud puddle as a food farm, by god, or that we evolved...you *will* respect the right of everyone here to voice their opinions here, in accordance to the rules, without making them feel unwelcome.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
*clap* well spoken Pele...
@ sethis:
- somehow I get confused by your new outfit... is that your true self now, or you just like to be the scarecrow?
@ patriarch: the subject is of delicate nature. As I have voiced before, I do not think that ID and creationism really contradict each other.
But I can understand why people turn to creationism exclusively as the only reasonable explanation of "why we are here". The chances are pretty odd for this present situation to have evolved from scrap.
When it comes to the Bible I do believe that it is a document of the time (it was written in) and just because of some errative posts, it doesn't turn the entire book to rubbish. It would be as if we would consider the entire US american constitution is rubbish, just because of the flawed electoral system and the right to bear firearms are founded there along with some other crap.
Back to topic: Most certainly the perception and measure of time is relative after all and if the Bible speaks of 6 days - it might have been 6 billion years in fact. Remember that a day on Jupiter or Pluto is much different to a day on earth.
I do get the point of your argumentation (I believe) hence I don't understand why prooving the Bible would at the same time be a proof of god(s existence) and even if it was, it would not proof or disproof evolution/ ID. We seem to have pretty diverging conceptions of who and what "god" may be (not).
But finally I have doubts that a discussion held about god and the Bible would end in a mature debate. But hey, why not give it a try?
*clap* well spoken Pele...
@ sethis:
- somehow I get confused by your new outfit... is that your true self now, or you just like to be the scarecrow?@ patriarch: the subject is of delicate nature. As I have voiced before, I do not think that ID and creationism really contradict each other.
But I can understand why people turn to creationism exclusively as the only reasonable explanation of "why we are here". The chances are pretty odd for this present situation to have evolved from scrap.
When it comes to the Bible I do believe that it is a document of the time (it was written in) and just because of some errative posts, it doesn't turn the entire book to rubbish. It would be as if we would consider the entire US american constitution is rubbish, just because of the flawed electoral system and the right to bear firearms are founded there along with some other crap.
Back to topic: Most certainly the perception and measure of time is relative after all and if the Bible speaks of 6 days - it might have been 6 billion years in fact. Remember that a day on Jupiter or Pluto is much different to a day on earth.
I do get the point of your argumentation (I believe) hence I don't understand why prooving the Bible would at the same time be a proof of god(s existence) and even if it was, it would not proof or disproof evolution/ ID. We seem to have pretty diverging conceptions of who and what "god" may be (not).
But finally I have doubts that a discussion held about god and the Bible would end in a mature debate. But hey, why not give it a try?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
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:
first, let's not get into abortions, yes prebirth surgeries can be a good thing but it worries me when they start messing with genetics and such for cosmetic reasons
what shall i do...can i feed all of africa or bring water to all of china...i do not willingly let anyone suffer...i do what i can, i focus closer to home and on little things-should probably do more...but you know what lets take all the Christian relief funds and charities away, because well, we just are doing a good enough job and we're evil because the world suffers from the Fall and our continuous fall
but then again i am just ignorant and evil because i manage to have faith in something greater than me and my understanding...
why does it seem that people are so "threatened" by ID...it seems to shake people to the very core and then they lash out when people who try and defend their world view with ID, not necessarily without evolution...it almost always falls to childish name calling...it's interesting
i do not know if ID or creationism should be taught in science class because it is difficult to prove, but i had a fantastic teacher who taught ID in biology and it only cemented my faith and my general understanding of the world around me...we also studied evolution and it is a theory and it does have holes. period.
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1139324782)
Written by: KaelGotRice
The point is, some creationists/IDists/religious nuts care so much about proving their point about God that they're willing to let other people suffer and die because of religious concepts. Where is the peace and love that Jesus spoke of?
What they have posted is more offensive to me than the pictures I posted.
So if it is truly bad, ask a mod to edit my posts. I'm sorry if that offended anyone, but I hope it makes you think about the suffering in this world, and anything you can do to help make it better.
Genetic research is going on to fix such things before they happen- and other creationists are complaining about toying with God. The same thing with abortions.
Why would you willingly let something suffer?
I can only see evil brought on by ignorance as the answer.
first, let's not get into abortions, yes prebirth surgeries can be a good thing but it worries me when they start messing with genetics and such for cosmetic reasons
what shall i do...can i feed all of africa or bring water to all of china...i do not willingly let anyone suffer...i do what i can, i focus closer to home and on little things-should probably do more...but you know what lets take all the Christian relief funds and charities away, because well, we just are doing a good enough job and we're evil because the world suffers from the Fall and our continuous fall
but then again i am just ignorant and evil because i manage to have faith in something greater than me and my understanding...
why does it seem that people are so "threatened" by ID...it seems to shake people to the very core and then they lash out when people who try and defend their world view with ID, not necessarily without evolution...it almost always falls to childish name calling...it's interesting
i do not know if ID or creationism should be taught in science class because it is difficult to prove, but i had a fantastic teacher who taught ID in biology and it only cemented my faith and my general understanding of the world around me...we also studied evolution and it is a theory and it does have holes. period.
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1139324782)
Faith
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
Forget puppy power, Scrappy's just gay
632 posts
Location: Southampton Uni
632 posts
Location: Southampton Uni
Posted:
[quote="faithinfire"]i do not know if ID or creationism should be taught in science class because it is difficult to prove, but i had a fantastic teacher who taught ID in biology and it only cemented my faith and my general understanding of the world around me...we also studied evolution and it is a theory and it does have holes. period.
ID and Creationism do explain everything, but they are untestable, unprovable faith based ideas. Evolution is a constantly tested, disprovable scientific theory.
Thats the entire point of this discussion. Whether a hypothesis that cannot be tested in a scientific manner (ID/Creationism) should be taught in a science class. If it is taught, it will, in the opinions of many eminent scholars and scientists, and myself, undermine the process of teaching scientific thinking.
Science is the process of disproving itself, in order to try and understand everything. It is not about creating rock solid facts that can never be disproven.
Scientific knowledge 'evolves' towards the (possibly unreachable) goal of a coherent explanation of 'what' is around us and 'how' things work. It advances by constantly removing or changing things that don't work and adding in new explanations that fit with what is observed.
For example:
If we have an explanation of how planetary bodies move, that then says that because one planet moves like this, there must be another planet here, if there is nothing there, then it is wrong and will be changed. If however, there actually is a planet found there, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
That's the entire scientific principle. It's not about forming concrete unbreakable models of the world that make everyone feel comfortable. Its about coming up with ideas that fit, predict and explain what and how things work.
[quote="faithinfire"]i do not know if ID or creationism should be taught in science class because it is difficult to prove, but i had a fantastic teacher who taught ID in biology and it only cemented my faith and my general understanding of the world around me...we also studied evolution and it is a theory and it does have holes. period.
ID and Creationism do explain everything, but they are untestable, unprovable faith based ideas. Evolution is a constantly tested, disprovable scientific theory.
Thats the entire point of this discussion. Whether a hypothesis that cannot be tested in a scientific manner (ID/Creationism) should be taught in a science class. If it is taught, it will, in the opinions of many eminent scholars and scientists, and myself, undermine the process of teaching scientific thinking.
Science is the process of disproving itself, in order to try and understand everything. It is not about creating rock solid facts that can never be disproven.
Scientific knowledge 'evolves' towards the (possibly unreachable) goal of a coherent explanation of 'what' is around us and 'how' things work. It advances by constantly removing or changing things that don't work and adding in new explanations that fit with what is observed.
For example:
If we have an explanation of how planetary bodies move, that then says that because one planet moves like this, there must be another planet here, if there is nothing there, then it is wrong and will be changed. If however, there actually is a planet found there, the hypothesis becomes a theory.
That's the entire scientific principle. It's not about forming concrete unbreakable models of the world that make everyone feel comfortable. Its about coming up with ideas that fit, predict and explain what and how things work.
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
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:
Naturalistic Evolution is an unprovable, faith based idea, and does not deserve to be taught along side scientific theories that are testable and disprovable such as the theory of gravity, atomic structures, and plate tectonics. It's historical speculations deserve mention in history class, along with other undocumented historical claims, and it's claim that time and chance can account for everything should be addressed in philosophy class, or perhaps a class on different religions.
Evolution has undermined serious scientific study by imposing an arbitrary assumption of naturalism that has led to absurd beliefs, and has not allowed scientists the option to objectively evaluate evidence. Within evolutionary thinking, there are some serious scientific theories that deserve attention, but none of these should be taught to children as a "fact."
Naturalistic Evolution is an unprovable, faith based idea, and does not deserve to be taught along side scientific theories that are testable and disprovable such as the theory of gravity, atomic structures, and plate tectonics. It's historical speculations deserve mention in history class, along with other undocumented historical claims, and it's claim that time and chance can account for everything should be addressed in philosophy class, or perhaps a class on different religions.
Evolution has undermined serious scientific study by imposing an arbitrary assumption of naturalism that has led to absurd beliefs, and has not allowed scientists the option to objectively evaluate evidence. Within evolutionary thinking, there are some serious scientific theories that deserve attention, but none of these should be taught to children as a "fact."
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Written by: Patriarch917Rubbish. Evolution is predictive and testable, from the changes in allele frequence in the Drosophila melangaster on my desk to the history of a newly emerging mutation in a wild population of geese. It is verified by the fossil record and the genetic and embryonic similarities of species existing today. To deny these involves the invoking of supernatural intervention at every point of contention from the age of the universe to the existance of hind leg bones in the Blue whale.
Naturalistic Evolution is an unprovable, faith based idea, and does not deserve to be taught along side scientific theories that are testable and disprovable such as the theory of gravity, atomic structures, and plate tectonics. It's historical speculations deserve mention in history class, along with other undocumented historical claims, and it's claim that time and chance can account for everything should be addressed in philosophy class, or perhaps a class on different religions.
Evolution has undermined serious scientific study by imposing an arbitrary assumption of naturalism that has led to absurd beliefs, and has not allowed scientists the option to objectively evaluate evidence. Within evolutionary thinking, there are some serious scientific theories that deserve attention, but none of these should be taught to children as a "fact."
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
And everyone dives right back into it. Wonderful.
Try and keep it calm this time, ok?
And everyone dives right back into it. Wonderful.
Try and keep it calm this time, ok?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
SILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Posted:
ID is an unprovable, faith based idea, and does not deserve to be taught along side scientific theories that are testable and disprovable such as the theory of gravity, atomic structures, and plate tectonics. It's historical speculations deserve mention in history class, along with other undocumented historical claims, and it's claim that time and chance can account for everything should be addressed in philosophy class, or perhaps a class on different religions.
ID has undermined serious scientific study by imposing an arbitrary assumption that the Bible can be taken literally which has led to absurd beliefs, and does not allowed scientists the option to objectively evaluate evidence. Within ID thinking, there are no serious scientific theories that deserve attention, and none of these should be taught to children as a "fact."
EDITED_BY: Domino (1139356649)
ID is an unprovable, faith based idea, and does not deserve to be taught along side scientific theories that are testable and disprovable such as the theory of gravity, atomic structures, and plate tectonics. It's historical speculations deserve mention in history class, along with other undocumented historical claims, and it's claim that time and chance can account for everything should be addressed in philosophy class, or perhaps a class on different religions.
ID has undermined serious scientific study by imposing an arbitrary assumption that the Bible can be taken literally which has led to absurd beliefs, and does not allowed scientists the option to objectively evaluate evidence. Within ID thinking, there are no serious scientific theories that deserve attention, and none of these should be taught to children as a "fact."
EDITED_BY: Domino (1139356649)
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Dunno if anyone else has seen this, but this petition has collected 10,000 signatures from clergy stating that evolution is entirely acceptable to Christians and that ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such...
https://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Dunno if anyone else has seen this, but this petition has collected 10,000 signatures from clergy stating that evolution is entirely acceptable to Christians and that ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such...
https://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm
"Moo," said the happy cow.
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:
evolution does have holes or leaps or whatever you want to call them
ID works within that
evolution being testable and provable...hmmm....to some degree yes, but to others no
evolution does have holes or leaps or whatever you want to call them
ID works within that
evolution being testable and provable...hmmm....to some degree yes, but to others no
Faith
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
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Eh? What?
Eh? What?
"Moo," said the happy cow.
GOLD Member
HOP's glowstick ambassador!!
128 posts
Location: Bay Area, California, USA
HOP's glowstick ambassador!!
128 posts
Location: Bay Area, California, USA
Posted:
After the whole bible vs. darwin conflict, Kansas schools were forced by fundamental christians to put these stickers in school textbooks. that said "Warning, this textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
If only the world was fair.
Non-Https Image Link
After the whole bible vs. darwin conflict, Kansas schools were forced by fundamental christians to put these stickers in school textbooks. that said "Warning, this textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
If only the world was fair.
Non-Https Image Link
missegyptology: "I just remember beingall off balance and unicycling really fast down to campus and the arabic was all blurred on the page"
^When Linz pulls an all nighter before Arabic class^
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
.... it should not just read "origin" but also "purpose"...
.... it should not just read "origin" but also "purpose"... the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
More sillyness...
The intelligent designer speaks
More sillyness...
The intelligent designer speaks
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
And how do the ID theorists explain that humans have quite a number of rooted "instincts", very much like our closest relatives - apes? How do they explain the similarities of DNA-information with other species?
Was it only the white man placed on Earth? Is the black/ yellow/ red man just a side-product, a (lower) version... as white man to be V 2.8 and black man being V 1.4? Or did the creator have different reasons for a variety? And as such: is the black man not misplaced in a non-sunny environment, therefore should stick to his "native" breeding grounds?
When looking at the theories of ID vs. evolution - we should not forget what results are deriving from such...
And how do the ID theorists explain that humans have quite a number of rooted "instincts", very much like our closest relatives - apes? How do they explain the similarities of DNA-information with other species?
Was it only the white man placed on Earth? Is the black/ yellow/ red man just a side-product, a (lower) version... as white man to be V 2.8 and black man being V 1.4? Or did the creator have different reasons for a variety? And as such: is the black man not misplaced in a non-sunny environment, therefore should stick to his "native" breeding grounds?
When looking at the theories of ID vs. evolution - we should not forget what results are deriving from such...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
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 can't speak for "ID theorists" because I don't know any. However, creationists would say that the reason people have instincts common to other animals is because those instincts are useful to us. A common function calls for a common design. Humans and fish both have teeth because they both need to eat things.
Creationists believe that all humans are descended from a common ancestor, and that the concept of "race" is invalid. There is only one race: the human race. The fact that some of us have different coloring in our skin is no different from having different color in our hair. It is evident from creation that the creator does like variety, otherwise he could have made only one species that could eat rocks and would spread through asexual cloning.
It is an evolutionary lie that white people are more "evolved" than others, or that aborigines may have been a missing link, or that a pygmy should be kept in a zoo. When we think about evolution, we should not forget the results of such thinking: racial superiority leading to genocide of inferior races.
Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest + natural selection among "races") is a horrible but acceptable philosophy if you choose to believe that humans evolved from animals… and can continue to evolve. However, Creationism directly rejects racism of this sort.
https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp
Written by: FireTom
And how do the ID theorists explain that humans have quite a number of rooted "instincts", very much like our closest relatives - apes? How do they explain the similarities of DNA-information with other species?
Was it only the white man placed on Earth? Is the black/ yellow/ red man just a side-product, a (lower) version... as white man to be V 2.8 and black man being V 1.4? Or did the creator have different reasons for a variety? And as such: is the black man not misplaced in a non-sunny environment, therefore should stick to his "native" breeding grounds?
When looking at the theories of ID vs. evolution - we should not forget what results are deriving from such...
I can't speak for "ID theorists" because I don't know any. However, creationists would say that the reason people have instincts common to other animals is because those instincts are useful to us. A common function calls for a common design. Humans and fish both have teeth because they both need to eat things.
Creationists believe that all humans are descended from a common ancestor, and that the concept of "race" is invalid. There is only one race: the human race. The fact that some of us have different coloring in our skin is no different from having different color in our hair. It is evident from creation that the creator does like variety, otherwise he could have made only one species that could eat rocks and would spread through asexual cloning.
It is an evolutionary lie that white people are more "evolved" than others, or that aborigines may have been a missing link, or that a pygmy should be kept in a zoo. When we think about evolution, we should not forget the results of such thinking: racial superiority leading to genocide of inferior races.
Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest + natural selection among "races") is a horrible but acceptable philosophy if you choose to believe that humans evolved from animals… and can continue to evolve. However, Creationism directly rejects racism of this sort.
https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/racism.asp
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
"The fact that some of us have different coloring in our skin is no different from having different color in our hair."
Yes it is.
Wether someone is white or black depends on where they live and how much sunlight they and their ancestors subject their bodies to.
Over a long time, people in countries closer to the equator have developed more melanin in their skin so as to block the harmful rays from the sun from entering their body.
Thats probably why I have never seen a black Norwegian, or a white Etheopian.
Im sure that if you go bacl long enough to a time where everyone was the same colour, and set one group off breeding in the daylight, and the other group who must never be in direct sunlight, and let them reproduce for a long time... I would be tempted to say that the generation of people who went outside into the hot sunlight, would have developed more melanin to protect them, whereas the people who stayed in would remain the original colour?
Hair colour however, merely depends on your biological parents' hair colour or how close the nearest hair salon is.
"It is an evolutionary lie that white people are more "evolved" than others"
When was it suggested that white people are more evolved?
If anything, black people are not so much more evolved, rather differently evolved than white people?
"The fact that some of us have different coloring in our skin is no different from having different color in our hair."
Yes it is.
Wether someone is white or black depends on where they live and how much sunlight they and their ancestors subject their bodies to.
Over a long time, people in countries closer to the equator have developed more melanin in their skin so as to block the harmful rays from the sun from entering their body.
Thats probably why I have never seen a black Norwegian, or a white Etheopian.
Im sure that if you go bacl long enough to a time where everyone was the same colour, and set one group off breeding in the daylight, and the other group who must never be in direct sunlight, and let them reproduce for a long time... I would be tempted to say that the generation of people who went outside into the hot sunlight, would have developed more melanin to protect them, whereas the people who stayed in would remain the original colour?
Hair colour however, merely depends on your biological parents' hair colour or how close the nearest hair salon is.
"It is an evolutionary lie that white people are more "evolved" than others"
When was it suggested that white people are more evolved?
If anything, black people are not so much more evolved, rather differently evolved than white people?
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Indeed. It was only a few hundred years ago that people were argueing that Africans were the descendants of Cain and thus deserved enslavement.
Written by: UraniumChipOxidationFacility
"It is an evolutionary lie that white people are more "evolved" than others"
When was it suggested that white people are more evolved?
If anything, black people are not so much more evolved, rather differently evolved than white people?
Indeed. It was only a few hundred years ago that people were argueing that Africans were the descendants of Cain and thus deserved enslavement.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
A lot of ID people tend to say "Evolution is not OBSERVABLE and thus is not testable" but this is simply not true. Evolution is quite observable on the small scale, ie viruses, etc. which reproduce at a rate fast enough and mutate at a rate fast enough for it to be quite apparent that evolution is happening there through the singular processes of mutation and selection (by antibodies, drugs, etc.)
But is this really a reason to say that a theory is completely wrong, and/or incorrect? Surely not COMPLETELY right, as I fall halfway between being a realist and an anti-realist about scientific unobservables, but there are other factors besides direct observation that we can call on...
Specifically, super-empitical evidence. For instance, let's take the electron. Have you ever SEEN an electron? Have you ever experienced anything that could be said to be empirical proof that an electron exists (by empirical, I am again referring to observable)? NO, because it is a theoretical, scientifically unobservable (heisenberg principle) construct. However we have very good super-empirical evidence to believe that there is something there that we call an electron. For instance, electrical mechanics makes use of it: we have a pragmatic / functional demonstration of it's principles being applied and WORKING. There is also whether or not the given theory is the simplist explanation to use and understand the largest amount of phenomenon: which so far it is.
In essence, we're looking at the BEST POSSIBLE explanation to fit the data. Now how is ID better than evolution? You might claim a difference between micro and macro evolution (a distinction I don't believe). That is we can say microevolution DOES happen as my above example with viruses, but macroevolution (new species developing) doesn't. No ID supporter can rathionally dispute microevolution given what we CAN observe. On super-empirical grounds however, you can challenge macroevolution, and that is where "Which theory is better" comes in.
In my view ID comes no where close to the explanatory power of evolution. You can think its incomplete and that's fine, but ID doesn't explain anywhere near what evolution can explain. Everytime ID runs into a wall, it just appeals to "someone did it" and stops. Evolutionary theory continues looking and looking until it finds a natural mechanism. In essence, ID passes the buck to someone else, while actual science keeps looking for a reason.This, in essense, is why I can't support it being taught in schools. Our kids shouldn't be taught to stop looking just because it seems to be very, very complex.
The problem with passing the buck is one that I argue a lot with my Christian classmates in my department. "Why does life exist?" - it was created by some one else. - "Who created them?"... uhhhhh....
Or "Why does the universe exist" - it was created by God - "Why does God exist?" - Uhhhhhh....
Even if all life on this planet were "designed", how did the designers come to be? Did THEY naturally evolve? Or are they somehow a special case... *cough* GOD *cough*? You can't say "We were intelligently designed" and stop there. It begs the question, designed by who, and this is something ID supporters won't do because the natural answer is either going to beg the "How did X beings come to exist" question or it will explicitely point to a god. At which point, your "scientific theory" becomes religion. So instead, to win the political battle and get your agenda taught in classes to unsuspecting children who BELIEVE what their teachers are telling them, you just refuse to elaborate that point, as current supporters seem to all be doing.
At least creationists are straight forward about their intentions... ID supporters are creationists in disguise, or believe aliens seeded our world. Either one lacks the necessary explanatory power to overthrow evolution. Until they CAN, they should be kept out of public schools, and left to theoretical classes in University level where students can choose for themselves.
A lot of ID people tend to say "Evolution is not OBSERVABLE and thus is not testable" but this is simply not true. Evolution is quite observable on the small scale, ie viruses, etc. which reproduce at a rate fast enough and mutate at a rate fast enough for it to be quite apparent that evolution is happening there through the singular processes of mutation and selection (by antibodies, drugs, etc.)
But is this really a reason to say that a theory is completely wrong, and/or incorrect? Surely not COMPLETELY right, as I fall halfway between being a realist and an anti-realist about scientific unobservables, but there are other factors besides direct observation that we can call on...
Specifically, super-empitical evidence. For instance, let's take the electron. Have you ever SEEN an electron? Have you ever experienced anything that could be said to be empirical proof that an electron exists (by empirical, I am again referring to observable)? NO, because it is a theoretical, scientifically unobservable (heisenberg principle) construct. However we have very good super-empirical evidence to believe that there is something there that we call an electron. For instance, electrical mechanics makes use of it: we have a pragmatic / functional demonstration of it's principles being applied and WORKING. There is also whether or not the given theory is the simplist explanation to use and understand the largest amount of phenomenon: which so far it is.
In essence, we're looking at the BEST POSSIBLE explanation to fit the data. Now how is ID better than evolution? You might claim a difference between micro and macro evolution (a distinction I don't believe). That is we can say microevolution DOES happen as my above example with viruses, but macroevolution (new species developing) doesn't. No ID supporter can rathionally dispute microevolution given what we CAN observe. On super-empirical grounds however, you can challenge macroevolution, and that is where "Which theory is better" comes in.
In my view ID comes no where close to the explanatory power of evolution. You can think its incomplete and that's fine, but ID doesn't explain anywhere near what evolution can explain. Everytime ID runs into a wall, it just appeals to "someone did it" and stops. Evolutionary theory continues looking and looking until it finds a natural mechanism. In essence, ID passes the buck to someone else, while actual science keeps looking for a reason.This, in essense, is why I can't support it being taught in schools. Our kids shouldn't be taught to stop looking just because it seems to be very, very complex.
The problem with passing the buck is one that I argue a lot with my Christian classmates in my department. "Why does life exist?" - it was created by some one else. - "Who created them?"... uhhhhh....
Or "Why does the universe exist" - it was created by God - "Why does God exist?" - Uhhhhhh....
Even if all life on this planet were "designed", how did the designers come to be? Did THEY naturally evolve? Or are they somehow a special case... *cough* GOD *cough*? You can't say "We were intelligently designed" and stop there. It begs the question, designed by who, and this is something ID supporters won't do because the natural answer is either going to beg the "How did X beings come to exist" question or it will explicitely point to a god. At which point, your "scientific theory" becomes religion. So instead, to win the political battle and get your agenda taught in classes to unsuspecting children who BELIEVE what their teachers are telling them, you just refuse to elaborate that point, as current supporters seem to all be doing.
At least creationists are straight forward about their intentions... ID supporters are creationists in disguise, or believe aliens seeded our world. Either one lacks the necessary explanatory power to overthrow evolution. Until they CAN, they should be kept out of public schools, and left to theoretical classes in University level where students can choose for themselves.
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