Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...34567...30
ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

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

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

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


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

Delete Topic

KaelGotRice
KaelGotRice

Basu gasu bakuhatsu - because sometimes buses explode
Location: Angel's Landing, USA
Member Since: 21st Jul 2003
Total posts: 1584
Posted:I wonder how this ruling will affect the authorization of the teaching of ID in Kansas...

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

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

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:I was pleasantly surprised when I heard the news on the radio yesterday. My first thought was there is a God, after all.

Anyhow, wheres the intelligence in Intelligent Design? Like, we are collectively a race of greedy, morons that keep on trying to blow each others heads off with the biggest gun. Thats intelligent???


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

Delete

_khan_
_khan_

old hand
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Member Since: 17th Nov 2004
Total posts: 768
Posted:Another heartening aspect of this case is that the judge who ruled is a Republican appointed to the bench by "President" Bush.

taken out of context i must seem so strange
~ ani di franco

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:Greetings from me at my "break from HoP" - thought I'd have to share this one with you though since I found it in the news today, as always translated from German... something to make all Brits (at least) feel less superior when talking about the US and ID:

Written by:
Creationism, which causes conflicts between scientists and believers in the US, is getting more popular in the UK, too. According to a survey, less than every 2nd Brit believes in evolution, more than 40 % want creationism in biology lessons.

In the US, the debate on Intelligent Design, the pseudo-scientific form of biblical creation theory, has been running hot for the last months: Parents go to court to fight if their children are supposed to learn the concept of a Creator in biology, along with Darwin's theory of evoluyion, while scientists and religious zealots have heavy verbal arguments.

The apparently higher-educated or more-enlightened Europeans felt more or less safe from this conflict. But now it proves that even in the UK the view of a higher being as the creator of earth and life a few thousand years before now is highly popular.

A BBC survey had interesting results: Asked how their view of the beginning and development of life could be best described, 48 % of the 2000 people questioned named evolution, 22 % creationism, and 17 % intelligent design. The rest was undecided.

In education, 41 % wished, that biology lessons should include Intelligent Design, 44 % supported including creationism in science lessons. 69 % said evolution theory should be taught to pupils.

Of course, there is hardly a difference between the concepts of creationism and ID. Creationism was turned into ID by its followers in the US mainly for legal reasons, since US courts had previously banned religious contents from state schools.

In addition to this, the supporters of ID try with considerable success to establish their concept as a competitive scientific theory to the public. Their main argument: Certain characteristics of life forms are so complex that evolution alone cannot explain them. The majority of reputable scientists however disagrees strongly.

A surprising detail of the survey: People over 55 years preferred evolution, whereas a majority of those under 25 supported ID. "This is telling us a lot about the role of scientific education in this country", said a BBC editor.



I found especially the number of young people not believing in evolution interesting... is it trying to give more meaning to life in the technical society, or just very bad science lessons in schools? Have a happy discussion, and I'll see you again in a month or so smile


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

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Watching a documentary on Intelligent Design it was interesting to see a scientist complaining about why it was chiefly the biological sciences that were being, as he put it, attacked, by the creationists.

The fact is that our Theory of Evolution does not explain 'life' fully.

But that, IMO, in no way substantiates ID.

Cosmology and Quantum Physics do not fully explain the existence of the universe- they have holes; yet the religious establishment isn't focusing massive resources into discrediting the physical sciences.

Personally, I would be happy for ID/creationism to enter the field of science, but currently, from what I've seen, it is simply not qualified to do so.

Its main 'argument' is that evolution cannot explain life fully.

This is inadequate, as-

1. everyone knows that evolution, like the majority of scientific theories, cannot fully explain life- it's a work in progress; this applies equally to most current scientific theories- it's not a problem smile

2. ID, in turn, explains nothing whatsoever- it claims that complexity cannot occur without design, yet then fails to attempt to explain where/how that equally complex 'designer' came into being

3. the field of science is highly competitive, theories live or die on whether their explanatory, and testability is superior to the competing theories. Why should christian based creationism/ID be any more valid than any of the multitude of other 'creation stories' put forward by other cultures?

In particular, ID, and similar theories, fall heavily when it comes to testability- in science, a fundamental for a good theory is that there are possible observations that can disprove the theory.

Good scientific theories are those which have set put clearly,possible experiments that will disprove them; and then they go on to survive these attacks.

In that sense, good scientific theories are themselves subject to a kind of evolution, where only the fittest survive.

In those terms, Intelligent Design has not even entered the race, and is surviving not by any scientific qualities, but is more akin to a parasitic leech; appealing specifically to those who are easily convinced precisly because they either, lack an understanding of scientific methodology, or whose abiltiy to reason is impaired.

If ID wants to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, then it needs to become a scientific theory.

If its going to expalin the 'mystery' of complexity by appealing to a 'Designer'; then, for that expanation to be valid, it has to explain the origin of that designer; otherwise it is explaining nothing whatsoever.


"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!

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave


In particular, ID, and similar theories, fall heavily when it comes to testability- in science, a fundamental for a good theory is that there are possible observations that can disprove the theory.

Good scientific theories are those which have set put clearly,possible experiments that will disprove them; and then they go on to survive these attacks.




But by that argument, evolution should not be considered good science. Perhaps it would be better to classify evolution as a "historical theory" rather than a scientific one.

We can all agree that there is evidence. What we can't agree on is how to interpret the evidence, because we start with different assumptions (such as the rate at which salt flows into the sea).

Perhaps, as you seem to say, science classes should try to deal with observable phenomenom that can be tested with experiments. The theory of Evolution has made little contribution to what most would consider "normal," practical science. Perhaps we should let theories of history be taught in history class, and let theories of science be taught in science class.


Delete

Dr_Molly
Dr_Molly

Pooh-Bah
Location: Away from home
Member Since: 4th May 2004
Total posts: 2354
Posted:Could you further explain what you consider to be Written by:
"normal," practical science

please?

I'm am having trouble understanding how you believe that the theory of evolution has made little contribution to anything.


Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

But by that argument, evolution should not be considered good science. Perhaps it would be better to classify evolution as a "historical theory" rather than a scientific one.

We can all agree that there is evidence. What we can't agree on is how to interpret the evidence, because we start with different assumptions (such as the rate at which salt flows into the sea).

Perhaps, as you seem to say, science classes should try to deal with observable phenomenom that can be tested with experiments. The theory of Evolution has made little contribution to what most would consider "normal," practical science. Perhaps we should let theories of history be taught in history class, and let theories of science be taught in science class.


Wrong on oh so many counts. There is a wealth of objective evidence for evolution. Here it is. Your continuous assertion that ones 'assumptions' will radicaly alter any conclusions is simply not how things work in the real world. Evolution makes predictions which are testable, such as that imperfect organisms will result due to morpholical constraints. There is absolutely no explaination for these imperfections in intelligent design and again no explaination for how the 'intelligent designer' came about as one of their own axioms is that complexity cannot arise by itself.

So basicly a theory that I can disprove with my nipples really isn't worthy of consideration within a science classroom.


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

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:To Molly,
By "normal practical science, I meant science in the general sense that onewheeldave defined it. We do not use evolution in a lab, and we do not derive many useful products from it. Theories of gravity and electricity allow us to accomplish things such as calculating the expected path of a cannonball or making computers. The theory of evolution's main contribution to society is providing a basis for philosophical beliefs, an interesting guess at history, and a basis for cool science fiction.

To jeff(fake),
There is no objective evidence "for" evolution. Only the interpretations of the objective evidence can support evolution. Evidence is not "self interpreting."

Your criticism of intelligent design is ludicrous. It is a straw man argument that is easily defeated. I will start by disproving an analogous false argument:

I can assert that materialism says that matter cannot arise from nothing. However, matter exists. Since materialism cannot explain where this matter came from, it must be wrong.

This argument can easily be disposed of, either by claiming the matter has always existed and thus did not need to arise, or that it was created from something else (like energy from a different universe) that had always existed.

In the same way, your argument that there is no explaination for how the 'intelligent designer' came about as one of their own axioms is that complexity cannot arise by itself is easily disposed of.

To dispose of this claim, one need merely assert the theory that either 1. the intelligent designer always existed and thus did not need to arise, or 2. the intelligent designer was created by a previous intelligent designer that had always existed.

Your prediction that imperfect organisms will result due to morpholical constraints is bogus. It combines a search for evidence (organisms) with an opinion (the organisms are imperfect). However, I doubt that you expressed the hypothesis exactly as you mean it, so I will let it slide.

Even assuming we found organisms that everyone agreed were imperfect, the assertion that ID cannot explain the existence of them is a complete fallacy. I can only guess that the underlying assumptions are that ID advocates a perfect designer, and that a perfect designer would always design perfect organisms.

This is ridiculous. An automobile is not perfectly suited to its environment, yet you probably believe that it came about because of intelligent design rather than evolving by chance. The two major theories of ID have fine explanations for imperfections. If you believe in Biblical creation, you will interpret imperfection as being the result of mans sin. If you believe in aliens (or some sort of imperfect deity), you would probably interpret the evidence as suggesting that either the designer was not able to make perfect organisms, or that the designer could have made them perfect but chose not to.

As you can see, the arguments fail because of the weak assumptions that they are built on. The whole idea behind allowing people to consider the ideas of intelligent design is so that they wont get locked into believing only a certain set of assumptions are scientifically valid. Assumptions do radically alter conclusions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that it matters, but Im not sure that the analysis of the uncertainty principle contained in your signature is correct.


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917


To dispose of this claim, one need merely assert the theory that either 1. the intelligent designer always existed and thus did not need to &#8220;arise,&#8221; or 2. the intelligent designer was created by a previous intelligent designer that had always existed.




Presumably then, if there can be an 'always existing' designer- one that is in no need of explanation because he/she/it never came into being but simply always existed; then we could also claim that the universe and life itself, similarly may happen to be things that always existed?

If that is the case, then it would eliminate the need for a designer.

That of course in no way disproves the designer, but it does indicate that the theory that the world is undesigned and always existing, is just as plausible as the theory that it was designed.


"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!

Delete

Dr_Molly
Dr_Molly

Pooh-Bah
Location: Away from home
Member Since: 4th May 2004
Total posts: 2354
Posted:Er, I'm a microbiologist and I regularly observe evolution in action, use it to my benefit and take measures to avoid it when it would be to my (or rather my experiments') detriment. Theories of evolution help us to understand past occurrances and predict the potential consequences of our actions.

On a side note I am horrified to hear that man's sin is responsible for my having an appendix. I knew homosexual marriage could cause catastrophic natural disasters like the tsunami, but this really brings it home. umm

Weak assumptions are not the cause of the failure of the arguments. Nonsensical supposition can disprove anything to its own satisfaction. Assumptions only alter conclusions if the hypothesis is not tested scientifically.


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Molly

Er, I'm a microbiologist and I regularly observe evolution in action, use it to my benefit and take measures to avoid it when it would be to my (or rather my experiments') detriment.




Are you saying that you're actually observing evolution occuring?

If so, can you post some details as it would obviously serve to show that ID is false.


"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!

Delete

UCOF
UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel

Member Since: 17th Apr 2002
Total posts: 15414
Posted:Warning the following post is irrelevent and offtopic. Please skip if easily annoyed

Written by: Molly
I'm a microbiologist and I regularly observe evolution in action, use it to my benefit



I claim lasers from the eyes as my next evolutionary step. biggrin
Or the ability to breathe underwater. devil
Flames from the fingertips would be cool too, you could use it to start fires umm


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:unless of course the intelligent designer is not a being of matter and therefor the basic principles we understand life by in no way have any bearing on the being

perhaps one of the problems is that our world is ruled by entropy, matter is created and it wears out, but what if the designer is not made of such stuff, then the universe which cycles from birth and growth and death by its existence itself is seperate from a non-matteral being ie designer meditate


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

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave

Written by: Patriarch917


To dispose of this claim, one need merely assert the theory that either 1. the intelligent designer always existed and thus did not need to &#8220;arise,&#8221; or 2. the intelligent designer was created by a previous intelligent designer that had always existed.




Presumably then, if there can be an 'always existing' designer- one that is in no need of explanation because he/she/it never came into being but simply always existed; then we could also claim that the universe and life itself, similarly may happen to be things that always existed?

If that is the case, then it would eliminate the need for a designer.

That of course in no way disproves the designer, but it does indicate that the theory that the world is undesigned and always existing, is just as plausible as the theory that it was designed.



In the past, at least, I have heard that there were some who thought that the universe might have always existed in roughly it's present form. I don't know that many people believe this now. Most seem to think that the universe as we know it had a start (creation, or the "big bang").

It's an interesting theory, since a universe of an infinite size and regular distribution doesn't have to worry about collapsing (there is no center point for the mass to be attracted to). Thus, the universe could be as old as you want.

The advantage of a universe that is much older than the current theories is that it does better in overcoming the probability dificulties of life springing up by chance.

Apparently, though, Molly has witnessed a random beneficial mutation that has added new genetic information that is succesfully being passed down to subsequent generations. This is huge news, and should be told to more people. I agree with the previous post, I would like to hear more about it.

I must admit, if someone else also observes a living organism springing up randomly from nonliving material, my faith in evolution would probably be just about unshakeable.


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: faithinfire


unless of course the intelligent designer is not a being of matter and therefor the basic principles we understand life by in no way have any bearing on the being









I don't see how this diminishes the possibility that the matter itself could simply have existed forever.



(I'm not here claiming that matter has in fact existed forever, simply pointing out that if a 'designer' can evade explanation on Patriarchs grounds that he/she/it may have existed forever, then the same could be true of matter).


"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!

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave

I don't see how this diminishes the possibility that the matter itself could simply have existed forever.

(I'm not here claiming that matter has in fact existed forever, simply pointing out that if a 'designer' can evade explanation on Patriarchs grounds that he/she/it may have existed forever, then the same could be true of matter).



I agree, which is why I used that argument.

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.


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917



I agree, which is why I used that argument.

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.



What about the other option, that matter and energy can spring into being from nothing?


"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!

Delete

UCOF
UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel

Member Since: 17th Apr 2002
Total posts: 15414
Posted:Which is what they must have done in the first place if you (not directed) believe that there has always been matter and energy.

umm


Delete

TheBovrilMonkey
TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Member Since: 3rd Sep 2001
Total posts: 2629
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

Apparently, though, Molly has witnessed a random beneficial mutation that has added new genetic information that is succesfully being passed down to subsequent generations. This is huge news, and should be told to more people. I agree with the previous post, I would like to hear more about it.




It's not really huge news - as an example, people have been talking about bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics for some time now.

Of course, there are also people who dismiss that as part of ID, claiming that the bacteria were gifted with an immune system by the almighty benefactor that designed them.


But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete

_khan_
_khan_

old hand
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Member Since: 17th Nov 2004
Total posts: 768
Posted:Interesting discussion. Let me preface this by saying that I don't believe ID is science. However, I also don't believe that ID and evolution are necessarily mutually exclusive. I think of what we call "evolution" as a bit of software. The theory of evolution describes how the software works, but it does not address who wrote the source code.

taken out of context i must seem so strange
~ ani di franco

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: TheBovrilMonkey

Written by: Patriarch917

Apparently, though, Molly has witnessed a random beneficial mutation that has added new genetic information that is succesfully being passed down to subsequent generations. This is huge news, and should be told to more people. I agree with the previous post, I would like to hear more about it.




It's not really huge news - as an example, people have been talking about bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics for some time now.

Of course, there are also people who dismiss that as part of ID, claiming that the bacteria were gifted with an immune system by the almighty benefactor that designed them.



If they develop resistance by a random mutation that adds new genetic information, this would lend some strength to the theory that such mutations can explain the existence of species. If, however, this is merely an existing subsection of the species becoming more prevelant (like the old peppered moth example), then this would lend a little extra help to natural selection (but no one really disputes that element).

Onewheeldave,
The idea that something can spring from nothing is an interesting question. I have never heard anyone advocate that something can spring from nothing. Most people seem to believe that in order to exist, a thing must have either always existed (God, or the universe), or it must have been created by something else. If anyone would like to try to advocate it, I'd be really interested.


Delete

TheBovrilMonkey
TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Member Since: 3rd Sep 2001
Total posts: 2629
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

If they develop resistance by a random mutation that adds new genetic information, this would lend some strength to the theory that such mutations can explain the existence of species. If, however, this is merely an existing subsection of the species becoming more prevelant (like the old peppered moth example), then this would lend a little extra help to natural selection (but no one really disputes that element).




You mean the old peppered moth example that shows moths with a random mutation surviving through environmental change and passing on their genetic material?
Or is there some other peppered moth example that I don't know about that doesn't lend itself to being an example of evolution?


But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917


Onewheeldave,
The idea that something can spring from nothing is an interesting question. I have never heard anyone advocate that something can spring from nothing. Most people seem to believe that in order to exist, a thing must have either always existed (God, or the universe), or it must have been created by something else. If anyone would like to try to advocate it, I'd be really interested.



Concerning the universe, there seems to be only three possibilities-

1. it's always existed (and therefore is not in need of explanation)

2. it appeared out of nothing

3. it was created (e.g. by God)

I see no reason to think that option 2 is any more bizarre or unlikely than options 1 & 3 smile

Actually, according to the prevelant scientific view, 2 is the case.

Whilst many think that science dissallows the appearance of something out of nothing, or insists that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed (only transferred one into the other); it's important to note that this holds within the context of matter, within our space-time based universe.

(Of course there are also the exceptions within quantum physics, where not only can sub-atomic particles appear, exist briefly, and then dissapear, but theory actually demands that they do so)

The 'Big-Bang' theory is based on the fact that the univerese, and all the matter in it, appeared, essentially out of nowhere; then expanded to its current state.

The important thing to bear in mind is that it wasn't a case of a whole lot of matter appearing in space at a given time- rather the whole universe including space-time, came into being.

i.e. Space and time originated at the 'Big-Bang'.

So, scientifically speaking, the view that matter (and everything else,including space-time) came into being uncaused, and from nothing, is perfectly acceptable.


"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!

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave


So, scientifically speaking, the view that matter (and everything else,including space-time) came into being uncaused, and from nothing, is perfectly acceptable.



Interesting. I have heard the idea that the cosmic kernel always existed, and that the matter in our universe resulted from collisions with parallel universes, but I have never heard the theory that there once was truly nothing, and that the universe sprang into existence with no cause.

Of course the no cause part is a philosophical choice, not a scientific mandate. Scientifically speaking, it is also acceptable to believe that there was a cause that transcends the universe (such as God). Some would say it takes less faith to believe that God was the cause, than to believe that there is no cause.

For something to have no cause really has an impact on your views of determinism. If matter can be created by nothing, without cause, can you then say that "nothing has free will." umm


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917


For something to have no cause really has an impact on your views of determinism. If matter can be created by nothing, without cause, can you then say that "nothing has free will." umm



I don't see why anyone would want to claim that- as far as I'm concerned free-will is a manifestation of a sentient consciousness, capable of choice: the appearance of matter out of nothing doesn't seem to fall into that category.

True nothingness, of course, cannot be conscious and cannot choose- by definition it cannot have any characteristics whatsoever, as that would make it 'something' rather than 'nothing'.


"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!

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:If nothingness has no characteristics whatsoever, then it does not have creativity, thus it cannot create.

If it did create, then nothing is something.

In fact, nothing is like God.

And athiests worship nothing.


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:I'm not saying that nothingness creates matter- as you have just pointed out, that is not possible.

I'm simply talking about the option of matter appearing out of nothingness, which is a different thing.

Appearing where there was pereviously nothing- not being created by nothingness.

Patriarch- we're now very close to hijacking this thread, and taking it well off-topic; we've gone into physics/cosmology/philosophy, as opposed to biological science/ID/evolution.

If you want to continue, then i'm happy to do so, but think it would be better discussed in a new thread- do you want to start one off?


"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!

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917


If nothingness has no characteristics whatsoever, then it does not have creativity, thus it cannot create.



If it did create, then nothing is something.



In fact, nothing is like God.



And athiests worship nothing.





You surely know a lot about nothing.



ubblol



That's just about as sound as the old "Can God make a rock so big that even he can't lift?" proof of the lack of God.



But I've learned better than to get involved in conversations like this.



If God tells you there's no evolution, you shouldn't believe in evolution. If God tells you to hijack a plane and fly it into a building then a true believer should do that too.



Remind me to duck.


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

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: NYC

Written by: Patriarch917

If nothingness has no characteristics whatsoever, then it does not have creativity, thus it cannot create.

If it did create, then nothing is something.

In fact, nothing is like God.

And athiests worship nothing.



You surely know a lot about nothing.


If God tells you there's no evolution, you shouldn't believe in evolution.



and if nothing tells me to believe in evolution... meditate

Your right about hijacking the thread, onewheel. We've gotten almost to pure philosophy. I'll chill until Molly comes back with the observences of evolution in the lab, which will let us discuss interpretations of evidence. If you want to create/ressurect a thread about philosophy, I might chime in.


Delete

Page: 1...34567...30

Similar Topics

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

     Show more..