Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cityboi

Intelligent design and creationism

Recommended Posts


I am not disputing that small scale, micro-evolution occurs as someone stated earlier.  But, this is a far different thing than to argue that we are descended from monkeys who are descended from mice who come ultimately from mud.  You can never recreate this and therefore it can never be proven.  But, even if this did occur, it does not disprove the existence of God.  I do find it amusing how atheists cling to the notion of evolution at least as strong as Christians do to the virgin birth.  Thus evolution has assumed many of the characteristics of religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution does not state that we are decended from monkeys. It does say we are evolved from lower forms of life as are the modern monkeys of today. And it can be proven to have existed , by looking at fossils, understanding science and using some common sense. Unlike certain religions, evolution does not depend upon the existance of animals that have mastered the spoken word for proof.

And it is certainly more plausible than believeing that all mankind sprung from the loins of a rutting couple after being cast out of a garden because some God didn't like the fact the female ate an apple after taking the advice from a talking snake. :rolleyes: The world is also more than 4500 years old too.

So lets, see, I can go out and dig up fossils that prove the world is millions if not billions of years old and inhabited by more primitive lifeforms. Or I can go out looking for talking snakes. God is something that does exist, but only in people's minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not disputing that small scale, micro-evolution occurs as someone stated earlier.  But, this is a far different thing than to argue that we are descended from monkeys who are descended from mice who come ultimately from mud.  You can never recreate this and therefore it can never be proven.  But, even if this did occur, it does not disprove the existence of God.  I do find it amusing how atheists cling to the notion of evolution at least as strong as Christians do to the virgin birth.  Thus evolution has assumed many of the characteristics of religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Am glad you accept the possibility. But religion is based on supersticion(I do not want to offend anyone, but faith and supersticion are in the same realm), and evolution on scientific observation. I don't see how this scientific theory can become a way of life. Religion is composed of other factors, such a moral tendencies, costumes, etc.

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not disputing that small scale, micro-evolution occurs as someone stated earlier.  But, this is a far different thing than to argue that we are descended from monkeys who are descended from mice who come ultimately from mud.  You can never recreate this and therefore it can never be proven.  But, even if this did occur, it does not disprove the existence of God.  I do find it amusing how atheists cling to the notion of evolution at least as strong as Christians do to the virgin birth.  Thus evolution has assumed many of the characteristics of religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please do not confuse athiests with scientists. As I've said before, science has no fundamental goal of debunking religion. It merely follows facts and evidence.

Many ID followers only follow ID as a way to rid the world of 'filthy athiest God hating evolutionists' (I've been called that by a pastor once).

Science simply states that with this evidence at hand, this is the logical conclusion but it's not the only possibility. Few theories are considered absolute by scientists. 99.999% of them are considered open ended. More data can be collected, analyzed, new viewpoints created by them.

Like evolution itself, theories evolve. Our faith is derived from the analytical conclusions done by thousands of tests. ID faith is based on a principle that attempts to supercede scientific knowledge. If science can't answer it now, it must have been designed. What ID followers forget is that science has been answering the unanswerable for centuries. Study Joseph Lister, Nicolaus Copernicus, Ferdinand Magellan, Benjamin Franklin (also read up on Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine for some real eye openers) and more and you'll see that science eventually unlocks the answers to much of what was believed to only be the work of God.

Now, the only situation where ID can be relative to science is if God created the big bang and evolution occured as we know it. This means that both are 100% correct. The only problem is, as I and others keep saying, is that it cannot be proven, tested, analyzed or given any further acknowledgement than faith in that was what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, there is no way to know what happened for sure. I believe in God and am a Christian. Faith obviously does not require specific evidence (although there is some evidence of supernatural existence). If I am wrong, when we die we simply disappear like a candle being blown out and that is it. If the atheists are wrong, they face a far more dire future. We will see - "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror dimly lit; then we shall see face to face". 1 Corinthians 13:12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the debate stems from a belief or disbelief in absolute right and wrong. Everything in life follows specific laws, and if something goes missing, the chain reaction would be potentially catastrophic. I think Math is a good example of this. If you get one number wrong in either a highly complex formula, or even a simple one, you'll not find a real solution to the problem. Scientists are discovering new things constantly with nanotechnology and each discovery follows this same principle; Everything has absolute laws. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, there is no way to know what happened for sure.  I believe in God and am a Christian.  Faith obviously does not require specific evidence (although there is some evidence of supernatural existence).  If I am wrong, when we die we simply disappear like a candle being blown out and that is it.  If the atheists are wrong, they face a far more dire future.  We will see - "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror dimly lit; then we shall see face to face".  1 Corinthians 13:12

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps that is true. I guess am kind of in trouble if am wrong, even though am agnostic.

But, also, if there is a God, I see him as Jesus depicted him, as a forgiving God. That is just me, and what the hell, maybe it is just a convenient belief. But what can I say, I picture God like that.

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that is true. I guess am kind of in trouble if am wrong, even though am agnostic.

But, also, if there is a God, I see him as Jesus depicted him, as a forgiving God. That is just me, and what the hell, maybe it is just a convenient belief. But what can I say, I picture God like that.

:ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That goes for the both of us. I cannot fathom a God that creates you and forces you to either put all faith and devotion only to him or be cast into a lake of fire to eternity.

In the biblical sense, a very giving, caring and moral person that doesn't believe would go stright to hell while a murdering beotch that accepts Jesus as his saviour goes straight to heaven. Something is incredible wrong with that.

I picture it, IF God exists, as simply being factored by how you lived your life. Good go up and bad go down...simple.

I'll take my chances. If I get the the gates and am not granted entrance, I will not plea, I will not beg, I will accept my judgement as due. If my life as a good person is not good enough for God, then he'll have to make due without me and his status as forgiving is lost upon him.

Just a thought, if ID is valid in the sense that God created the Big Bang, that would therefore disprove Genesis and the Bible. Marinate on that for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that science is being held up as the ONLY way to learn anything about our world? Even my biology graduate advisor has stressed that science is a way of knowing about the world (and I have no idea if she claims to be a religious person in any regard). It seems to me that many are expecting science to answer the question of ultimate origins, specifically, where matter came from. Personally, I don't think science will ever answer that question. And even if, by some chance, science will eventually answer that question, at this present time both sides of the debate have their foundation based on a faith-claim: either that matter came from somewhere, or that it eternally existed. Metaphysics is needed to get the ball rolling in either case. This means that at present, even the most "scientific" view must necessarily originate outside of the world of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That goes for the both of us.  I cannot fathom a God that creates you and forces you to either put all faith and devotion only to him or be cast into a lake of fire to eternity.

In the biblical sense, a very giving, caring and moral person that doesn't believe would go stright to hell while a murdering beotch that accepts Jesus as his saviour goes straight to heaven.  Something is incredible wrong with that.

I picture it, IF God exists, as simply being factored by how you lived your life.  Good go up and bad go down...simple. 

I'll take my chances.  If I get the the gates and am not granted entrance, I will not plea, I will not beg, I will accept my judgement as due.  If my life as a good person is not good enough for God, then he'll have to make due without me and his status as forgiving is lost upon him. 

Just a thought, if ID is valid in the sense that God created the Big Bang, that would therefore disprove Genesis and the Bible.  Marinate on that for a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly, I can not accept the idea that this love-giving God will ignore your acts as a human being. In that matter, it would be much easier to believe and behave like criminal. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, if ID is valid in the sense that God created the Big Bang, that would therefore disprove Genesis and the Bible.  Marinate on that for a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How so? Genesis 1:1 only says that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. In verse 2, we have a watery, abysmal mass of matter that we are not told from whence it came. We are not told HOW God created, just that He did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science has two goals....accurate description and accurate explanation. Science simply means to study in depthly with conclusions that can be either repeated or accepted as most currently plausible.

Please read my post, number 54, again. I think you'll understand my viewpoint more.

Science does not place theory ahead of evidence, like ID does. Scientists will not tell you a belief without researched, analyzed and tested data backing that belief.

You are correct in that there are many ways to accept belief but not all are factually based. That is what is great about science. It's assumptions are not baseless, they are not devoid ot countless hours of agonizing research and debate before their assumptions are considered theory.

Science does not take empty theory and then find evidence to fit it, it finds evidence and then forms a theory based on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science does not place theory ahead of evidence, like ID does.  Scientists will not tell you a belief without researched, analyzed and tested data backing that belief.

Carl Sagan certainly broke this rule in his introduction to Cosmos. I also do not believe he is alone in thinking in that way, it's just that he's been one of the few to actually articulate it.

You are correct in that there are many ways to accept belief but not all are factually based.

Actually, I said that science is not the only way to learn about our world (or the universe). I do not believe (there's that word again) that the only things that can be known are those that are empirically testable. Science cannot prove this; as a matter of fact, this is beyond the realm of science. That is why science cannot be held up as the "end-all, be-all" for factual knowledge.

The theory of evolution states that evolution is without purpose and occurs by means of chance and randomness. This is purely an assumption. It is asserted because supposedly we cannot appeal to agent causation to explain the ultimate origin of the universe. So instead of actually allowing that aspect to be left to some other branch, some other way of "knowing," for exploration, it actually shuts the door on these other ways and says, "We already have the answer." Appealing to supernatural forces at work is seen as primitive and anti-intellectual and contradictory, for science presumes to tell us that this is not the case. But it's not science's call. IMO, for science to TRULY be an intellectual discipline in today's world, it needs to admit its limits instead of robbing learners of a total, interdisciplinary approach to knowing about the world around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it is certainly more plausible than believeing that all mankind sprung from the loins of a rutting couple after being cast out of a garden because some God didn't like the fact the female ate an apple after taking the advice from a talking snake.    :rolleyes: 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, all of mankind did spring from the loins of a rutting couple, but it wasn't after being kicked out of Eden. It has been scientifically proven that all of mankind can trace their ancestry to one common female (the "real" Eve). Where the talking snake fits in I'm not sure, but Eve is as real as you and me, although not necessarily in the biblical sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so? Genesis 1:1 only says that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. In verse 2, we have a watery, abysmal mass of matter that we are not told from whence it came. We are not told HOW God created, just that He did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution does not lend well to the story of Genesis just as the story of Genesis does not lend well to the theory of evolution. If God made the big bang will full knowledge and expextations of what would become of it, Genesis could not have happened.

Carl Sagan certainly broke this rule in his introduction to Cosmos. I also do not believe he is alone in thinking in that way, it's just that he's been one of the few to actually articulate it.

Actually, I said that science is not the only way to learn about our world (or the universe). I do not believe (there's that word again) that the only things that can be known are those that are empirically testable. Science cannot prove this; as a matter of fact, this is beyond the realm of science. That is why science cannot be held up as the "end-all, be-all" for factual knowledge.

The theory of evolution states that evolution is without purpose and occurs by means of chance and randomness. This is purely an assumption. It is asserted because supposedly we cannot appeal to agent causation to explain the ultimate origin of the universe. So instead of actually allowing that aspect to be left to some other branch, some other way of "knowing," for exploration, it actually shuts the door on these other ways and says, "We already have the answer." Appealing to supernatural forces at work is seen as primitive and anti-intellectual and contradictory, for science presumes to tell us that this is not the case. But it's not science's call. IMO, for science to TRULY be an intellectual discipline in today's world, it needs to admit its limits instead of robbing learners of a total, interdisciplinary approach to knowing about the world around us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Carl Sagan spoke in philosophical terms, not scientific. His statement, was not one of scientific publication with requests for peer review. Pardon me for not being more clear on my post regarding the platform and medium by which a scientist would divuldge his theories in scientific context.

Not all theories are created to explain all aspects, just certain particulars. Darwin's evolution theory did not attempt to explain how matter came to be. In fact, nothing about it excludes the possibility of ID so how exactly is it so closed ended?

In fact, I've noted a few times that science evolves. It's fully open ended. It also shows its faults and fallacies constantly by revising theories. It never proclaims to be absolute.

Knowledge requires input from one of the 5 senses. Science is the result of input by the 5 senses. Anything beyond the 5 senses is speculation. Deep thinking is good but it is still assumptions. Beliefs without evidence to that. Does that make it wrong? Absolutely not. However, it does lend itself to being less accurate which as I mentioned is the premise of the two two goals of science...accurate description and accurate explaination.

A test:

My car is red. For you to know that as absolute fact would require you to see it in person or by an authentic visual representation with the car title and my ID as well. You could say that I just told you but then you are assuming I'm telling you the truth with no evidence to back it either way. Any other forms of knowledge gathering cannot yeild absolute fact. Granted, they'd probably be correct simply due to it being difficult to unnacurately depict a car color on other documentation.

Lets look at it another way. Science is not a being and therefore does not present itself in any manner at all other than that of being the most succesful data gathering method ever devised. Again, this obviously means it's not the only method nort the only correct method, just the most accurate method.

Presumptions can be made, either scientifically, philosophically or other, based on non-testable data, but they are all still just that...presumptions. Which one is more accurate, if all data is untestable, neither is. If one element can be tested and it leads to the scientific or the philosophic theory, then that theory has more plausibility than the other and to me, that is what matters most. Plausibility. With little testable data, science is a way to define the most plausible possibility. This plausibility doesn't mean other means and methods of gathering data and theorizing differently will yeild incorrect results, just if it's less plausible, not impossible.

Besides, ID is trying to prove everything scientifically and many are trying to proclaim as agnostic as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I said that science is not the only way to learn about our world (or the universe). I do not believe (there's that word again) that the only things that can be known are those that are empirically testable. Science cannot prove this; as a matter of fact, this is beyond the realm of science. That is why science cannot be held up as the "end-all, be-all" for factual knowledge.

Science is adaptive. If a better mechanism for understanding a process were devised, we'd start using that. It isn't the only way to learn about the world, but it's the most reliable. Going around saying knomes create every little thing you see might work for you to a point, but eventually your ability to apply that knowledge will run out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to say something very non-offensively. I think science is the only way to know anything, but I don't think that means that things which cannot be explained by science don't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution does not lend well to the story of Genesis just as the story of Genesis does not lend well to the theory of evolution.    If God made the big bang will full knowledge and expextations of what would become of it, Genesis could not have happened. 

Carl Sagan spoke in philosophical terms, not scientific.  His statement, was not one of scientific publication with requests for peer review.  Pardon me for not being more clear on my post regarding the platform and medium by which a scientist would divuldge his theories in scientific context.

Not all theories are created to explain all aspects, just certain particulars.  Darwin's evolution theory did not attempt to explain how matter came to be.  In fact, nothing about it excludes the possibility of ID so how exactly is it so closed ended?

In fact, I've noted a few times that science evolves.  It's fully open ended.  It also shows its faults and fallacies constantly by revising theories.  It never proclaims to be  absolute.

Knowledge requires input from one of the 5 senses.  Science is the result of input by the 5 senses.  Anything beyond the 5 senses is speculation.  Deep thinking is good but it is still assumptions.  Beliefs without evidence to that.  Does that make it wrong?  Absolutely not.  However, it does lend itself to being less accurate which as I mentioned is the premise of the two two goals of science...accurate description and accurate explaination. 

A test:

My car is red.  For you to know that as absolute fact would require you to see it in person or by an authentic visual representation with the car title and my ID as well.  You could say that I just told you but then you are assuming I'm telling you the truth with no evidence to back it either way.  Any other forms of knowledge gathering cannot yeild absolute fact.  Granted, they'd probably be correct simply due to it being difficult to unnacurately depict a car color on other documentation.

Lets look at it another way.  Science is not a being and therefore does not present itself in any manner at all other than that of being the most succesful data gathering method ever devised.  Again, this obviously means it's not the only method nort the only correct method, just the most accurate method.

Presumptions can be made, either scientifically, philosophically or other, based on non-testable data, but they are all still just that...presumptions.  Which one is more accurate, if all data is untestable, neither is.  If one element can be tested and it leads to the scientific or the philosophic theory, then that theory has more plausibility than the other and to me, that is what matters most.  Plausibility.  With little testable data, science is a way to define the most plausible possibility.  This plausibility doesn't mean other means and methods of gathering data and theorizing differently will yeild incorrect results, just if it's less plausible, not impossible.

Besides, ID is trying to prove everything scientifically and many are trying to proclaim as agnostic as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excelent explanation :thumbsup:

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all of mankind did spring from the loins of a rutting couple, but it wasn't after being kicked out of Eden.  It has been scientifically proven that all of mankind can trace their ancestry to one common female (the "real" Eve).  Where the talking snake fits in I'm not sure, but Eve is as real as you and me, although not necessarily in the biblical sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a common misunderstanding of the "real" Eve. She was not the only female alive at the time 150K years ago and not the only ancestor to pass their genes to the future. She was the only female to have an unbroken set of daughters to the present. There is no scientific study to say that all humans came from one couple. Science would say that is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the world's entire population can be traced back to a family tree that has its roots in Africa and a single branch leading out of the continent and into the rest of the world. Based on analysis of thousands of DNA samples from people worldwide..."

Discovery Channel

You're right that there were many more females alive 150,000 years ago, but only one of these ladies can claim to be the "mother of humanity". The others have ancestors, but only one can say that we are ALL her ancestors. I believe this anyway, science tells me to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'real' Eve is exactly as monsoon described. She was first brought up by National Geographic in 1987.

Eve of Africa c. 150,000 years ago is simply the farthest back we can trace a direct line.

The first women of humanoid origin appeared almost 4 million years ago.

If you simply mean the first woman ever, as above, then that's not Eve. We have no evidence of who the first woman was. The oldest known human remains are Lucy at 3.5 million years old.

EDIT: P-land, I just saw your edits and you are talking about the same thing as monsoon.

PS: Mitochondrial relationships are genetic. DNA can be extracted from mitochondrials just as it can biological fluids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.