View Full Version : Intelligent Design or Evolution?
Rasputin
11-08-2005, 23:23
Well, folks, it is time once again for us to play "Can...Of...Worms!"
So, please, answer the poll and justify your choice with a post if you feel the need. I will wait for a day to offer my pearls so as to avoid biasing the responses.
sooner_sadiq
11-08-2005, 23:49
i personally believe in the idea of intelligent design. however im also a psychologist who believes in the methods of science. as far as the debate of which should be taught. let evolution be to the science classes and intelligent design to the theology classes. both have their place.
Evolution for me. To me, intelligent design would mean extraterrestrial design, and that may be a little far fetched.
JessePasley
11-09-2005, 06:44
Where's the option for un-intelligent design? Or evil design?
Let's face it: good folks like my parents shouldn't be held accountable for a D3m0nSpawn such as myself.
I'm all for intelligent design as far as god using evolution to create life, and the seven days in genesis being merely stages rather than actual earth-days. Or even some other way... I figure I have my faith, and everyone will in the end beleive what they want to anyways, so it doesn't make much difference HOW exactly it happened. It's not like we'd be able to recreate it or anything...
But honestly, trying to teach intelligent design in a public school is kinda silly. Evolution, so far as it isn't taught in the attack of one religion or another (as it mistakingly often is) is the best purely scientific theory we can go on.
hizaguchi
11-09-2005, 08:13
12. No political or religious discussion will be permitted. It has been shown that most folks cannot discuss these topics without it degenerating into a flame war. This would violate Rule #6. So rather than risk it, political and religious discussion are simply not permitted.
I mention this because I noticed a while back that Gene Williams's account has been suspended and the last thread that he participated in (coincidently also started by David: http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=11798) loosely violated the forum rules and was locked. I wouldn't want anybody posting in this thread to end up that way.
Rasputin
11-09-2005, 09:56
I mention this because I noticed a while back that Gene Williams's account has been suspended and the last thread that he participated in (coincidently also started by David: http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=11798) loosely violated the forum rules and was locked. I wouldn't want anybody posting in this thread to end up that way.
I will talk to Robert and see if he minds this one. I am sufficiently curious on the topic that I am willing to allow it for this poll; however, he is the final arbiter.
As for Gene, he was not "locked" because of loosely violating the forum rules. Rather, he was repeatedly warned that his behavior was deliberately provoking and harassing towards other forum members, and he was unwilling to modify his behavior accordingly. That will not apply here as long as people remain polite and respectful.
Thank you for letting me know of your objections on this topic.
Andrew Green
11-09-2005, 10:06
Evolution.
Jeff Burger
11-09-2005, 10:14
How can you believe in intelligent design when people are obviously morons.
:wink2:
I think they should teach evolution in schools and mention some people believe it was god's plan (just say god for Christ sakes).
:wink2:
Evolution.
I have no religious inclination towards theories on creation, so Ill let science do my thinking for me on this one.
hizaguchi
11-09-2005, 10:38
I don't object to the topic at all. I just remembered seeing that Gene got suspended, noticed that the last thread he participated in was locked, reviewed the forum rules, and did the basic math to form my assumption that he was banned for his part in the thread. I just didn't want anybody participating in this thread to step over the same (seemingly arbitrary) line.
Anyhow, I'll weigh in for Creationism. I recognize the effects of natural selection and I don't deny the evidence that life on our planet has been around for a very long time, but the lack of an explanation for a beginning of it all is a pretty big hole in both evolution and non-supernatural intelligent design theories. So Creation, as seen in Genesis, for me. But is Genesis a literal, exhaustive, step-by-step account of the entire process? I don't know. God created the Heavens and the Earth, period. How, when, and why is impossible to know, and even if it weren't would be useless knowledge, since we would have no application for it. Maybe that is why Genesis just tells us that God said, "let there be."
As for teaching in schools, that is more of a political issue than a religious one. Since I obviously don't believe evolution to be a complete explanation of the events, I can't agree with such misinformation being taught to children. But since I feel the same way about history, political science, and economics, I think a more important issue for education is: How rigorous of a requirement for factuality should be placed on public school curriculum? If students should be taught partial-truths, then the current system is fine, but if a more thorough and accurate understanding of the world is important then evolution isn't the only topic that should be evaluated.
, but if a more thorough and accurate understanding of the world is important then evolution isn't the only topic that should be evaluated.
Then I fully expect to see every theory for creation laid out in exhaustive detail. The children should know the ins and outs of every form of creation theory. Scientific, Judeo-Christian, Islam, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Lakota, Jivaro, Bushman, Australian Aboriginal, Inuit, Massai, Buryat, Bon, Neo-Pagan, Sihk, Taoist, Jain, Bahai, and oh yes, I demand that Tom Cruise get to lecture at every middle school in the country on the wonders of Scientology.
Why not? If your religion gets to be taught in school................
But this is slightly off topic, and Ive already typed it all out.
Musubi Dojo
11-09-2005, 10:50
....I really meant "Whimsical Design"
Kinda like a great painter (Monet or Renoir) jacked up on a couple bottles of cheap wine, splashing paint on the canvas and singing a Def Leopard tune...
"Pour Some Sugar On Me....." hmmhmmhhmmm
Either that, or I died in the mid eighties, this is hell and you were all sent here to torment me.
I'm good with either.
Cheers
c
Musubi Dojo
11-09-2005, 10:52
I demand that Tom Cruise get to lecture at every middle school in the country on the wonders of Scientology.
I think we should crucify Tom Cruise and then wait for the Thetans to raise him from the dead...
Musubi Dojo
11-09-2005, 10:54
Then I fully expect to see every theory for creation laid out in exhaustive detail. The children should know the ins and outs of every form of creation theory. Scientific, Judeo-Christian, Islam, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Lakota, Jivaro, Bushman, Australian Aboriginal, Inuit, Massai, Buryat, Bon, Neo-Pagan, Sihk, Taoist, Jain, Bahai, and oh yes, I demand that Tom Cruise get to lecture at every middle school in the country on the wonders of Scientology.
On a more serious note, if everybody understood the ins and outs a little better they might be less inclined to kill each other all the time. (Except for Tom Cruise of course)
Cheers
On a more serious note, if everybody understood the ins and outs a little better they might be less inclined to kill each other all the time. (Except for Tom Cruise of course)
Cheers
Im all for a little cross cultural/interfaith understanding, the problem arises when people expect that only their culture/faith be taught..... especially on such a grand scale as the secular school system.
hizaguchi
11-09-2005, 11:02
Then I fully expect to see every theory for creation laid out in exhaustive detail. The children should know the ins and outs of every form of creation theory. Scientific, Judeo-Christian, Islam, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Lakota, Jivaro, Bushman, Australian Aboriginal, Inuit, Massai, Buryat, Bon, Neo-Pagan, Sihk, Taoist, Jain, Bahai, and oh yes, I demand that Tom Cruise get to lecture at every middle school in the country on the wonders of Scientology.
Why not? If your religion gets to be taught in school................
"Separation of church and state" prevents that. But if it didn't, I would be glad to see various viewpoints on religion taught to children. I'm not a fan of forcing a single viewpoint on anyone, as is currently the practice. A vital part of the freedom we enjoy in the US is the freedom to choose your own beliefs, and a crucial element to that choice is the availability of knowledge. Of course, that's not to say that I encourage people to adopt those other religions. I just have confidence that if full knowledge of the options is available, Christianity would still be a popular choice, considering that in just 2,000 years it has grown from a handful of believers to become one of the largest religions on the planet.
Musubi Dojo
11-09-2005, 11:05
Im all for a little cross cultural/interfaith understanding, the problem arises when people expect that only their culture/faith be taught..... especially on such a grand scale as the secular school system.
Couldn't agree more...
"Separation of church and state" prevents that.
No it doesnt. No more than it prevents teaching biblical creationism in public schools.
I just have confidence that if full knowledge of the options is available, Christianity would still be a popular choice, considering that in just 2,000 years it has grown from a handful of believers to become one of the largest religions on the planet.
so many ways to respond to this.... none of which have to do with the actual thread topic.
While intelligent design may or may not be true (who knows - the idea has its merit) it does not belong in a science class - especially one publically funded.
The process of selective adaptation (evolution's crux) is real. Period. It is science, it is proven, it should be taught and criticized in science class.
When bird flu (or any virus) mutates and becomes a new virus and can infect different animals it was previously unable to, that's evolution. I'd like to hear skeptics justify how living things cannot change while they are coughing up their lungs. Then, in so many years, when the people remaining (or their descendants) have a resistance to this kind of virus (because those who managed to live were able to reproduce), I wonder what they will say?
The changes that come from horse breeding, dog breeding, when we look at a kid and notice that s/he has grandpa's eyes or grandma's unique knack for such-and-such, those are examples of evolution.
The genetic algorithms we did in computer science (tough to explain in an internet post) also proved how the selection of traits over time in a given group create a group with those traits permeated throughout.
This model is real, plain and simple, and successfully proven by scientific method (observe, theorize, test, observe again).
As for the claim that the universe is so complicated that it simply cannot be random, that's hard to qualify. We're basically saying that because the universe is bigger and more complicated than we can figure out (in this day and age), it must be made by something superior to ourselves.
While I believe this conclusion is true (just my belief - nobody else has to agree, of course) the argument sucks. It basically relies upon the idea that we've impressed and baffled ourselves therefore the creation of the system must come from a superior being and have been deliberate.
And, as an engineer, I've created many systems that got away from me - I simply could not understand them and I created them. This is an example of very unintelligent design, though the systems were so complicated one could spend a lifetime trying to figure out what the heck was going on.
Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught in science class. It could well belong in philosophy class or in a literature class - that's a-okay with me. Or if schools had some sort of comparative cultures curiculum (in history class, maybe) then that would be a great place for it.
God knows, we need more exposure to other cultures, ideas, and concepts, including discussions of the physical world vs. the spiritual one. It just has to be in the right department.
Eye4NEye
11-09-2005, 11:40
I vote for "intelligently designed for evolution". This includes not only the design of the organism evolving, but also the environment being engineered to promote it.
Then I fully expect to see every theory for creation laid out in exhaustive detail. The children should know the ins and outs of every form of creation theory. Scientific, Judeo-Christian, Islam, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Lakota, Jivaro, Bushman, Australian Aboriginal, Inuit, Massai, Buryat, Bon, Neo-Pagan, Sihk, Taoist, Jain, Bahai, and oh yes, I demand that Tom Cruise get to lecture at every middle school in the country on the wonders of Scientology.
Why not? If your religion gets to be taught in school....
This was a requirement at college. We spent a lot of time on this.
It was taught as follows:'
1) Here are the main players.
-- As determined by influence upon history and/or having ideas interesting to the department running the class. Given how many there were, they were often subdivided by type (Judeo-Christian-Islamic, animistic, several African religions, Greek-Roman pantheon, pre-Judeo (Babylonian, Egyptian, pre-Islamic Persian, etc.), Hindu, Asian (Shinto, Buhddism, and some others I don't remember).
2) This is what they believed.
3) These are what these religions had in common.
4) These are ideas unique to each camp.
5) These are the important differences.
-- Differences between beliefs and what these different beliefs brought about (like Judeo-Christian-Islamic believing the land and animals belong to humans and we can do what we want vs. conservational religions, or Celtic/Druidic religions that believed that the world was God's (or the gods') temple, so they prayed outside in the nature vs. religions that wanted to build an enclosed building in which to pray).
It was a great series and I think all high school kids ought to be exposed to this. Who knows? Maybe Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions will go the way of the Greek pantheon in a few centuries as people discover new ways to see the divine?
From what did the Creator/Intelligent Designer evolve?
I vote for "intelligently designed for evolution". This includes not only the design of the organism evolving, but also the environment being engineered to promote it.
Good one.
Science tells us the methods and mechanisms behind how things work but it does not tell us who or what is driving it or who or what set it in motion.
This was Darwin's original point, way back when. Evolution was never meant to clash with religion.
I'm new here and don't want to make my introduction by pissing people off right off the bat, but so far I don't understand how ID qualifies, in nomenclature or in substance, as a theory on par with evolution. As I understand scientific method (and honestly, I'm reaching back to 12th grade science on this), you start with a hypothesis that you wish to prove or disprove through experimentation and observation, and it doesn't become a theory until it has built up a substantial body of evidence to support it. ID sounds to me like it's still at the hypothesis stage; I don't know how one would experiment to prove it, and I don't know what natural observations exist to support it - I don't believe the complexity of living systems in and of itself necessarily points to a designer as its cause with no other possible explanation.
With all possible respect,
-TJ Hara
Evolution. Untill someone manages to prove intelligent design. :D
Cliff Hargrave
11-09-2005, 14:08
Evolution. Untill someone manages to prove intelligent design. :D
I am still waiting on someone to prove evolution.
I am still waiting on someone to prove evolution.
Which part?
Selective adaptation? Change in genes over time? Let's define this.
I'm just asking so we don't have one of those kata discussions when everybody has a different understanding of what kata is (or evolution, for that matter).
cuguacuarana
11-09-2005, 15:08
The role of science is to construct the best story for our world given the tangible evidence. Tangible evidence includes selective breeding of various species such as dogs or produce, genetically modified organisms, the observable behavior of DNA in unicellular organisms, the behavior of chromozomes during sexual reproduction, the adaptation of pathogens to vaccines and antibiotics, and the list goes on. Some invisible God or other being doesn't fall under tangible evidence and therefore has no place in a public school's science class. Those discussions belong elsewhere like sunday school or comparative religion class. When there is a creation theory that actually seeks tangible supporting evidence (other than a book), then it just may have a place in a science classroom until then, the notion of intelligent design or creationism remains mythology and should not be included in scientific discourse.
Rasputin
11-09-2005, 15:52
Wow, so far everyone's doing a great job of remaining polite and respectful of each other's beliefs. Warms the cockles of my heart, I tell you.
Well, I promised to give my opinion after people had a chance to weigh in, so here goes. I am just an armchair philosopher so nobody pays me to think (anymore).
The concepts of Evolution and the presence of an omnipotent/omniscient deity are not mutually exclusive. The same could be said of modern cosmology.
It has been my opinion that an internally consistent universe is impossible to reconcile with the existence of a creator who remains "involved" with his creation, especially when one believes in free will. I believe that the universe was created as a grand experiment in Free Will, in which intelligent beings (of which we are probably not the only ones) must depend upon faith to guide them to believing in their creator.
Faith is defined as belief in the absense of proof, so in order for faith to be worth anything at all, the creator must leave no "proof" of his own existence. That mandates a total hands-off approach.
Also, a universe which is constantly tinkered upon is a flawed experiment. Another reason that a creator would start things in motion and then not tamper while it is running.
But is Evolution a strong enough theory to explain how self-assembling molecules turned into people, without the "guiding hand" of a creator?
Definitely. As has been proven in experiments with many life forms, when life is subjected to stresses, the variants which are most able to take advantage of the changes in environment are the ones who are most likely to have children, and those children are very likely to exhibit the same traits which made their parents better suited to survival. This part should be indisputable.
Look at Dogs. Every living Dog, from the smallest Teacup Poodle to the largest Great Dane, has been created by humans from wolf ancestors which look little like their modern counterparts. This was done using the same mechanics that spur Evolution: an environment was created which favored a certain type of animal, and those were allowed to breed into another generation which passed on their genetic complement.
Yes, the guiding hand of humanity helped the process along. But that hand was not "necessary" to the process--it just accelerated things along a timescale with which humanity was comfortable.
In light of the above, I think that Intelligent Design is a flawed way to reconcile the existence of God with Natural Selection. Evolution does not prove the non-existence of God just because it explains how things most likely got this way without requiring a tinkering hand.
Intelligent Design is not science. It does not and can not hold up under scientific scrutiny. It cannot be tested using the scientific method. It has no place being taught in science class.
For the record, I took a Comparative Religions course in public High School, and I think it should definitely be taught in every school. Religions are a huge influence in the Human experience, and it is very difficult to understand where we are all coming from without that information.
Andrew Green
11-09-2005, 15:53
Falsifiability is a trait required for something to be considered as science.
Evolution has this, we can test the theory, if things couldn't be shown to change and evolve over time, which they can and have, the theory would have been proven false.
ID has no way to falsify it. What evidence would disprove the theory? We could trace evolution right back to the big bang and explain why it happened, that still wouldn't falsify ID, nothing can, therefore it cannot be considered science.
My vote is for Creationism, though not a literal reading of Genesis. In the words Let there be light I see the Big Bang. In evolution I see God using nature which He created.
Peace
Dennis
If there is intelligent design then how come the Irish Elk developed antlers so big that they couldn't lift their heads?
Also, the designer must really like arthopods.
John Lucas
11-09-2005, 17:01
Its a matter of perspective. Think of Early man looking upon a river. The river brought him water, which provided him with life-giving drink and food. To him, this water seemed to simply fall from the sky.
Its a similar situation for us, we look at our little bundle of matter like its everything, and debate on where it came from, it seems to us to have popped out of nowhere, when in reality it is just in one tiny visible part of a giant cycle.
Rasputin's last post is good.
"Faith is a hope for things which are not seen which are true." Deal.
I don't think I could have said it near as well.
Jeff Burger
11-09-2005, 17:17
"If there is intelligent design then how come the Irish Elk developed antlers so big that they couldn't lift their heads? "
Ill give you another one....
Putting Irish and intelligent in the same sentence.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I am still waiting on someone to prove evolution.
Hi Cliff, there is plenty of proof for evolution , the fossil record, anti-biotic resistant bacteria. That avian flue, HN51 , that everyone is terrified about - the real fear is that it evolves from a bird to human transmission strain to a human to human transmission strain.
Cliff Hargrave
11-09-2005, 18:37
Oh I am not disputing organisms change, mutate, and adapt. I don't think anyone does. The problem lies with the big bang and and all life evolving from a single cell that just appeared. Also, if these cells, animals, creatures, whatever, evolved over the years for survival, why are there still single cell organisms? Why didnt everything evolve? If evolution was needed for survival or adaptation, why do these things still survive? The missing link is still missing.
We have come a long way in understanding life, but I think we still have a long way to go. I mean DNA is a fairly recent discovery, what do think we will discover 100 years from now?
Rasputin
11-09-2005, 18:50
Oh I am not disputing organisms change, mutate, and adapt. I don't think anyone does. The problem lies with the big bang and and all life evolving from a single cell that just appeared.
It didn't just appear. Over a period of millions of years, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen eventually combined into simple molecules which were self-replicating. Over millions of more years, the mixing nature of the surf thrust some within the bounds of lipid membranes, forming extremely simple proto-cells. Those cells adapted, captured each other in symbiotic relationships (mitochondria), and became more complex. The ones best suited to their changing environments were the ones which prospered. Turns out that complexity is heavily selected for.
Also, if these cells, animals, creatures, whatever, evolved over the years for survival, why are there still single cell organisms? Why didnt everything evolve? If evolution was needed for survival or adaptation, why do these things still survive? The missing link is still missing.
Because they were still suited to their particular environment. Not all environments changed simultaneously, and not all living things adapted in the same ways. Some were in deeper parts of the ocean and adapted to living there, becoming fish. Some were closer to the shore and adapted to living on the land some of the time, becoming amphibians.
There is still a massive niche for single-celled organisms, just as there is a niche for arboreal monkeys and three-toed sloth. That is why they still exist. They are perfectly suited for the environment in which they live.
There is no missing link, nor is any missing. The fossil record does a pretty good job of covering the bases, explaining what adapted into what else, and DNA analysis has filled in for the missing gaps.
We have come a long way in understanding life, but I think we still have a long way to go. I mean DNA is a fairly recent discovery, what do think we will discover 100 years from now?
Whatever it is, I bet my humanity on the fact that Science will be what discovers it, not faith. Faith doesn't discover things about our world; its job is to tell us what lies on the other side.
Oh I am not disputing organisms change, mutate, and adapt. I don't think anyone does. The problem lies with the big bang and and all life evolving from a single cell that just appeared. Also, if these cells, animals, creatures, whatever, evolved over the years for survival, why are there still single cell organisms? Why didnt everything evolve? If evolution was needed for survival or adaptation, why do these things still survive? The missing link is still missing.
We have come a long way in understanding life, but I think we still have a long way to go. I mean DNA is a fairly recent discovery, what do think we will discover 100 years from now?
Hi Cliff, there are still single celled organisms because they can survive quite well in their environment. Evolution is not an ordered process, it works more like there is an advantageous mutation which allows that mutant a survival advantage, hence it procreates. Think about a species that has a mutation with light sensitive cells - it has an advantage say finding prey that those without the mutation don't have, it survives longer, procreates more, passes on its mutation.
Actually DNA is the driving mechanism for evolution - errors during sexual reproduction in copying of DNA produce the mutations.
Out of interest - when you say big bang - do you mean the cosmological theory?
There is still a massive niche for single-celled organisms, just as there is a niche for arboreal monkeys and three-toed sloth. That is why they still exist. They are perfectly suited for the environment in which they live.
Part of that niche is within multi-celled organisms, too.
isayni2u
11-09-2005, 19:39
I would like to second an elementary objection raised earlier against the common notion that creationist theology ought to be taught in the classroom as a valid scientific theory:
Thinking along both Platonic and Kantian lines about the nature of "God"...I can arrive at a few simple conclusions.
If God is responsible for creation, as proposed, he must inherently be a hyper-rational being.
If God is hyper-rational, an understanding of his nature or actions are beyond human capabilities.
All human capabilities to arrive at valid conclusions are grounded in their rational natures.
Hence to put it simply...unlike Kant, there exists a logical "rationality barrier" between God and his creation. This is especially apparent in Christian philosophies. The inability for humanity to understand a God who is omnipotent and potentially omniscient requires that no valid conclusions concerning conscious motivations for creation can be derived. Essentially, I am saying that we know jack **** about the matter and that logic...and hence the scientific method as we understand it would have to be radically revamped with an equal rationality as God's in mind to conclude God's motivations. However, we are obviously not Gods and hence are permanently left in a state of agnostic in-conclusion.
Only through divine revelation can conclusions concerning such a perfect rationality's motivations for creation be determined. At that, in order for other individuals to make any logical conclusions, they themselves would have to be interactive recipients of the revelation.
this is, of course not the case, hence it is beyond logic and human scientific explanation....and thus should NOT be taught as a viable scientific theory, but rather as a prominent branch of theology as it relates to myth.
I mean, think about it.
Saying that
A] "because you can't disprove my theory means I am right" is, I believe, the first logical phallacy pointed out in Epistemological courses!!! is just plain WRONG by definition.
B] if I say that mice are God and can move mountains and hired an alien race to aid their psychic powers....and just for fun they also refuse to show their abilities to any of mankind....does it make it a valid conclusion that I can't disprove their existence as God [so I guess Douglas Adams was right after all...lol]
a better example.
What if I said that my imaginary friend was God. He is invisible even to me sometimes, and can interact with all of mankind at will. That being said, is my statement valid because I said it is? no...
Any Thoughts?
Evolution.
I have no religious inclination towards theories on creation, so Ill let science do my thinking for me on this one.
I totally agree with you on this one, Joe. I've also taken an anthropology class and have seen plenty of scientific evidence on evolution.
Peter Rehse
11-09-2005, 22:54
Over time single celled organisms have evolved as much as the most complex. Think of distance travelled along different roads or a bush where the common ancestor is at the stem and all living decendants (bacteria to man) are on the outside.
There are bacteria that are perfectly evolved to live on human skin.
I voted against ID. Its not a theory but re-packaged dogma. I can not put my faith in dishonesty no matter what my religious beliefs are.
Not to beat a dead horse into the ground, but things evolve to fit niches. New niches form as things progress, which leads to new forms of life (either new species or simply specialist variants of old species) however many of the old niches exist today nearly exactly as they did billions of years ago. They have NO NEED to evolve. They already do what they do extremely well. They fit that niche. However, over time, organisms which happened to drift into areas which no longer fit the niche of that organism caused the organism to adapt or die. The adapted organism DID evolve in a minute way. That however does not mean that the original organism needs to change. It STILL perfectly fits its roll.
Over billions of years, you see drastic changes in the organisms which had to adapt, but little to no change in the organisms which still filled their niche.
Peter Rehse
11-09-2005, 23:10
Joe;
Even those organisms evolve on the molecular level - just that the mutations are neutral.
Got to love those molecular clocks.
Cheers
True, but functionally they stay the same. There are still single celled organisms because the niche still exists. Same reason we still have monkeys, lizards, fish, and non-flowering plants.
And yeah, without a bit of "neutral evolution" youd quickly run out of viable genetic material. Even with asexual replication, you can only make a copy of a copy so many times before its useless.
Falsifiability is a trait required for something to be considered as science.
Evolution has this, we can test the theory, if things couldn't be shown to change and evolve over time, which they can and have, the theory would have been proven false.
ID has no way to falsify it. What evidence would disprove the theory? We could trace evolution right back to the big bang and explain why it happened, that still wouldn't falsify ID, nothing can, therefore it cannot be considered science.
Thank you! I'm glad someone could point that out so clearly (I know I didn't want to try). The two concept are completely exclusive of eachother.
Even if ID were somehow true that wouldn't make evolution false (and vice versa).
Im open to all of the above theories (proven or not).
These subjects are beyond my understanding in any detail.
As far as I understand they are not mutually exclusive.
Rasputin
11-10-2005, 07:09
As far as I understand they are not mutually exclusive.
In a nutshell:
Evolution: Organisms which can survive best in a changing environment are more likely to pass on their genes to their children. This next generation is more likely to possess the traits which made their parents more likely to survive. Random Mutation and Sexual mixing of the genome provide variability which speeds the process.
Can be scientifically tested and proven.
Intelligent Design: As evolution, above, but with the codicil that the process does not work nearly powerfully enough to explain the existence of higher life forms without allowing for the presence of a supernatural being to guide the process along.
Cannot be scientifically tested. The only way that I.D. could be proven is if said higher being appeared and proved that he was the one who performed the act. Technically, just the existence of a higher being would not be enough--they might not have been around at the time, or for whatever else reason might not have been the "invisible guiding hand".
Creationism: The God of your choice created light out of darkness, created the Earth and all the planets, created all the animals and finally Man out of the dirt of the Earth, all within six days. All the animals which now exist were created just as they are now. This has been calculated by biblical scholars to have occurred roughly 6,000 years ago.
Can be scientifically tested. Has been proven false by cosmology, the fossil record, and DNA studies. Some have posited that the six days are actually a metaphor for billions of years, but if so then it is a mighty thin metaphor, as all life as we know it has only existed for something like the last hour of those six days, with five days passing from the beginning of the week with nothing but flying space debris and star formation.
Evolution and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive. Believe one and you obviate the other. Creationism is an early attempt at a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything", and removes the need for either Evolution or I.D.
Creationism, could god created the big bang from existance beyond our universe ? Evolution of the universe, earth, life a byproduct of the above ?
Intelligent Design, sounds a X-Files to me, maybe Aliens intervene with development of life on earth, maybe we are just an experiment ?
Also is'nt there a possible overlap between Creationism and Inteigent Design (that being a god being responsible for both ?
Hey, my Cats are talking to me again :P
Nick
Musubi Dojo
11-10-2005, 09:33
Hey, my Cats are talking to me again :P
Nick
What do they say?
Alternate theory for the beginning of the universe;
There was no begining. It's always been there. That's what the cat's keep trying to tell Nick.
Rasputin
11-10-2005, 09:57
Creationism, could god created the big bang from existance beyond our universe ? Evolution of the universe, earth, life a byproduct of the above ?
Absolutely possible. Kind of close to what my own personal faith tells me. But its not science. It's not even bad science.
Also is'nt there a possible overlap between Creationism and Inteigent Design (that being a god being responsible for both ?
Yes and no. Creationism obviates Intelligent Design, since all of God's creatures were created in the beginning in their current state. Rather, I.D. attempts to reconcile Creationism with Evolution, taking the best of both worlds.
The point is, only Evolution is science, and only Evolution is testable and provable. Anything else is Faith, which while equally powerful and valuable to us as humans, is not science and should not be taught as such.
And don't listen to your cats. They lie worse than the meds.
What do they say?
Usually along the lines of:
"Dude, stop drinking your beer and get me some food."
"Dude, stop drinking your beer and turn the fire on for me"
Or
"Dude, stop drinking your beer and turn the TV over"
:D
Creationism with Evolution, taking the best of both worlds.
The point is, only Evolution is science, and only Evolution is testable and provable. Anything else is Faith, which while equally powerful and valuable to us as humans, is not science and should not be taught as such.
Ah that clears that up.
And don't listen to your cats. They lie worse than the meds.
Yeh, I tend to ignore them...
Rasputin - your post #50 was really good.
Rasputin - your post #50 was really good.
+1 -I don't think anything more needs to be said on this subject than Rasputin's summary.
Rasputin
11-10-2005, 10:36
Wow, thanks, guys! I guess I'll quit while I'm ahead :D
Before I have a chance to say something stupid and blow it all.
Musubi Dojo
11-10-2005, 11:27
Wow, thanks, guys! I guess I'll quit while I'm ahead :D
Before I have a chance to say something stupid and blow it all.
Your advice about the cats was particularly moving, and the other stuff was ok too... :)
Cheers
c
hizaguchi
11-10-2005, 12:09
What do they say?
Alternate theory for the beginning of the universe;
There was no begining. It's always been there. That's what the cat's keep trying to tell Nick.
This brings up a point that interests me. Without faith, how can there be a concept such as "always" in science?
I have heard the theory that states that the universe had no beginning, it just periodically expands and collapses. But the idea that this cyclic universe had no beginning is not testable. It seems to me to be a random choice between 2 scientifically unexplainable options: either it spontaneously appeared, or it has existed eternally. Just like Creation, science has never observed either such phenomena. However, it is an observable fact that, in a closed system with irreversible processes, available energy becomes increasingly unusable over time. Therefore, if the universe is expanding and collapsing, over time that process (along with all others) will eventually lack the usable energy to continue. But if the universe had existed infinitely long ago, it would have reached that point by now. It seems to me that this leaves spontaneous appearance as the only explanation. You either have faith in some outside cause of that event, or you have faith that science is wrong about the whole conservation of mass and energy thing. Either way though, with no way to test the beginning of the universe, you are believing in something.
Well Big Bang theory makes no comment on what the origin of the universe is, to do that would mean finding a unified theory - unifying gravity and quantum mechanics, there are two theories right now trying that, string theory which assumes the universe is the result of high dimensional membranes clashing and loop quantum gravity. I would have to go back and read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe to give you the details . Unfortunately neither theory has any experimental proof right now.
The universe did not exist infinitely long ago, it has a finite age, which is why the entropic effect you are talking about has not come about, it still may one day though.
Actually there is lots of phonemena that science never directly observes - for eg we know the composition of the Sun , what it is made of , how it produces energy but we have never landed a probe there, we find that out from observing its secondary effects. For the Big Bang theory- it came about because Hubble noticed that galaxies twice as far away move away at a speed twice as fast. That means all galaxies must have been at the same point at one time. Also a Russian physicist Gamow predicted the BB would produce background radiation, in the mid 60s two Bell lab physicist found the radiation.
It seems to me to be a random choice between 2 scientifically unexplainable options: either it spontaneously appeared, or it has existed eternally.
CURRENTLY scientifically unexplainable options. However Theoretical physics is making alot of interesting strides in this arena.
Just like Creation, science has never observed either such phenomena.
Lack of proof for the current scientific theories is not proof of lack. However, science has disproved the vast majority of, if not all, claims made in the creation theory.
However, it is an observable fact that, in a closed system with irreversible processes, available energy becomes increasingly unusable over time. Therefore, if the universe is expanding and collapsing, over time that process (along with all others) will eventually lack the usable energy to continue. But if the universe had existed infinitely long ago, it would have reached that point by now. It seems to me that this leaves spontaneous appearance as the only explanation. You either have faith in some outside cause of that event, or you have faith that science is wrong about the whole conservation of mass and energy thing. Either way though, with no way to test the beginning of the universe, you are believing in something.
Again, theoretical physics has some interesting things to say about this. Independent origination may not fit perfectly in with conventional physics, but there are numerous theories regarding multiverses, big bangs (plural), bubble theory (aka beer head), and others. Basically, the challenge is that time may not be linear, and that a UNIverse may not be a foregone conclusion.
Andrew Green
11-10-2005, 12:40
I have heard the theory that states that the universe had no beginning, it just periodically expands and collapses.
In scientific terms, that isn't a theory. It is a hypothesis. I'd imagine it can be tested, although I doubt we have the ability to do so yet, until we do it won't be a scientific theory.
will eventually lack the usable energy to continue.
Not true, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The amount of energy in the universe is a constant. It can change forms, but not appear or dissapear.
Either way though, with no way to test the beginning of the universe, you are believing in something.
Actually, you can. If you're hypothesis is detailed enough it will be testable in that it will make predictions about how the universes expansion/contraction will continue and behave now and in the future. As our technology improves and we can see more and more stuff those predictions will either be correct or not.
For example, and I could be mistaken on this as this is not my field:
The idea that it was a central explosion has been disproven. This model would predict things farther from the center to be moving faster, then things closer to the center.
But this is not the case, everything is expanding at a universal (pun intended ;) ) speed, without a central point.
I think the expand and contract model has been largely dissproven too as observations haven't been able to show that expansion is slowing down, which under that model it would be.
But this is not the case, everything is expanding at a universal (pun intended ;) ) speed, without a central point..
Really -I might be out of date, I thought that the observation that galaxies twice as far away are moving twice as fast still holds.
Andrew Green
11-10-2005, 13:02
Really -I might be out of date, I thought that the observation that galaxies twice as far away are moving twice as fast still holds.
Or it could be me... I do remember hearing somewhere that things weren't moving in the way they "should" have been...
I think things twice as far are still moving twice as fast, but without a central point. Think of the surface area of a ball that is expanding. Things farther move away faster, but there is no central point.
Rasputin
11-10-2005, 14:09
I wasn't going to mention Brane theory. Too many unknowns yet to satisfy those looking for answers. Good catch, though. I love me some NewScientist.
BGalehouse
11-10-2005, 15:43
This brings up a point that interests me. Without faith, how can there be a concept such as "always" in science?
My preferred pedegological approach is to declare Occam's Razor (A claim that the simplest explanation which predicts past observations is the most usefull) to be fundamental. Any logician knows that to say anything about anything, you need an assuption. I think this is a good one to understand science. It leads to a feedback loop in that once you have a possible explanation in mind, you are likely to look for related observations. This becomes the scientific method that we see in gradeschool.
In a way, science is arbitrary. Newton was wrong, in that Einstein corrected him. But he was right in that his work was usefull, and in fact the practical applications of relativity are rather few and far between. We don't need, or have, absolute truth in science.
But ID doesn't even make predictions really, much less predictions that match past observations.
John Lucas
11-10-2005, 16:30
This is kind of what I was talking about earlier, What we see now is just a really small part of what we see, in a way we are just a part of what might be to another intelligent form a piece of molecule so small and insignificant, and then all of his reality is the same to another.
The only place I stray from what I percieve as science is that I take a leap and say that the energy and matter of the universe as I can interact with it has been in existance forever, and that there is an infinite amount of it spread accross an infinite amount of space, and never stops changing or moving. Under those circumstances, anything that occurs must occur an infinite amount of times in an infinite amount of places, and therefore always be occuring at some time in some place.
So, for example, there is a world in a solar system exactly like this one that is 5 years behind ours. So there should be miracles even more significant than ours, perhaps there are completely different ways of interacting with the universe than what we experience. When I think about all the different possibilities, and all the things that are different that are outside of what we percieve, it seems more and more to me like what we see of the universe is just a tiny little piece of a puzzle that goes on forever.
Altough the thread seems to be playing with fire (as mentioned, the forum has rule against religious and/or political debates), I voted evolution. As former student of natural science, student of philosophy of science, former member of Skepsis... decided to vote theory that has been formed, used, and honed in field of science.
With respect,
Riku Ylönen
Altough the thread seems to be playing with fire (as mentioned, the forum has rule against religious and/or political debates), I voted evolution. As former student of natural science, student of philosophy of science, former member of Skepsis... decided to vote theory that has been formed, used, and honed in field of science.
With respect,
Riku Ylönen
Actually this has been a pretty civilized debate. I am surprised given the previous threads in this vein. Maybe we lost some hot heads or they decided to stay away this time
jakmak52
11-12-2005, 14:20
It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries. That's just my opinion :)
Lame Leopard
11-12-2005, 15:31
Here is my "contribution". As smart people, we know we are here (brilliant, huh!), and ask ourselves how we got here. The two most reasonable choices seem to be evolution and intelligent design. Either matter is eternal, and animate sprang from inanimate in a hostile universe where a stacked deck is really against this happening. The other option is believing in the Uncaused Cause. As soon as you get away from this concept, the "Who created God, and then who created the creator of God?" question stretches into the infinity of the past.
On one hand, it is tempting to do my best Aldous Huxley imitation, be intellectually dishonest, and deny God's existence so I can rape, pillage, murder, party, get revenge, seduce, and all the other stuff with physical death being the only consequence. Let's face it, sin can be real fun. I mean that Mother Teresea, Hitler, rattlesnakes, and you and me are all gonna just mix with the dust of the ages.That kinda appeals to me because I can do whatever I want and then just go into nothingness like everybody else, good or bad.
On the other hand, I like having the hope of an eternal existence (I mean, without the flames, and demons doing their animal kung fu ripping on me for eternity. Or there could be some BJJ or Chin Na demons who will just enjoy dislocating stuff on me forever. Dang, I hope the Dragon in Chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation doesn't breath real fire, or Dragon Kung Fu may take on a whole new meaning. Add fire to chi and it gets real nasty.) I mean the home of a joyful eternity, where my mom, dad, friends, and kitties and doggies are and I can have a joyful existence.
The Uncaused Cause explanation makes infinitely more sense to me when explaning the beautiful organization of the universe, than all the complicated stuff we see coming out of chaos. You have to throw the supernatural experiences that some very credible people, have had, and everything points to a supernatural.
Sorry for the bad grammar or punctuation. Not bad for a missing link though. :bow:
Good point on moving the goalposts Lame Leopard. For those that argue that something must have created the universe, well if it is a creator, who created the creator. Most of the time this is dismissed as special pleading, the creator does not need a creator.
I suppose I could just as easily say the universe does not need a creator, it just exists.
Lame Leopard
11-12-2005, 21:31
Good point on moving the goalposts Lame Leopard. For those that argue that something must have created the universe, well if it is a creator, who created the creator. Most of the time this is dismissed as special pleading, the creator does not need a creator.
I suppose I could just as easily say the universe does not need a creator, it just exists.
Thank you fine sir. We all have to live our lives as we see fit. If we are the product of evolution, our cognitive processes will cease at death along with our physical processes. If there is a Creator, and we have an eternal existence, then we will have to live forever with our life decisions, and give an account of ourselves. A person doesn't have to be a fan of organized religion to believe in this concept.
Rasputin
11-12-2005, 22:16
If we are the product of evolution, our cognitive processes will cease at death along with our physical processes. If there is a Creator, and we have an eternal existence, then we will have to live forever with our life decisions, and give an account of ourselves.
I respectfully disagree--although Charles Darwin died without faith in a benevolent creator after the death of his young daughter Anne, the theory of Evolution does not itself discount the existence of a God, just the necessity of His manipulations.
Which brings up an interesting thought. In a discussion like this there are only two real options. Either there is or isn't life after death. If you are in the believe in life after death camp and do what you can to reach your faith's paradise, even if your wrong, you won't know it because your dead. If you are in the camp of this is it, nothing more, and your wrong, then you could be in for a nasty surprise once you wake up dead.
Peace
Dennis
Dennis Monk
11-13-2005, 12:45
If you are in the camp of this is it, nothing more, and your wrong, then you could be in for a nasty surprise once you wake up dead.
My thoughts exactly.
-- If you are in the camp of this is it, nothing more, and your wrong, then you could be in for a nasty surprise once you wake up dead.--
Emmanuel Kant, wasn't that? However, that argument relies on belief that you can bargain with the supposed supreme being ("I'll believe you, because that is the way to have better after-life..").
With respect,
Riku Ylönen
I think Dennis and Dennis are referring to Pascal's Wager which was taught to me as a diagram like this.
There are four options (2x2).
I behave well I don't behave well
----------------------------------------------
Is a God | I'm OK | I'm screwed
-----------|----------------|-----------------
Is no God | I'm OK | I'm OK
----------------------------------------------
Clearly, the safest bet is to behave well, as defined by whatever school of thought w're talking about (Pascal was talking about the Catholic church but this wager applies to most religions).
Jay Bell
11-13-2005, 13:58
Pat Robertson warns town disaster could strike
Associated Press
Nov. 11, 2005 11:05 AM
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.
All eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for re-election were defeated Tuesday after trying to introduce "intelligent design" - the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power - as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."
Eight families had sued the district, claiming the policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state. The federal trial concluded days before Tuesday's election, but no ruling has been issued.
Later Thursday, Robertson issued a statement saying he was simply trying to point out that "our spiritual actions have consequences."
"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."
Robertson made headlines this summer when he called on his daily show for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
Jay Bell
11-13-2005, 14:20
"Separation of church and state" prevents that. But if it didn't, I would be glad to see various viewpoints on religion taught to children. I'm not a fan of forcing a single viewpoint on anyone, as is currently the practice. A vital part of the freedom we enjoy in the US is the freedom to choose your own beliefs, and a crucial element to that choice is the availability of knowledge. Of course, that's not to say that I encourage people to adopt those other religions. I just have confidence that if full knowledge of the options is available, Christianity would still be a popular choice, considering that in just 2,000 years it has grown from a handful of believers to become one of the largest religions on the planet.
I'm a bit late in this discussion, but I wanted to bring some things to the surface here..
Seperation of Chruch and State is a myth. Nowhere in our Constitution is it spoken of, much less assured.
The term, coined from a letter by Jefferson to Danbury Congregation, Jan 1st 1802:
Big Dawg Tom Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
He touches on something that is in the Constitution, however. Seperation of Church and state isn't on the framework that we'd like it to be when we talk about it. It was a move to 1) Insure that a monarchy, ordained by God would never be in power and 2) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".
So stop it! :D
In a discussion like this there are only two real options. Either there is or isn't life after death.
Far too simplistic, especially when you throw in the "paradise" aspect. No insignificant number of people around the world beleive in some sort of soul transmigration (reincarnation) in some way. This is not "life after death" in the judeo-christian sense and should not be confused as such.
I think Dennis and Dennis are referring to Pascal's Wager
Pascals Wager....
The guy nailed it.
People who say "If you die and your wrong your gonna be upset" just strike me as fearful and disingenuous. It smacks of "my way is the right way" and how many BILLIONS of people all have their own idea on "the right way"?
Just be a good person. Is it that hard? Just be a good person. If your benevolent god wants simpering sycophants who are good to get a reward, rather than people who are just good because its the right thing to do to....
I dont want to be in that "paradise" anyway.
If you are in the camp of this is it, nothing more, and your wrong, then you could be in for a nasty surprise once you wake up dead.
I think you mean there is nothing to lose by believing in God , correct Dennis?
What if you back the wrong horse though? At the end of it , it might be Odin up there annoyed that you decided to believe in the Judeo-Christian god.
Far too simplistic, especially when you throw in the "paradise" aspect. No insignificant number of people around the world beleive in some sort of soul transmigration (reincarnation) in some way. This is not "life after death" in the judeo-christian sense and should not be confused as such.
I tried to frame my post in the most general terms that came to mind. Transmigration of the soul could be seen by those believers as a paradise or desirable end, or stop over as you will. However, isn't it a general belief of such faiths that after so many lives well lived one becomes perfected and dwells in perfection. So paradise would still qualify, though it would be distinct from a Judeo-Christian view.
"Pascal"? "Wagner"? "Kant"? If that's where these ideas came from, I'll accept your word as fact. I heard these ideas from a priest once. He probably studied these philosphers. His presentation was truly unique. He used as a theme a casino and playing the odds. As a card counting Blackjack player that was all I had to hear. :D
As far as Odin, well, you can't win them all!!
Peace
Dennis
Dennis Monk
11-13-2005, 16:40
I know nothing about Pascal, Kant etc... I believe what I believe, simple as that. I am not exactly sure what a simpering sycophant is, but I probably shouldn't look it up because I might just be one. My position is this, I have my faith, you may or may not have a faith system of your own. It is irrelevant to me. I cannot change what I cannot change. Do I believe that my belief and faith in the bible and Jesus is true and correct and that those who do not believe will spend eternity seperated from God? Yes. Will I try to belittle someone because they don't feel the same, or not be their friend? No. Do I have many shortcomings, when it comes to following the teachings of the bible? Yes. Is it my place to judge others for their lack of faith (as I see it)? No.
At the same time it appears that there are several out there that see those with a Judeo-Christian faith system as ignorant, or close minded. It seems to me a shame that those who believe in nothing are the ones casting stones at those that at least believe in something.
Pascals Wager....
The guy nailed it.
People who say "If you die and your wrong your gonna be upset" just strike me as fearful and disingenuous. It smacks of "my way is the right way" and how many BILLIONS of people all have their own idea on "the right way"?
Just be a good person. Is it that hard? Just be a good person. If your benevolent god wants simpering sycophants who are good to get a reward, rather than people who are just good because its the right thing to do to....
I dont want to be in that "paradise" anyway.
Actually Joe, I would contend that among the over 1 Billion Catholics worldwide, their beliefs would be very similar. Among the 1 Billion Hindus, Buddhists and Moslems, again very similar beliefs. Judaism has several flavors, but there is still a lot of accepted truths among them. Yes there are differences, but it is the similarities in shared beliefs between those of the same faith I find interesting. It is even more interesting to see similarities among those of different faiths.
I absolutely do not prescribe to the idea that it is my faith or hit the high way. And as far as simpering sycophants, well that has nothing to do with my faith. Since we seem to be getting further from the original premise of intellegent design, I will try to steer back to that. I personally believe that God exists. I believe he created all the energy/matter of the universe and the physical laws that govern them. I find it implausible that matter/energy came into existence out of nothing. I believe that at some point, say 20 billion years ago, God said let there be light, and it started. Since then things have progressed according to various modes- galaxies form, stars age, die and form new stars. The universe expands.
Somethings are beyond science. One example is, what is past the edge of the universe? If the universe is finite in size, what is beyond its boundaries.What is it expanding into or pushing aside? Emptiness? It is something not knowable since we cannot even send a probe into it to measure what? What was happening before the Big Bang?
Peace
Dennis
I believe that life was designed intelligently, and then it evolved.
All kidding aside, evolution happens, it is a factor in the life equation. To say it doesn't exist is foolishness. If evolution were the only factor in the origin of life, though.... We have come an awful long way from a replicating strand of DNA in a pool of amino acids. So there has to be something else happening.
Evolution offers the best solution to the question of life than anything else however. Consider if life were the product of intelligent design, as in aliens genetically engineering the life-forms of earth to yield human beings, then who designed the aliens? Other aliens?
So I am for Evolution, but I am very quick to add that there are other things going on that we have not even considered as of yet.
Actually Joe, I would contend that among the over 1 Billion Catholics worldwide, their beliefs would be very similar. Among the 1 Billion Hindus, Buddhists and Moslems, again very similar beliefs. Judaism has several flavors, but there is still a lot of accepted truths among them. Yes there are differences, but it is the similarities in shared beliefs between those of the same faith I find interesting. It is even more interesting to see similarities among those of different faiths.
Well, thats one way to go a little, uh, literal... But to take it just a hair more literal, I think you would be hard pressed to find any 2 people who beleive EXACTLY the same way. Even two people of the same church (for instance) who studied the exact same things from the exact same people, they probably still have their own understanding, unless of neither person actually thinks for themself and just takes things as they are given. On a less literal level, you cant just lump large groups of people (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) Into groups like that. Im not sure where you got 1 billion catholics, but there are roughly 2 billion christians according to this webpage. These 2 billion are shown as 14+ groups lumped under a single heading. 1.3 billion people are islamic. They break down, commonly, into 2 groups. shiite and sunni. Over 1 billion secular/non-religious/agnostic/athiest people... Nearly another billion hindu people... who generally are known to practice roughly 300 common sects under a single umbrella. 400 million people practice "chinese traditional" religions... usually considered a blend of buddhism, taoism, and confusionism, with each person taking more or less from each faith as it fits their needs. Over 350 million people practice buddhism, which breaks up into therevada, mahayana, vajrayana, and many many smaller groups which tend to take eccletically from each other. These groups are occasionally called buddhayana.
so now we are just shy of 6 billion people broken up to over 325 different groups, and we havent even touched the other 16 groups listed on this webpage alone, nor their sub-sects........
Which one is right? Who has the monopoly on truth? Whos wager is correct? The idea that yours, or my, or his, or hers, is "correct" when the reality is that NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS is foolish.
But, being 100% fair, to just blindly accept science as the only source of truth is also foolish.
My point is, no one knows. No one.
I absolutely do not prescribe to the idea that it is my faith or hit the high way.
didnt say you specifically were... but lots of people do, and no small number fall back on pascals wager when they say "oh, but what if you die and I was right? youll be sorry then"... but then what if YOU die and *I* was right. Will you be sorry then? What is the jews are right? neo-pagans? buddhists? what if the scientologists are right? what then?
Isnt it better to just do the right thing, because its the right thing?
And as far as simpering sycophants, well that has nothing to do with my faith.
If only "true beleivers" get into "heaven", not people who do good for goodness sake (to coin a phrase) get to go to "paradise" then.... Eh.
Somethings are beyond science. One example is, what is past the edge of the universe? If the universe is finite in size, what is beyond its boundaries.What is it expanding into or pushing aside? Emptiness? It is something not knowable since we cannot even send a probe into it to measure what? What was happening before the Big Bang?
And if science does figure this out? What then? Just because science doesnt have the answer YET doesnt mean it wont... and just because science doesnt know YET doesnt mean it makes any sense to just chock it up to some diety. Why? Because as has been allueded to previously (see I can stay on topic...) You cant just deny something because you dont know its origin, and then accept something else that you dont know the origin to and say "see, this makes sense".
Cuz it doesnt.
Cliff Hargrave
11-13-2005, 22:49
Big bang theory is like setting off a bomb in a metal factory and ending up with a watch.
Life, the earth, the solar system, and the universe are so complex that the chance of it just appearing from nothing is beyond the realm of our understanding. The more we discover about life, the closer we get to believing there is a God.
Big bang theory is like setting off a bomb in a metal factory and ending up with a watch.
Actually, its more like setting off a bomb CONTAINING a metal factory inside a vacuum of such emense size you cannot even conceive of the edge of the vacuum, and a few microscopic flecks of matter, given an unfathomable amount of time, falling to an artistic pattern.
Life, the earth, the solar system, and the universe are so complex that the chance of it just appearing from nothing is beyond the realm of our understanding.
Yup, so we invent mythology to fill the void of understanding. Nothing wrong with that, but it shouldnt be given the same level of creedence as science when talking ABOUT science.
The more we discover about life, the closer we get to believing there is a God.
Im sure you could point to someone who said this before you, but I dont think this statement is as definate as you seem to make it.
(http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)
These ratios look a little skewed to me. I'm not sure but I think there are more Hindus (on account of India having 1.3 billion people which is almost twice the USA, Europe, the former USSR, though not all are Hindu, of course), more Molsems (the #1 growing relgion at the moment) and just slightly fewer Christians.
I could be wrong, though.
Which one is right? Who has the monopoly on truth? Whos wager is correct? The idea that yours, or my, or his, or hers, is "correct" when the reality is that NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS is foolish.
More wars have been fought and more people slain over this than anything else.
But, being 100% fair, to just blindly accept science as the only source of truth is also foolish. I think the problem is not understanding what science covers and what it does not and making science a de facto religion. The "science culture" can be as inflexible as fundamentalist religious culture. Science goes from detail up to general scope, religion the opposite. Science proves fact BUT they are always discovering new things. Being stolidly inflexible about this and about being willing to learn and re-learn is a failure of the culture, not of the scientific method.
My point is, no one knows. No one.
No kidding. I wish more people would accept this but I think there is so much fear of being wrong and paying for it at the end that people close their minds and become dogmatic. It's fear and insecurity.
The zealots are the weak ones in their faiths, both in the religious and in the scientific camps.
Big bang theory is like setting off a bomb in a metal factory and ending up with a watch.
Life, the earth, the solar system, and the universe are so complex that the chance of it just appearing from nothing is beyond the realm of our understanding. The more we discover about life, the closer we get to believing there is a God.
Good points, Cliff.
While I feel the same way about your conclusions, that science helps us to understand God (which is what Darwin was about during his Beagle and Origin of Species period), I must disagree with your argumentation. I cannot accept that just because we don't understand something it therefore is briliant or that it is deliberate.
These ratios look a little skewed to me. I'm not sure but I think there are more Hindus (on account of India having 1.3 billion people which is almost twice the USA, Europe, the former USSR, though not all are Hindu, of course), more Molsems (the #1 growing relgion at the moment) and just slightly fewer Christians.
I could be wrong, though.
They looked slightly skewed to me for the same reasons you gave, but it gave a decent visual aid and the numbers didnt hurt my arguement since exact numbers isnt the point, just variety of beleif.
some other resources if someone wanted to do the research:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0904108.html
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/stats.html
Rasputin
11-14-2005, 00:15
The more we discover about life, the closer we get to believing there is a God.
I would have to classify this as a personal statement rather than one which applies to the general population.
Many years ago, when I first met my wife's parents, we were having a round-table discussion on many topics. One of them turned out to be the creation of Life in the laboratory. Back then I posed this question to my Father-in-law:
"What happens when Scientists take simple chemicals and combine them in such a way that they create a living cell. Craft a cell membrane from unliving chemicles, chemically construct a simple nucleus containing just enough DNA to allow itself to reproduce, fill it with ersatz cytoplasm, and it begins to do all the things that living cells can do--take in nutrients, expel wastes, and reproduce. Is it alive?"
Before he stormed out of the house to smoke and drink a beer, all he would tell me was that it would never happen. Science would never be capable of such a task, ostensibly since this would infringe upon God's territory.
We are almost there. Estimates put the first lab-created cells being produced before the decade is out.
Would this disprove the existence of God? If so, how?
Does it disprove the existance of a creator being? Or disprove the existance of "God"?
In the 1st, no, it absolutly does not disprove the existance of a creator. It does go back to the question of who created the creator, but then, it also proves the ability of inanimate chemicals to combine and create basic life.
Even if someone were to argue that this universe is too hostile for spontanious life development, that doesnt presuppose a different (theoretical) "universe", or reality plane, or even higher demention, from being more conducive to spontanious life and that the beings from said universe/plane/demention interacting with this reality with precomposed basic building blocks.
Does it disprove the existance of "God"? Again, no. It does prove that it does not take some mythological omniscent being to create life. It does not however disprove the existance of God anymore than it disproves that their is a cosmic muffin circling alpha centauri, or an invisable dragon in my garage.
Big bang theory is like setting off a bomb in a metal factory and ending up with a watch.
Life, the earth, the solar system, and the universe are so complex that the chance of it just appearing from nothing is beyond the realm of our understanding. The more we discover about life, the closer we get to believing there is a God.
Actually Big Bang theory is governed by established physical laws, there is no arguing with the expansion of the universe or the background radiation, they are established fact.
Most of the formation of galaxies, suns etc. can be explained with standard cosmological theory.
Cliff Hargrave
11-14-2005, 07:10
More wars have been fought and more people slain over this than anything else.
You know people spout that alot, but does it really back up with history? Sure there were many wars fought over religion, but does religion have the top spot of war? Do you consider WWII a religious war? WWI? The Mongol empire? The Roman Empire prior to the 4th century? The 100 million dead in the name of communism?
Humans and their power grabs are the #1 reason for war, regardless of what they use as an excuse.
Cliff Hargrave
11-14-2005, 07:14
"What happens when Scientists take simple chemicals and combine them in such a way that they create a living cell.
Great question, it will change some thinking. I personally don't think it will happen. It still doesn't change the fact that it took us this long, with our advanced technology, and the thoeries say it happened by accident. If a scientist creates it then wouldn't that be intelligent design?
Great question, it will change some thinking. I personally don't think it will happen. It still doesn't change the fact that it took us this long, with our advanced technology, and the thoeries say it happened by accident. If a scientist creates it then wouldn't that be intelligent design?
Hi Cliff, irregardless of religious feelings, both evolution and the Big Bang theory are robust scientific theories. I have no problem with anyone worshipping whoever they want to, my problem occurs when religionists try to censure science.
Let's face it, Galileo was right, it only took the Catholic Church 360 years to admit it.
At the end of the day science has never been proven wrong by religionists, only by other scientists.
Rasputin
11-14-2005, 07:28
If a scientist creates it then wouldn't that be intelligent design?
Yes, and no. It would show that a designer was capable of creating life, not that one was integral to the process.
You cannot prove the absence of something by rendering it unnecessary.
Showing that the Big Bang was a valid way that the universe could have begun does not prove the absense of a creator.
Doing good deeds because you want to (Secular Humanism?) does not mean that God does not exist.
An internally consistent theory that Atoms->Molecules->Self-replicating Systems->Simple Cells->Complex Cells->Multicelled Organisms->Plants->Animals->People does not prove that God never was, and should not be used as grist for that mill.
Yes, and no. It would show that a designer was capable of creating life, not that one was integral to the process.
.
good point Rasputin, we can create nuclear fusion on earth, but it does not mean the sun is incapable of doing the same thing through a natural process.
Cliff Hargrave
11-14-2005, 07:58
The only thing that sucks about this debate is that when we finally find out for sure, we can't come back and tell anyone.
The only thing that sucks about this debate is that when we finally find out for sure, we can't come back and tell anyone.
Well when we get there, the loser buys the other a beer at the local pub.
What is your drink Cliff?
BGalehouse
11-14-2005, 08:35
Science is the arragment of phenomonology into boxes. Iron starts to melt at one temperature, and will be liquid at another temperature. You can look up the numbers and take it on faith, or you can get out a blowtorch and try it.
I allwasy find it a bit odd when people try to box up the infinite. When statistics show that a certain type of prayer helps to cure disease, prayer becomes just another antibiotic. And while the pragmatist is allways eager to find another antibiotic, I'm not sure that I'd still be able to call it the infinite.
Science looks at earthly behaviors foremost. But who is to say that this isn't what we are here for? The world is a relic of creation.
You know people spout that alot, but does it really back up with history? Sure there were many wars fought over religion, but does religion have the top spot of war? Do you consider WWII a religious war? WWI? The Mongol empire? The Roman Empire prior to the 4th century? The 100 million dead in the name of communism?
Humans and their power grabs are the #1 reason for war, regardless of what they use as an excuse.
Sound counter-argument.
Let me give that one some thought.
The zealots are the weak ones in their faiths, both in the religious and in the scientific camps.
I couldn't have phrased it any better.
Off-topic: I'd like to thank all the forum members for not picking my rather Freudian lapsus on the first name of Kant - seems to tell a bit too much my concentration lately :D...
With respect,
Riku Ylönen
Back to the real issue: on general basis, I consider that in ideal situation all three - religious, science, and politics - are separated: I see that they all have their own functions in society, but trying to legitimate or bound some of these three in the name of some else is usually leading to problems. Two examples given: before Renaissance the heritage of Ancient Greek & Roman civilizations was treasured by secular Arabic (Muslim) scientists in very elegant manner. That's the way to do things. Another: Lamarckian theory of evolution, in its vulgar sense, was adapted to USSR's political ideologies, and used as scientific reasoning for agricultural experiments. Didn't work all so well.
Saying 'ideal situation' previously I'm telling that I'm aware about difficulties in real world in this issue.
With respect,
Riku Ylönen
I consider that in ideal situation all three - religious, science, and politics - are separated
That would be an ideal situation indeed...
Found this today
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506301.htm
Peace
Dennis
Found this today
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506301.htm
Peace
Dennis
Looks interesting. I just might order the booklet.
"Truth does not contradict truth," meaning scientific truths will never eradicate religious truths and vice versa.
Smart man.
Brother Consolmagno said that, like scientists, people of faith should not be afraid of saying "I just don't know."
This one aint too shabby either.
I dont mean to throw gunpowder into the fire, and this is kinda off topic but...
Everyone knows that the bible is open to interpretation. Why do religious scholars interpret it to contradict science? Like the Earth is 6000 years old. If Adam and Eve were created with full language, reading, and writing capabilities... Then why the cave drawings of a seemingly unintelligent human. Where do the dinosaurs come into it? And to me it seems really far fetched that everybody spoke one language until the tower of babel was attempted.
What about the biblical atrocities... Where God gave somebody his blessing to kill, rape, and plunder?
I know these are questions that a snot nosed, know-it-all kid would ask... but have they been adequately answered?
I am not a Bible Scholar, nor do I play one on T.V., but I will still venture into your question somewhat. First the 6000 year old age of the earth. That came from taking the ages of the patriarchs who are in the old testament and adding them up and going back to Adam. That is the conclusion reached someone who reads the entire Bible like a science textbook. But such a reading is suspect because the Bible is not one book but rather a collection of books between one set of covers. Within the Bible are books that are of different genres; histories, poetry, allegories, apocalytic literature to name a few of the styles. Just as one would read poetry different than they would read say their Income Tax instructions, one must use care in reading the Bible. Here's a prime example, in the Gospels Jesus is asked "How many times should I forgive my neighbor?" He gives as an answer, "Not seven times, but seventy times seven". That does not mean you are only to forgive 490 times and that's it, but rather, you should forgive as often as necessary.Seven in the Bible is a number of perfection. A number of perfection increased by a factor of another number means perfection plus. Another example, in Revelations the number 144,000 is given for those in heaven. Some read this number literally, 144,000 openings in heaven, once filled others need not apply. But what this number is is the number of the apostles (12) times the twelve tribes of Isreal times 1000, which signifies a great multitude.
For me, the Bible contains spiritual truths about God's love and concern for all humanity. Some parts are to be taken literally, others are to be read between the lines so to speak. To truly understand the different styles requires an understanding of the original languages as well as the culture of the writer and the writers original audience.
Peace
Dennis
cuguacuarana
11-18-2005, 21:33
Where do the dinosaurs come into it? And to me it seems really far fetched that everybody spoke one language until the tower of babel was attempted.
The dinosaurs were created on the sixth day...or thats what they'de have you believe.
Evolution. There does not seem to be a conflict with religion.
ID Versus Evolution. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html)
Evolution. There does not seem to be a conflict with religion.
ID Versus Evolution. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html)
Here is a quote from Albert Einstein:
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
and another
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
It is apparent that the greatest scientist of the 20th century believed in Intelligent Design.
Peace
Dennis
I don't think it would be correct to say that he believed in Intelligent Design. Einstein believed in God, but it was something like Spinoza's God. It's perhaps a kind of spirituality of the cosmos, and the religiosity that scientific study of universe inspired in him. He rejected the idea of a personal God.
It is NOT apparent that Einstein beleived in intelligent design.
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously.
I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
I meant to post earlier, but would you believe, Life got in the way of me Wasting Time On The Internet With You Reprobates!
I'm a fervent Evolutionist, I have to say, and have no time for Creation as it is written in the Bible. The main proponents of Intelligent Design theory - by that I mean the loudest - make by blood boil with how they twist the words of famous evolutionary biologists, taking them out of context to suit their own ideals. And the idea of teaching ID theory in Science classes, which for better or worse are there to teach science, is laughable (so far there is only one school in the UK that has tried it, and I don't think they were successful). The loudest ID theorists try to create imaginary disputes between Biologist camps and assume this fake argument to be proof that there is no consensus; it is allegorical to pointing out the differing opinions of the many factions of Christianity (or Judaism/Islam), then assuming it to prove God doesn't exist.
But if you look a little deeper into the science literature, you find a much more moderate view: the view that Evolutionary theory, natural selection and the development of the Earth over 4500 million years, is simply a description of what happened when God created the earth. These scientists (e.g. Martin Gardner, and a few others whose name eludes me temporarily) have no problem reconciling their faith with the observations of science, because that's all science is: observation.
Science is the How; religion/philosophy is the Why. For me, the quote I mentioned above emphasises this. I've never seen why religion and science need to be in opposition to each other. Science is simply the Human's way of discovering the truth of the universe. If God exists, would he want us to live in ignorance?
Can I ask how many states currently teach ID theory (or are considering to teach it)?
Here is a quote from Albert Einstein:
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
and another
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
It is apparent that the greatest scientist of the 20th century believed in Intelligent Design.
Peace
Dennis
I have to agree with the other posters Dennis, I don't see how you conclude that Einstein believed in I.D. from those few quotes. In any case Einstein was a physicist , not an evolutionary biologist, expertise in one field does not mean expertise in every field.
In fact I would argue Einstein's belief in God (his version of it), hampered him , in that he never accepted quantum theory , the most successful scientific theory ever, and I include relativity .
Here is a quote from Albert Einstein:
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
and another
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
It is apparent that the greatest scientist of the 20th century believed in Intelligent Design.
Supposing this to be true, and I'm not arguing that it is nor that it isn't, it still does not mean that ID belongs in the science classroom.
SteyrAUG
01-27-2006, 19:44
The answer is obvious...
http://www.vestaldesign.com/vestalblog/uploaded_images/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage-720112.jpg
All you blasphemers and non believers will forever toil in Olive Garden.
:laugh: good one Rich.
Erik - why did you bring up this old thread all of a sudden?
I just acquired a book called The Science Before Science, by Anthony Rizzi. He is a physicist. I saw an interview of him discussing the book. While I have not yet read the book, my general impression is that he attempts to layout the strengths of the scientific method and at the same time discuss other methods of thinking- philosophy . I a slow reader due to a busy schedule, but others on this board may find it interesting as well.
Peace
Dennis
Gene Williams
01-28-2006, 09:22
It is NOT apparent that Einstein beleived in intelligent design.
There is as much egoism in non-belief as there is in belief, e.g. Kimpatsu. I suspect, from what I have read, that Einstein was a little like him.
The current vogue for "intelligent design" is just a political stunt to slip theology into public schools as a sham science. For all I care they can teach it, as philosophy, as humanities. But not as science.
Science is a methodology first and foremost. Evolution holds up as science since it is a theory which may be put to various sorts of physical examination...yes, even experimentation. It is the simplest "theory" to fit the currently known facts in evidence.
To posit a cosmological creator deity more complicates the issue than simplifies it. And it cannot be directly measured even in its most minute particulars...not and have the "results" group into any mathematically recognizable pattern. Thus it is not a science.
A buddhist cannot find any argument against evolution since all it says is that everything constantly changes. Lord Buddha already said that is so. He also said for us to test anything he said "as a goldsmith tests gold", to weigh it, rub it, do whatever is needful to know that is, in actualty, gold. Perhaps Buddhism is a science? Even so I would hot have it taught in the public schools as a science.
Let us keep all such issues where they belong, which in all probability, is not the laboratory. We might all be disappointed.
John Lucas
02-01-2006, 20:24
Given: Matter is infinite
Energy is infinite
Physical space is infinite
Time is infinite
All of the structures that we see are possible through chemical reaction.
given infinite trials, even 1.0*10^(-9999999999999) odds have a 100% chance of occuring.
ID definitely doesnt belong in science books, I dont think it can be proven or disproven and is therefore unsuitable for science.
Gene Williams
02-01-2006, 20:38
Given: Matter is infinite
Energy is infinite
Physical space is infinite
Time is infinite
All of the structures that we see are possible through chemical reaction.
given infinite trials, even 1.0*10^(-9999999999999) odds have a 100% chance of occuring.
ID definitely doesnt belong in science books, I dont think it can be proven or disproven and is therefore unsuitable for science.
Actually, there is much current debate as to whether those things are infinite or not :alien:
SteyrAUG
02-01-2006, 22:50
Actually, there is much current debate as to whether those things are infinite or not :alien:
And in the end it will prove NOTHING.
I propose the Universe was the creation of the Easter Bunny.
Prove me wrong. Can't do it right?
Ok, then prove I'm right. Gee we still can't do it can we?
And guess what...we NEVER will be able to.
See where this is headed?
So all we "can" do is prove what "can" be known. And that is simply the goal of science, nothing more, nothing less.
And if God, The Easter Bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Area 51 aliens revealed themselves tommarow as the creators of the Universe then THAT would become science.
But until we know for sure, I'm sticking with the Easter Bunny. :laugh:
Peter Rehse
02-01-2006, 23:05
Hey me too - old EB is one powerful dude.
I just acquired a book called The Science Before Science, by Anthony Rizzi. He is a physicist. I saw an interview of him discussing the book. While I have not yet read the book, my general impression is that he attempts to layout the strengths of the scientific method and at the same time discuss other methods of thinking- philosophy . I a slow reader due to a busy schedule, but others on this board may find it interesting as well.
Peace
Dennis
Hey Dennis, I meant to ask - how is it a good Catholic boy like yourself is defending Intelligent Design when even the Vatican doesn't believe it is science?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/18/ap/world/mainD8F7BDS03.shtml
Actually I'm not. Although my posts might lead you to think that. My belief is that there is a God, who is intellegent and who designed the universe as it is with all its physical constants and laws. I also believe He gave us a brain capable of understanding the workings of the universe and in doing so revealing His existence to us. Science as it makes discoveries of the universe will only reveal more and more truth. I do not take Genesis literally as in 7 twenty four hour days.
So when I posted about Einstein- it was in the frame of thought. He made so many comments about God and religion that I'm certain he was open to the idea of A Creator of it all.
Peace
Dennis
Yang Wei Xin
05-09-2006, 15:19
Einstein believed that there had to be an afterlife because energy can not be created or destroyed, it only changes states.
jakmak52
05-09-2006, 15:26
Einstein believed that there had to be an afterlife because energy can not be created or destroyed, it only changes states.
Changing states does not necessarily indicate "an afterlife" :bow:
well i read through about half the posts on this topic and most of my support for evolution has been. if you want a real quick look at evolution look at HIV, i just did a paper on it and it is a modern show of just how quick evolution can take place. every newly produced virus has a good chance of being significantly different than its parent... averaging a change of 9-10 nucleotides/rna replication. proof of evolution is all over the place if you're willing to look for it, same as proof of a creator(whether he/she/it is still out there watching and taking an active role in the universe is another question) but religion and evolution should not clash. the only way they can clash is when people take things too literally, no offense meant to people who do take the bible literally, but even biblical scholars advise against such things. Anyway thats my 2 cents
PS aveonflu and hiv are very similar so this point was also somewhat made before :X
David Craik
05-09-2006, 15:47
same as proof of a creator
Examples please?
Rasputin
05-09-2006, 16:06
Examples please?
Chocolate.
Technically speaking, ID is an alternate theory of evolotion to Darwin's theory of natural selection. It doesn't dispute evolution, it posits that evolution is too complex to be explained by random mutations that give certain plants or animals a competitive advantage that results in species diversification, so there has to have been and intelligent designer guiding the process (God or little green men).
Yang Wei Xin
05-09-2006, 16:20
Changing states does not necessarily indicate "an afterlife" :bow:
Sure it does, you could be a maggots energy supply for a day, maybe you would warm up the ground around a flower and help it to grow, perhaps you get burned and become fire.
All very interesting things to be a part of I would think. :wink2:
David Craik
05-09-2006, 16:32
Chocolate.
Well, you do have a point there...
Sure it does, you could be a maggots energy supply for a day, maybe you would warm up the ground around a flower and help it to grow, perhaps you get burned and become fire.
There's a wee bit of difference between changing states to become worm food and continuing to exist by virtue of having an immortal soul, methinks. Putrefaction isn't usually considered an 'afterlife', and the fact that carbon-based life forms rot is hardly a testament to Einstein's theological beliefs. :D
hizaguchi
05-09-2006, 17:51
I took a class that centered heavily on evolution this semester, and I have come to a conclusion. The I.D. vs organic evolution debate is a decoy issue. It's ultimately unimportant. The government is tapping our phone lines and selling off our fundamental freedoms to corporations while we sit and argue topics that absolutely do not matter in the long run. Seriously, nobody will care where cows came from when there's a guy in a suit sitting in the corner of your living room making sure you don't engage in any "terrorist" activities. The same goes for gay marriage, gas prices, and just about anything else that makes the news headlines. It's just emotionally charged filler to keep your mind of the other stuff that's going on.
Ahem, err, umm, rant over. I used to be really suspicious of evolution. I was being narrow minded. Having now looked at some of the evidence, I say evolution all the way. If you don't admit that the evidence is overwhelmingly conslusive, you've probably not seen very much of it.
Of course, that's not to say that I believe any less in God. I'm just able to admit even more that He works in mysterious ways. :wink2:
David Craik
05-09-2006, 18:11
The same could be said for entire fields of study like archaeology, paleantology, cosmology, history, string theory, chaos theory, and many aspects of quantum physics. Man has a driving desire to know where he came from, the nature of the world around him, and his place in the universe. It is this quest for knowledge that is responsible for all the technology we have today - from vaccines to DNA profiling, and why we now know that the earth isn't flat and the sun isn't a chariot driven across the sky.
jakmak52
05-09-2006, 18:18
I'll go with the Occam's razor principle.... :bandit:
David Craik
05-09-2006, 18:48
Big bang theory is like setting off a bomb in a metal factory and ending up with a watch.
Ahhh, the blind watchmaker. Of course, this is comparing current conditions to an initial singularity without regard to changes taking place over the course of billions of years. Any reality that was created would be equally amazing to us - if we had any other reality we would be saying "look, there was an explosion in a metal factory 13 billion years ago and now we have a toaster!"
It has been proven that the universe is expanding through the study of red-shift long ago. If it has been expanding, and we can calculate the rate of expansion in each direction, it is reasonable to extrapolate that it originated from a central point. The center of the metal factory, as it were. ;)
It has been proven that the universe is expanding through the study of red-shift long ago. If it has been expanding, and we can calculate the rate of expansion in each direction, it is reasonable to extrapolate that it originated from a central point. The center of the metal factory, as it were. ;)
The proof was pretty much settled when two Bell Labs scientists found the cosmic background radiation - as predicted by Big Bang Theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
jakmak52
05-09-2006, 19:29
Hmmmm..might be Carl Sagan :rolleyes:
Science seeks the simplest solution to any problem. It is not scientific to posit that everything cannot exist in its infinte complexity unless it has been created. That would posit the existence of an even greater complexity (some god) who did the creating. Which leaves the greater quandry of who created that god (some even yet more complex prior god?). It is circular logic (a contradiction in terms) and not at all scientific.
ID is a ruse whereby to cloak religion in the guise of a quasi-scientific theory. Teach ID all you like, even in the public schools for all I care, but do it within the desmenses of a humanities or philosophy cirricula...not in the department of sciences. It is not science. It is not even a theory, since a theory holds itself up only as a possible solution and admits of its being later disproven. None of the ID proponents hold any such notion of its later being disproven. Nor do they propose any experiments to test the case. It is therefor not science and belongs not in any science cirriculum.
Gan Uesli Starling
Kalamazoo MI USA
Examples please?
well for starters the fact that oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc all came together in the firstplace to create the pre-protiens and then evolution itself, yes it is random in my opinion, and yes there is an explanation behind it ie mutation, but the fact that cells screw up, and that that trait of screwing up seems to be the only thing trait that has been passed on from single protien synthesis to multi-organed beings such as humans (the screwing up being in the DNA replication). well theres that stuff, and on a broader level the sheer infinity (or seeming infinity) of the universe, quite convenient without some sort of supreme being no? but im getting off topic, this is about evolution vs ID not about the existance of a God.
oh and of course chocolate :bow:
It is not even a theory, since a theory holds itself up only as a possible solution and admits of its being later disproven.
i believe you are thinking of a theorum, ID is a theory, just a fairly well debunked 1 from my understanding
David Craik
05-10-2006, 05:05
well for starters the fact that oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc all came together in the firstplace to create the pre-protiens and then evolution itself, (SNIP) quite convenient without some sort of supreme being no?
Sorry, I don't see how any of this proves the existence of a god. If anything, evolution, which has been solidly proven, stands as a counterpoint to such a notion. Why would a Supreme and Perfect being design a system by which old species evolve or die out and new, more complex and intelligent ones appear? Seems to me that if I were God I would have just created them all perfectly in the first place rather than have billions of years of trial and error.
ID is hardly even a theory in the scientific sense. A theory must be supported by experimental evidence and is logical and testable in some way. Science has the benefit of being self-correcting, scientists are constantly looking for chinks in the armor of even their own pet ideas and for possible better explanations, to say nothing of peer review. ID has nothing like this, and 'God did it' will never advance beyond being a hypothesis based on faith because it cannot be subjected to the ruthless scrutiny required to become a theory.
Since the dawn of man that which we could not explain was attributed to the hand of some god or another..fire, lightning, planets, storms. Without exception all have been shown to be the result of natural forces at work. It's a little amazing to me that some folks who have a hard time swallowing scientific theories as to how the universe was created have no problem believing that it was some invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing, ageless Being (who did not have to be created Himself) in the sky who did it.
Big Bang is simply the best explanation we have, as it is consistent with observed phenomena.
Hmmmm..might be Carl Sagan :rolleyes:
I don't follow.
Tang-Soo-Architect
05-10-2006, 07:30
I havn't read the rest of the thread - it's too long - so I apologise if I am repeating.
Big Bang is simply the best explanation we have, as it is consistent with observed phenomena.
To follow on from David:
But if big bang is an explaination for the beginning of evolution/id (et al) - life in the universe then the real question is:
Why Big Bang?
As far as we can understand Big bang didn't evolve, it didn't start as little pop, or petulant squeak. It just happened. But why? What decided, if anything?
Now here's the next part: If big bang leads to the creation of the universe which leads in turn to the distribution of galactic matter which forms into galaxies, which form into stars, which then form planets, which then just happen to (not all but some) settle into an orbit that allows conditions to spawn life - here's the question...
What if the big bang was bigger, or smaller, or cooler, or hotter so that the universe could not be created as it did? Life as we know it wouldn't/ couldn't exist.
Probability is one reason, but the probability of everything falling into place so that animo acids, molcules etc could be created is very very small when you think of the universal scale of the problem - AND remember that the laws of the universe didn't exist before big bang so you can't use the argument that it was nature, because nature didn't exist to set the rules.
Another reason could be (and this rides on the back of probability) that there are infinite universes with therfore infinite probability of failure (no life) and success (life as we know it) and of course alternate successes (life as we do not know it - mechanical, silicon-based, etherial or whatever you like to imagine). But for that to work we need infinite time, infinite space, infinite dimensions, infinite universes and most importantly infinite success and failure.
That's quite a lot to go on - very complicated.
A much simpler solution would be one universe ... that works. After all when you bake a cake, you don't leave out half the ingredients and hope that the law of probability steps in and gives you the perfect Victoria Sponge. No - you follow the recipe that you know works - or at least should work.
So we have the complicated infinite universes of failure and success, or the simpler smaller one universe of the working recipe of life.
Probability can give us an explanation of how the infinite universe theory works, but what about the perfect recipe universe?
Someone or something had to write the recipe!
PS. Of course before big bang probability didn't exist either so infinte universe cannot actually be explained that way.
I havn't read the rest of the thread - it's too long - so I apologise if I am repeating.
To follow on from David:
But if big bang is an explaination for the beginning of evolution/id (et al) - life in the universe then the real question is:
Why Big Bang?
As far as we can understand Big bang didn't evolve, it didn't start as little pop, or petulant squeak. It just happened. But why? What decided, if anything?
Now here's the next part: If big bang leads to the creation of the universe which leads in turn to the distribution of galactic matter which forms into galaxies, which form into stars, which then form planets, which then just happen to (not all but some) settle into an orbit that allows conditions to spawn life - here's the question...
What if the big bang was bigger, or smaller, or cooler, or hotter so that the universe could not be created as it did? Life as we know it wouldn't/ couldn't exist.
.
Why Big Bang? Well why not? That is an outstanding question that probably won't be solved until quantum mechanics and relativity are unified.
As for the conditions necessary for life to exist, I think you make the mistake of thinking natural processes have a function or goal. Life is more likely a by product of the universe, not the purpose of the universe.
When you consider how many billions of years old the universe is and how such a small percentage of that time there has been life on earth, well we just ain't that big a deal.
i believe you are thinking of a theorum, ID is a theory, just a fairly well debunked 1 from my understanding
Aplonis is substansively correct, at least within the context of science. All scientific theories follow a certain 'life cycle', if you will: 'Observation, explanation(theory), Testing, Observation' Intelligent Design, while an interesting musing, admits to no testing. All proposed 'verifications' of the theory are potentially effective debunkings of the theory of evolution, however, nothing is done to demonstrate the ability of a non-human Intelligent Designer to, upon needed stimulus, create a complex organic structure, be He God, or be he an Alpha Centarian.
Intellgent Design is not, and cannot be debunked as a theory - "Well, God didn't want to do it today." Herein lies the entire problem. Meanwhile, speciation by selection of advantageous traits is observable, right now, today. It gives us breeds of dogs, corn, and antibiotic resistant bacteria. That's the hard science.
Tang-Soo-Architect
05-10-2006, 08:17
and why we now know that the earth isn't flat and the sun isn't a chariot driven across the sky.
Did you know that the idea people in the middle ages thought the world was flat is a misdenoma. The western world has been aware that we live on a 'mudball' since the Ancient Greeks at least. And it's quite easy to see the curvature of the earth from either a high vantage point or when looking across the ocean.
Tang-Soo-Architect
05-10-2006, 08:31
As for the conditions necessary for life to exist, I think you make the mistake of thinking natural processes have a function or goal. Life is more likely a by product of the universe, not the purpose of the universe.
When you consider how many billions of years old the universe is and how such a small percentage of that time there has been life on earth, well we just ain't that big a deal.
No mistake, merely one side of the question, and you have elequently put the other side. Life could be a waste product or our existence could be a mistake - still it's a pretty impressive afterthought.
Also the scope of time that life has existed on Earth isn't really what I was putting forward - it's how long there has been life in the universe. If you prescribe to the idea of the Big Bang/Big Crash that the universe recycles itself ad infinitum then life has been around for a very very long time, and even if that time is merely a small percentage of the life of the Bang/crash universe, it's still infinite.
And this still all comes down to the the same thing. At the moment we can only rely on the faith of our own convictions and beliefs because we simply do not know. Was it was an accident or planned, or an afterthought, or we simply are in a universe that merely exists trapped within a cosmic grain of sand upon a beach somewhere within a greater existence.
Tang-Soo-Architect
05-10-2006, 08:49
Almost forgot....And of course if this is the only Big Bang Universe and is not in an infinite cycle,then while life on Earth has been a very short time, that doen't mean life elsewhere in the universe couldn't have been around for much longer..
Almost forgot....And of course if this is the only Big Bang Universe and is not in an infinite cycle,then while life on Earth has been a very short time, that doen't mean life elsewhere in the universe couldn't have been around for much longer..
True, but this is not observable or testable right now so it is kind of outside the bounds of science to explore . If/when we do find life outside of Earth and are able to determine its age, then it might bring up your question.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 10:32
Did you know that the idea people in the middle ages thought the world was flat is a misdenoma. The western world has been aware that we live on a 'mudball' since the Ancient Greeks at least. And it's quite easy to see the curvature of the earth from either a high vantage point or when looking across the ocean.
There are people that to this day believe the earth is flat:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Mark Barlow
05-10-2006, 10:42
[QUOTE=David Craik]There are people that to this day believe the earth is flat:
...and people who think TV wrestling is real and the moon landing was fake.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 10:51
Yup, never underestimate humanity's capability for mind-boggling stupidity nor their ability to cling to a belief no matter how thoroughly it is disproven.
At least the Mesopotamians had an excuse...
Musubi Dojo
05-10-2006, 11:05
There are people that to this day believe the earth is flat:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Having read a bit methinks it's a joke...... :)
If it's not a joke it's probably a great way to meet chicks....I mean women.
This feels much akin to the motion to ban dihydrogen Monoxide -
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide! (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)
Tang-Soo-Architect
05-10-2006, 11:17
True, but this is not observable or testable right now so it is kind of outside the bounds of science to explore . If/when we do find life outside of Earth and are able to determine its age, then it might bring up your question.
True though this doesn't stop alot of people believing in extraterestrial life, and I think someone mentioned it near the beginning of the topic, that this could be part of the Intelligent Design idea.
Personally I'm very dubious of E.T. sightings/landings etc. There just isn't enough concrete evidence.
Even though SETI have found radio signals that have the potential to be transmissions, they are just as likely to be natural cosmic phenomena and there is no way as of yet of truly knowing either way.
However I think we both agree that such ideas are more speculation than fact.
I have another thought.
There is the old saying that ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’. So if something is lacking in some way nature compensates by filling the void so to speak. We could apply this mode of thought to evolutionary process. A creature lacks a certain characteristic that prevents it from successfully surviving so it dies off. Another creature that does have that characteristic survives and fills the void.
A creature evolves from one generation to the next and so can gain or loose a characteristic that enables better or worse chances of survival. The result is therefore the fit survive the rest become extinct.
If the nature of the universe is to abhor a vacuum, then there is defined process with purpose. Ergo life must exist for a reason else nature would not have processed it's creation - even if that reason is as rudimentary as a by-product for something greater.
Can this mean the pattern of the creation of the universe therefore mirrors the pattern of evolution?
If so then life is a natural part of the evolutionary process of the universe. Now if we go back to my first post and I spoke about the 'perfect recipe universe', if that recipe was written, so to speak, then Evolution is part of Intelligent Design.
I've run out of time so I shall leave these philosophical thoughts, and look forward to reading more tomorrow.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 11:28
Having read a bit methinks it's a joke...... :)
Yeah, I posted the wrong link..that one is a joke I think. Dunno what to make of the FES forums:
www.flatearthsociety.org/forums
Either way, there have been serious adherents in recent times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
To follow on from David:
But if big bang is an explaination for the beginning of evolution/id (et al) - life in the universe then the real question is:
Why Big Bang?
Because God eats at Taco Bell. :bandit:
Because God eats at Taco Bell. :bandit:
:laugh: okay , here endeth the discussion, the most succinct scientific statement I have ever seen!
here's an article from the freedom from religion foundation about the seperation of church and state: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php . put simply i don't think ID should be required curriculum in public schools because it is religion. people can try to spin it however they want but it is a religious belief. it has no place in a science class especially in public schools. i don't see a problem with it being a part of an elective class such as world religion.
It's a little amazing to me that some folks who have a hard time swallowing scientific theories as to how the universe was created have no problem believing that it was some invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing, ageless Being (who did not have to be created Himself) in the sky who did it.
but u also cant disprove it and therefore it is a standing theory :-p hehe, but like i said im not here to convert people to theology, its just not worth it. however it is odd to me that the longest standing theory in the history of man is that there IS a supreme being out there
but u also cant disprove it and therefore it is a standing theory :-p hehe,
You have just stated why it is not a scientific theory - it is unfalsifiable, you cannot prove or disprove it with empirical evidence. All other scientific theories meet that requirement.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 17:18
but u also cant disprove it and therefore it is a standing theory :-p hehe, but like i said im not here to convert people to theology, its just not worth it. however it is odd to me that the longest standing theory in the history of man is that there IS a supreme being out there
It isn't up to me or anyone else to disprove it, because I am not the one claiming anything. It is up to the claimant to supply the proof of his claim, not for skeptics to prove a negative. If I claim there is an invisible floating dragon living in my garage the burden of proof is not on you to show that there isn't, it is on me to demonstrate or explain why I believe that this is so. This is a very basic principle of science, debate, and law. All-powerful, invisible and undetectable beings who exist in some alternate plane are kind of hard to disprove, but this hardly stands as proof that they exist. With this standard of evidence we could claim all sorts of things. You cannot disprove that I have seven toes on one foot unless I show them to you, so this claim must be true?
And your long standing belief is not a theory, for reasons I've already posted. A theory is testable and supported by evidence. A theory in common parlance is an idea, guess, or hypothesis, in science a theory is the gold standard. Gravity, for example, is a theory. Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason it is so longstanding is because for the entirety of our history there are things that we can't yet explain and that "God did it" is a convenient catch-all which requires no further study?
well imo it is a theory, it can be tested, just not effectively... as far as being atheist, from my posts one could gather that im a religious person, and im not really, though im not athiest either, its all about understanding the different view points as you said, and i agree that this is getting off of the true topic and getting dangerously close to religious discussion so its digress back into the real topic of this post, evolution vs ID, or creationism i suppose as it were
well imo it is a theory, it can be tested, just not effectively...
If you have managed to find a way to test the existence of a creator even not too effectively, then you have succeeded where no scientist, theolgian, or philospher in history ever has.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 17:40
It doesn't matter what your opinion is with regard to the definition of theory. The definition is immutable, and you are confusing it with a hypothesis. For quite some time people had a "theory" that the sun was a flaming chariot drawn across the sky, is this the same as Newtonian gravity and thermodynamics which can be proven true at will, time and again?
There is no way to "test" the existance of a Creator. If so, please supply me His phone number. I have some questions...
But my first one is for you, and back on topic; if this Creator is both all-powerful and capable of creating anything (as must have been the case in the creation of the universe), is He capable of creating an object so heavy that even He cannot lift it? If so, then the Creator is not all-powerful, and if not He is limited as to what He can create.
(see paradox)
hizaguchi
05-10-2006, 18:16
It doesn't matter what your opinion is with regard to the definition of theory. The definition is immutable, and you are confusing it with a hypothesis. For quite some time people had a "theory" that the sun was a flaming chariot drawn across the sky, is this the same as Newtonian gravity and thermodynamics which can be proven true at will, time and again?
I have no idea why I'm getting into this, but since we're being so picky about definitions I'll point out that theories cannot be "proven true"... they can only be proven false or corroborated by an absurd amount of evidence (as is the case with evolution). If they could be proven, they wouldn't be theories.
Not that any of that really has any bearing on reality. Like the rest of the discussion over what really constitutes a "theory", it's just semantics. Gravity being classified as a theory makes it no less valid for explaining why things fall down, just like evolution being classified as a theory makes it no less valid for explaining why (for example) many dinosaurs had wishbones, keeled sternums, and feathers.
I really wish the conversation would move forward. This is one of the longest lasting threads I've ever seen, and I'd hate for it to bog down over a definition. It's too good of a read. :)
David Craik
05-10-2006, 18:28
If they could be proven, they wouldn't be theories.
What would they be then, provided that they cannot be mathematically expressed? There is nothing higher than a theory in science, because unlike ID, science always takes into account that anything can be disproven at a later date. :confused:
Theory: An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).
On the contrary, I think it would first be advantageous to define what a theory actually is, so that ID and evolution are not put on the same plane. It has been proven that organisms evolve, even on the simplest level...we have fossils and bones of creatures which do not exist today, and bones of current animals which did not exist in antiquity. ID from a creationist standpoint relies on the book of Genesis to explain the existance of life, when that very book contradicts itself numerous times.
I don't see the discussion "bogged down" I see it as a central point to the discussion. There is a difference between faith and observation of natural laws. Creationism is not science.
hizaguchi
05-10-2006, 18:33
I really wish the conversation would move forward. This is one of the longest lasting threads I've ever seen, and I'd hate for it to bog down over a definition. It's too good of a read. :)
What would they be then, provided that they cannot be mathematically expressed?
*sigh* :(
David Craik
05-10-2006, 18:41
What is the "sigh" about, what would they be? Sighing and smilies don't answer the question.
they would be laws
a theory is nothing more or less than a widely accepted hypothesis, which can be correct or incorrect, but can not be proven definately either way
this will be my last post on the subject of definitions (at least of theories) as i agree with Mr. Shatley that this is not really the idea behind the discussion, its taking away from the really interesting stuff and doesnt seem to want to resolve itself.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 18:44
they would be laws
a theory is nothing more or less than a widely accepted hypothesis, which can be correct or incorrect, but can not be proven definately either way
this will be my last post on the subject of definitions (at least of theories) as i agree with Mr. Shatley that this is not really the idea behind the discussion, its taking away from the really interesting stuff and doesnt seem to want to resolve itself.
Law: A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. A theory which can be mathematically expressed is also a law. Please insert coin for new game.
If you have managed to find a way to test the existence of a creator even not too effectively, then you have succeeded where no scientist, theolgian, or philospher in history ever has.
actually everybody who has ever or will ever live, has at one point, or will at some point test this. i hope that its no time soon for myself, but ill promise you this, once ive conducted this test if there is a way to give u the answer ill be sure to do so asap
as for a phone number im not sure, but as stated above if i get the oppurtunity... :p
David Craik
05-10-2006, 18:49
Unfortunately, results which cannot be transmitted are, well, kinda useless.
law-a statement describing an observed regularity. Laws describe rather than explain. A law may be either quantitative (including measurement) or qualitative (general characteristics). It must describe evidence that has been gathered using acceptable scientific standards of reproducibility. darn u made me go against my previous post to not get bogged down in terminology
as far as results being useless, not so useless for me as for the person to whom they can not be transmitted to
David Craik
05-10-2006, 18:55
a theory is nothing more or less than a widely accepted hypothesis, which can be correct or incorrect, but can not be proven definately either way
A theory is a whole lot more, it is a hypothesis which has been 'widely accepted' by virtue of the fact that it has been tested and is consistent with observed phenomena. This is like saying an "idea" is the same as a "fact". Intelligent design cannot be tested.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 18:59
law-a statement describing an observed regularity. Laws describe rather than explain. A law may be either quantitative (including measurement) or qualitative (general characteristics). It must describe evidence that has been gathered using acceptable scientific standards of reproducibility. darn u made me go against my previous post to not get bogged down in terminology
Dunno exactly where this definition came from, but I accept it. Now, given the bold above, how is ID a law?
OK, the results are of use to a dead dude (provided he is conscious to realize them)...how does this prove anything to the rest of us? I don't understand the logic of this statement.
im sorry if this post seems disrespectful, i mean none by it, however i dont see this discussion as going anywhere. at the same time i cant say "you win" because i disagree and thats just not in my character to do, therefore im not going to participate in this section of this thread anymore, i just dont see it as profitable to the thread as a whole and i think we've taken enough time away from the original question, if you wish to discuss this further with me you can (i believe) get my contact info from my profile, but otherwise im not getting any further into it.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 19:03
All of this is central to the original question. One cannot look at intelligent design without pondering the existence and will of God, nor can one look at evolution without exploring the nature of science. Thanks for playing.
Dunno exactly where this definition came from, but I accept it. Now, given the bold above, how is ID a law?
i never said ID itself was a law, i was just stating for reference what a law was, i dont believe that ID is a law, nor a good theory, i do see it as a theory though as stated before, theory is far too broad of a word, im of the opinion that the word theorum from mathmatics should be used for things such as gravity... but sadly until ive gotten a good reputation as a scientist my opinion to the scientific community is about as valuable as 1 cent is to filling up my gas tank :eek:
David Craik
05-10-2006, 19:10
Which gets to the original point made ages ago: by your definition, evolution is a law and ID isn't. ID is not supported by any evidence. Nor is it even a theory, by scientific definition.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 19:24
Since we are now apparently frustrated by semantics, let's get to the crux: although the singularity which may have caused the Big Bang cannot (as far as I know - I'm not a scientist) be explained, the movement of all matter outward from a central point has been proven, or at least been shown to be a reasonable explanation for observed phenomena.
On the intelligent design side, it seems amazing that this reality happened given an explosion 13 million-odd years ago. Isn't it incredible that we are here? Like an explosion in a metal factory causing a watch, with all it's intricacies, to assemble. Pretty amazing stuff. But if one could assume the role of an impartial and disconnected observer, any possible reality would have been amazing.
It is much like someone hitting a baseball and the baseball landing on a particular blade of grass. "Holy crap!" you say, "what are the chances that it would hit this particular piece of grass?!" But there is nothing special about that blade, it could have hit any one of thousands and be just as amazing that it hit that particular one. Our current existence and reality is one blade of grass, no more or less amazing than any other possible result of the Big Bang. Like happening to roll a four on a dice, it is no less incredible that rolling a six. Neither the human race, the animal kingdom, or even the existence of Earth is the "purpose" of the creation of the universe, we are a side effect. If we were living rocks with 116 hands and living in an atmosphere of pure nitrogen on a rocky moon we would say "Wow, look at how perfectly everything turned out! Something sentient must have had a hand in this...".
Which gets to the original point made ages ago: by your definition, evolution is a law and ID isn't. ID is not supported by any evidence. Nor is it even a theory, by scientific definition.
once again this is why i like the idea of theorums, but oh well i suppose...
David Craik
05-10-2006, 19:34
Theorum: a proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions.
There we go with the old "proving" thing again. Having to prove things in order to be considered a valid idea is such a bother. When will ID be? :D
more than likely? never hehe
but u have to admit that under such a definition evolution as well as gravity fall more under this catatgory than the more generalized theory no?-well i guess you dont have to but you probably should being a logical thinker
David Craik
05-10-2006, 19:43
Sorry I don't know what you're referring to in the last post.
the definition of a theorum seems to me to better fit ideas such as evolution and gravity which are not in themselves laws, but have been all but proven through sciencetific means.(technically theorum is a mathmatical term)
hizaguchi
05-10-2006, 19:50
A theory is a whole lot more, it is a hypothesis which has been 'widely accepted' by virtue of the fact that it has been tested and is consistent with observed phenomena. This is like saying an "idea" is the same as a "fact". Intelligent design cannot be tested.
OK, these comments are what I dislike about this kind of debate. There is a tendency to try and pigeonhole the discussion into strict scientific terminology. On the surface, this seems logical because, after all, science is our best method of understanding the world. The problem is that the topic of the discussion is inherently non-scientific because half of it is I.D.
If you cast I.D. in scientific terms, it is just as weak an idea as evolution cast in religious terms. Attempting to force the language of the debate toward either extreme is unfair to one of the views. That's fine with the group of people on the advantageous side of the terminology bias, but it restricts the opposing group's ability to express its ideas without being told they are worded incorrectly, and is therefore detrimental to open discussion.
If you cast I.D. in scientific terms, it is just as weak an idea as evolution cast in religious terms.
dont like this analogy, evolution is not weak in religious terms, in fact i know that it is agreed with by christianity(though this is only 1 of many many religions) and no where in the theory of evolution does it deny the existance of a god, it merely explains what happened on the basis of science. as far as casting ID in scientific terms, that is because they are trying to get it taught in science classes when it is, in fact, not science...
David Craik
05-10-2006, 20:10
Mr. Shatley, how does one cast evolution in "religious terms"? What is a religious term? What should be important is examining issues logically, weigh evidence, and thus try to discover the most likely explanation. Every day we make decisions based on past experience of observed phenomena. Every situation is approached and every discovery we have made has been grounded in science of one sort or another. The very computer you are typing on, the car you drive, and the vaccines that prevent you from getting sick are the product of science.
You seem to paint science as an "opposing way of thought" rather that a reasoned method and system for discovering facts, which is precisely what it is. It isn't the opposite of religion or faith, it is a logical means of figuring out the cosmos around us, based on observable and testable facts. It's been pretty successful.
Could you frame this in a religious context (while still being logical) for us? Forgive me if "well, you're trying to frame the issue in scientific terms, so the religious can't express their ideas" sounds like a collossal cop-out to me.
Something either makes sense, and is believed for a reason, or it isn't.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 21:02
Fourteen have espoused a belief of creationism as seen in Genesis. Compare Genesis with other books, chapters, and verses of the very same Bible:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)
GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.
GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.
GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.
GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.
GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.
GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
GE 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.
JE 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.
GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.
GE 6:6. EX 32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16 God does change his mind.
NU 23:19-20, IS 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.
GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.
GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark.
GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.
JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.
LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.
GE 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark.
GE 7:13 They enter the Ark (again?).
GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.
PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.
GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1CO 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.
GE 11:12 Arpachshad [Arphaxad] was the father of Shelah.
LK 3:35-36 Cainan was the father of Shelah. Arpachshad was the grandfather of Shelah.
GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.
GE 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, EX 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, NU 12:7-8, 14:14, JB 42:5, AM 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.
EX 33:20, JN 1:18, 1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.
GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.
GE 15:9, EX 20:24, 29:10-42, LE 1:1-7:38, NU 28:1-29:40, God details sacrificial offerings.
JE 7:21-22 God says he did no such thing.
GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.
GE 17:1, 35:11, 1CH 29:11-12, LK 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God.
JG 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.
GE 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
GA 6:15 It is of no consequence.
GE 17:8 God promises Abraham the land of Canaan as an "everlasting possession." GE 25:8, AC 7:2-5, HE 11:13 Abraham died with the promise unfulfilled.
GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God's blessings.
LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.
GE 18:20-21 God decides to "go down" to see what is going on.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.
GE 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring.
2PE 2:7 Lot was "just" and "righteous."
GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.
GE 27:28 "May God give you ... an abundance of grain and new wine."
DT 7:13 If they follow his commandments, God will bless the fruit of their wine.
PS 104:15 God gives us wine to gladden the heart.
JE 13:12 "... every bottle shall be filled with wine."
JN 2:1-11 According to the author of John, Jesus' first miracle was turning water to wine.
RO 14:21 It is good to refrain from drinking wine.
GE 35:10 God says Jacob is to be called Jacob no longer; henceforth his name is Israel.
GE 46:2 At a later time, God himself uses the name Jacob.
GE 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.
GE 36:15-16 Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz.
1CH 1:35-36 Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek.
GE 49:2-28 The fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, and Benjamin.
RE 7:4-8 (Leaves out the tribe of Dan, but adds Manasseh.)
GE 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite.
AC 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of Hamor.
Genesis is the basis for many people's belief in creationism?
the funny thing there? that basically follows the same pathway as evolution did ;) got to love when science and religions click like that
David Craik
05-10-2006, 21:14
How the heck do you arrive at that conclusion? :laugh:
Evolution mixes up names, numbers, ages, order, morals, promises, virtues, times, the very nature of God Himself and never corrects itself but rather stands as a testament of truth in its entirety? Must have missed that one.
Where can I get a copy of the improved and revised Genesis that resolves these inconsistancies?
Ain't nothing "clicking" as far as I can see.
AllanJGAnderson
05-10-2006, 21:41
Wow. . . . . . that is all I can even say to that.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 21:42
How so, Allan? Seems to be that we are flush with smilies and laughter but painfully lacking in logical debate.
*aww...you edited out the laughter :( Allan
AllanJGAnderson
05-10-2006, 21:45
Not what you said, but from Mr.Rose
David Craik
05-10-2006, 21:48
Sorry. Yeah, "wow" is my reaction too. At least one of my reactions. :D
AllanJGAnderson
05-10-2006, 21:51
Well I try not to publicly use the other words that come to mind. At least, unless I'm refering to the mentally challenged.
hizaguchi
05-10-2006, 21:52
Please insert coin for new game.
Thanks for playing.
How so, Allan? Seems to be that we are flush with smilies and laughter but painfully lacking in logical debate.
*aww...you edited out the laughter :( Allan
And yet, somehow you question my accusation that the language of the thread discourages the open exchange of ideas. With mods like these, who needs trolls?
AllanJGAnderson
05-10-2006, 21:55
Im sorry, but my personal opinion aside. How does :
"the funny thing there? that basically follows the same pathway as evolution did got to love when science and religions click like that"
Correlate to anything? To see how that links with evolution is beyond me. Keep in mind I have had no part in this discusion beforehand.
David Craik
05-10-2006, 22:05
And yet, somehow you question my accusation that the language of the thread discourages the open exchange of ideas. With mods like these, who needs trolls?
Does not follow. Once again, a member grasping for an argument latches onto the fact that I'm a mod rather than noticing the fact that I'm simply a participant in the discussion, not acting as a moderator - and offering up a counterpoint. Have I threatened to ban you if you don't agree with me? Have I deleted or edited your posts, or changed your avatar to a picture of Barney? Nope, I'm a regular old dude expressing my opinion and reasons for that opinion in a thread, and asking questions...same as I would have done as a junior member.
You see, I was a member here for years before you showed up, so as I see it you have a few options:
1) Refute my arguments and points rather than tacitly admitting you cannot and thus labelling me a "troll".
2) PM Robert and have me banned.
3) Bugger off if you don't like the fact that this board has a mod that disagrees with you.
All the same to me. :D Can we return to the subject now?
Webmaster
05-10-2006, 22:28
Time to close this thread since it is obvious that no one is going to change anyone else's mind.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.