Creationism/Intelligent Design

BaldJean wrote: it is more like several different layers, none of which are distinct entities; they blend into each other.as to "it looks as if the universe and its consciousness are different entities": how do you feel about yourself? would you say you "have" a consciousness (in which case you and your consciousness would be different entitities) or would you say you "are" your consciousness? and then ask yourself: what would the universe answer, provided we knew how to converse with it?

    That’s the reason for the confusion… I am equally divided between the notions of unity of the body and spirit and their separation. When I think in material/human terms, I can easily segregate them. When it’s the big picture, there’s no clear line between the self and consciousness in my mind at all as I think of anything as part of God and everything as one. This dualism of mine is akin to my struggle with determinism vs. free will. Your, or rather Friede's initial wording was unclear.


OT: do you mind if I e-mail you with a personal question?

Now as the debate subsided visibly, allow me to revive it with the following question:

 

For those who expect science to provide an explanation or concrete proof as to where the first atom came from – how do you envision this event happening? I mean what would you consider sufficient to say, “that’s how it began.”

rileydog22 wrote: IVNORD wrote: For those who expect science to provide an explanation or concrete proof as to where the first atom came from – how do you envision this event happening? I mean what would you consider sufficient to say, “that’s how it began.” I would consider any theory proposed that I felt satisfied the following criteria: -Provides a complete, satisfactory picture of how the universe began -Is consistant with the current status of the universe -Is backed by physical evidence -Makes logical sense, without the addition of circular logic So far, we've yet to see any theory that fits for me.  I think that so far the Big Bang theory is very consistant with all current observation, but that still doesn't answer what triggered the Big Bang, and thus it doesn't satisfy the first criterion.  Religious explanations do nothing for me; they lack evidence and non-circular logic.  We are still looking for an answer.  To say that I had any expectations of what the answer is, whileI still search for a satisfactory one, would be utterly foolish.

You have not understood the Big Bang hypothesis then (it is a hypothesis and not a theory, by the way; see my explanation of the difference between the two in this thread). There was nothing before the Big Bang. It is scientifically absolutely useless to ask what was before or what triggered it. Your reply, however, shows that you will never be satisfied. Provided there was something before the Big Bang that triggered it, let's call it the "silent fart", just to give it a name. Would you then not want to know what caused the silent fart? Thus you would be in an infinite regress; whenever science came up with an answer, you would again ask: "And before?"
But, as I said, it does not make any sense to ask what was before. The Big Bang, if it ever happened (it is by no means the only cosmological hypothesis, it is just the most popular one with the press), is a singularity in the time/space continuum. This is, however, not fathomable for human brains (the brains of the scientists are no exemption), and therefore highly unsatisfying.
Believing in a deity and believing in science is no contradiction for me at all, by the way, and it is no contradiction for most scientists either. On the contrary, many scientists, who day by day reveal more of the intricate pattern that forms our world, get a profound religious feeling. Einstein, for example, believed in a deity, though not in a personal one. His beliefs are reminiscent of pantheism. He liked to refer to God as "Der Alte", "The Old One".

Sean Trane wrote:         And I am not about to start thinking about how TBB was started (what triggered it?), but if it was a creator/god how was his world created? Does he sleep, eat and reproduce too? How does he grow his food, does he have a roof over his head on which it rains, does your creatior have a bus stop next to his house? is his sewage system functional or does he sh*t on the Aldebaran planet???  .... there is no end to that "stupid" debate. Just kidding of course, but I think you'll see my point.

Sean Trane wrote: Sean Trane wrote:         And I am not about to start thinking about how TBB was started (what triggered it?), but if it was a creator/god how was his world created? Does he sleep, eat and reproduce too? How does he grow his food, does he have a roof over his head on which it rains, does your creatior have a bus stop next to his house? is his sewage system functional or does he sh*t on the Aldebaran planet???  .... there is no end to that "stupid" debate. Just kidding of course, but I think you'll see my point.       sorry but I believe this subject got solidly avoided by believers...

Sean, read Friede's posts on the topic. I think she makes it quite clear that it is no contradiction at all to believe im sciences and yet to believe in a higher principle (as indeed many scientists do). I can understand that you dislike the way God is portrayed in the bible, but you should ask yourself if your image of God is perhaps wrong?

BaldFriede wrote: rileydog22 wrote: IVNORD wrote: For those who expect science to provide an explanation or concrete proof as to where the first atom came from – how do you envision this event happening? I mean what would you consider sufficient to say, “that’s how it began.” I would consider any theory proposed that I felt satisfied the following criteria: -Provides a complete, satisfactory picture of how the universe began -Is consistant with the current status of the universe -Is backed by physical evidence -Makes logical sense, without the addition of circular logic So far, we've yet to see any theory that fits for me.  I think that so far the Big Bang theory is very consistant with all current observation, but that still doesn't answer what triggered the Big Bang, and thus it doesn't satisfy the first criterion.  Religious explanations do nothing for me; they lack evidence and non-circular logic.  We are still looking for an answer.  To say that I had any expectations of what the answer is, whileI still search for a satisfactory one, would be utterly foolish.  You have not understood the Big Bang hypothesis then (it is a hypothesis and not a theory, by the way; see my explanation of the difference between the two in this thread). There was nothing before the Big Bang. It is scientifically absolutely useless to ask what was before or what triggered it. Your reply, however, shows that you will never be satisfied. Provided there was something before the Big Bang that triggered it, let's call it the "silent fart", just to give it a name. Would you then not want to know what caused the silent fart? Thus you would be in an infinite regress; whenever science came up with an answer, you would again ask: "And before?" But, as I said, it does not make any sense to ask what was before. The Big Bang, if it ever happened (it is by no means the only cosmological hypothesis, it is just the most popular one with the press), is a singularity in the time/space continuum. This is, however, not fathomable for human brains (the brains of the scientists are no exemption), and therefore highly unsatisfying. Believing in a deity and believing in science is no contradiction for me at all, by the way, and it is no contradiction for most scientists either. On the contrary, many scientists, who day by day reveal more of the intricate pattern that forms our world, get a profound religious feeling. Einstein, for example, believed in a deity, though not in a personal one. His beliefs are reminiscent of pantheism. He liked to refer to God as "Der Alte", "The Old One".

Scapler wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: Scapler wrote: sleeper wrote: Scapler wrote: stonebeard wrote: I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology. Then both should be taught. Neither of them are provable, and there are big names in science throughout history who support both. Remeber, refusing to include something you deem may have religous signifigance in a class is not secular, it is making science a religion in a way. No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact. Prove evolution to me, I do you[IMG]alt="Wink" src="smileys/smiley2.gif" align="absmiddle">   It's not provable.  It is, however, supported by enough evidence to say that it is almost certainly true, which cannot be said about intelligent design. I have read Darwin's own words. According to him, you need to find fossil evidence of multiple missing links. He himself said that without those fossil records, his theory held no ground and was inprovable. The fossils have never been found.

Not true.

Arrrghus wrote: Scapler wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: Scapler wrote: sleeper wrote: Scapler wrote: stonebeard wrote: I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology. Then both should be taught. Neither of them are provable, and there are big names in science throughout history who support both. Remeber, refusing to include something you deem may have religous signifigance in a class is not secular, it is making science a religion in a way. No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact. Prove evolution to me, I do you[IMG]alt="Wink" src="smileys/smiley2.gif" align="absmiddle">   It's not provable.  It is, however, supported by enough evidence to say that it is almost certainly true, which cannot be said about intelligent design. I have read Darwin's own words. According to him, you need to find fossil evidence of multiple missing links. He himself said that without those fossil records, his theory held no ground and was inprovable. The fossils have never been found. Not true.

Exactly, not true. Darwin said fossils needed to be found; he did not say "a fossil for each generation needs to be found". But this seems to be what creationists want; they will never be satisfied,  however much you close the gaps. For some species the evolutionary processes are very well documented. Here a link for the evolution of the horse:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
What astonishes me most is how very much creationists belittle the God they claim to believe in. Isn't a God that arrives at such a great variety of organisms through such a complicated process as evolution via mutation and selection much more to be admired than a God who simply says: "I create you, ... (fill in the name of any species)?

Intelligent design is complete BS, a way to make creationism seem like it's actual science, when in fact it's not. I've heard one of the key speakers involved in the intelligent design movement at my University, the stuff he said made absolutely no sense. He tried to come up with these bogus math equations that didn't even help him validify what he was trying to say. I've also taken a course on evolution, and I'd recommend others do the same, most people are disillusioned by what evolution actually is. 

Zac M wrote: Intelligent design is complete BS, a way to make creationism seem like it's actual science, when in fact it's not. I've heard one of the key speakers involved in the intelligent design movement at my University, the stuff he said made absolutely no sense. He tried to come up with these bogus math equations that didn't even help him validify what he was trying to say. I've also taken a course on evolution, and I'd recommend others do the same, most people are disillusioned by what evolution actually is.