General discussions - Creationism/Intelligent Design

Print Page | Close Window

Creationism/Intelligent Design

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33615
Printed Date: February 22 2025 at 11:00
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Creationism/Intelligent Design

Posted By: Psychedelia
Subject: Creationism/Intelligent Design
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 15:40

I have noticed a lot of talk about this religion based argument against evolution and was wondering how widespread it actually was. Do you know anyone who actually believes these things? or do you yourself? If so i would be interested to know why people believe something that has no basis as oppose to a proven scientific theory?

-------------
Another emotional suicide, overdosed on sentiment and pride

Replies:

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 15:43

Psychedelia wrote:

I have noticed a lot of talk about this religion based argument against evolution and was wondering how widespread it actually was. Do you know anyone who actually believes these things? or do you yourself? If so i would be interested to know why people believe something that has no basis as oppose to a proven scientific theory?

A proven scientific theory

I'm an Intelligent Creationist.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: Psychedelia
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 15:46

I'm unsure if your serious as i may have misread the laughing face but i it is proven. All scientists of any renown agree and there is much evidence for it to be found in fossils. As well as just anomolies like the fact that we have appendixes which have no purpose.

I would be interested to know why you believe in the Intelligent Design theory?

-------------
Another emotional suicide, overdosed on sentiment and pride

Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 15:50

What exactly does the intelligent design theory say?

Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 15:51

Intelligent Design, as in an alternative to the theory of evolution? I don't believe in Intelligent Design (which, in my opinion is a pretty laughable idea and one that should not be taught in schools), but as far as I know Darwins theories haven't been proven... They appear to be correct, I admit, but I haven't heard of any solid, unquestionable proof that they are true. However, such proof could of course exist without me knowing of its existance. [Note that this isn't an argument against Darwin's ideas, just my thoughts on the subject]

Personally, I can't say I believe in anything in particular. At least I don't at the moment, perhaps I will later, or tomorrow. I'll be back then.

Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 15:52

Vompatti wrote:

What exactly does the intelligent design theory say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 15:53

tuxon wrote:

I'm an Intelligent Creationist.

i'm a stupid evolutionist

-------------
FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:07

Psychedelia wrote:

I'm unsure if your serious as i may have misread the laughing face but i it is proven. All scientists of any renown agree and there is much evidence for it to be found in fossils. As well as just anomolies like the fact that we have appendixes which have no purpose.

I would be interested to know why you believe in the Intelligent Design theory?

a theory that's proven stops being a theory, it becomes factual, and for creationism and Intelligent Design, nor for the evolution theory can be found definitif proof.

Who told you that appendixes have no purpose, they are not a vital part of our body, and we wouldn't notice it if it wasn't there, but that doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose, we just haven't discovered the purpose yet.

Fossils do not counterproof creationism and certainly not intelligent design. The fossils can be created by God (or any other Deity with enough imagination) and placed at various places to confuse us humans, or sparkle our imagination. Or Intelligent design needed that evolutionary step to come to what the design had planned.

I do not believe in Creationism, or Intelligent design and i also don't believ in the 'proven' theory of Evolution.

Personally i think Man created the univers in the future, and the past hasn't happened yet, but will come to pass, from which current time and the future will develop.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:08

Anyone who is in doubt of evolution should try reading a couple of Richard Dawkins books, they clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about evolution, for example that it is not just complete chance.

-------------

Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:22

What do you mean by "believes these things"? What things are you refering to? Creationism and Intelligent Design?

Evolution and creationism or evolution and intelligent design are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.

Just curious...

-------------
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."

Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:33

Yes that is true ^^, evolution does not conflict with creationism at all. Creationism just has a different starting point.

-------------

Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:37

I believe both.

-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa

Posted By: Logos
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:40

Creationism as a science is a joke.

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:46

I would be interested to know why you believe in the Intelligent Design theory?

Actually, you are wrong. I believe entirely in evolution, but the fact remains that it is not proven. Even the world's most prominent Darwinist, Richard Dawkins, admits that evolution could be disproven if anyone could find one organ or part of the body that is irreducibly complex.

No scientific theories are proven, they are just backed by incredible amounts of evidence, such that it is highly unlikely that they are incorrect.

Intelligent Design isn't a theory, however. A theory is a bunch of scientific hypotheses supported by mounds of evidence that are linked to form one large idea that explains something about our world. However, intelligent design has little or no evidence backing it, and it also creates more questions than it answers.

Intelligent Design HYPOTHESIS tries to discount evolution by saying that some creator helped things along. It acts on the assumption that life is too complex to have come about by chance*, and thus a supernatural being called God must have done the creating. What it fails to explain, however, is how this supernatural being could have come about. After all, if you're just going to claim that God has been there forever, you might as well say that the universe and life have been there forever, because you accomplish the same in both situations.

*This acts on the false assumption that evolution is a process of chance, when, in reality, it is the very antithesis of chance.

I am entirely against teaching intelligent design in schools, because it is not, in any way, an alternate theory to Evolution. As I've said, it's not even a theory. In addition, it explains nothing about our world. It's entire argument is, in essence, "I don't understand evolution, so I don't believe in it," and then proceeds to choose something as far out as Planet GonG actually existing as an "alternative." You might as well say that the earth rests on the backs of turtles. There's about as much evidence in favor of the turtle hypothesis as there is for the intelligent design hypothesis.

All in all, intelligent design is a thinly veiled version of biblical creationism put forth by a bunch of crackpots who are holding on to unfounded beliefs. I don't mind if you are religious, even though I'm not, but don't try to force religion on science.

Also, intelligent design's main "evidence" touted by its followers are gaps in the fossil record. Well, just because we don't understand something now, doesn't mean we'll never understand it. Honestly, we used to believe that the earth was flat, but now we know better. I'm sorry if I insult any of you in what I will say next, but it needs saying.

I honestly cannot trust the intelligence of anyone who seriously believes that just because we don't know everything means that everything we do know is wrong. This is sheer impatience and shows a supreme lack of the ability to approach problems with an open mind. This belief is an incredible insult to all scientists, who make their livings discovering things that, according to proponents of this atrocious mindset, aren't true because we don't know them yet.

I'll probably be asked to delete most of this post, which I am perfectly happy to do, but I strongly feel that this needs saying.

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:48

^^^

And since it's highly likely I'll be asked to delete a lot of that post, just read Richard Dawkins, who explains all I've said with more elegance and less anger than I've done.

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:50

Isn't the eye irreducibly complex?

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:51

Also please explain the difference between hypothesis and theory. Don't they have the same meaning?

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:51

No, it's not.

There are plenty of animals with eyes that have only parts of ours. They cannot see as well, but half an eye truly is useful. Some animals can only sense that there is light, some can see but not in color, and some can see in color. There are varying degrees of how developed the eye is, and therefore it is not irreducibly complex.

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:53

progismylife wrote:

Also please explain the difference between hypothesis and theory. Don't they have the same meaning?

Hypothesis: an idea a scientist (or anyone) has that is testable scientifically but has not been backed by evidence.

Theory: a combination of a bunch of hypotheses backed by mounds of evidence that come together to form a greater explanation for some part of our universe.

Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:56

Logos wrote:

Creationism as a science is a joke.

Who claims it's merely a science?

-------------
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 16:57

bluetailfly wrote:

Logos wrote:

Creationism as a science is a joke.

Who claims it's merely a science?

Creationism is a scientific hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong.

And since, at least to me, there is no God, there is nothing more than science that it could be.

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:00

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

Also, intelligent design's main "evidence" touted by its followers are gaps in the fossil record. Well, just because we don't understand something now, doesn't mean we'll never understand it. Same with creationism/intelligent design. Honestly, we used to believe that the earth was flat, but now we know better. I'd just like to point out that it says in Isaiah that the earth floats in space and orbits the sun, totally different to the view at that time that the earth was held up by a huge animal. I'm sorry if I insult any of you in what I will say next, but it needs saying.

I honestly cannot trust the intelligence of anyone who seriously believes that just because we don't know everything means that everything we do know is wrong. Same with Intelligent Design/Creationism. This is sheer impatience and shows a supreme lack of the ability to approach problems with an open mind. I concur. This belief is an incredible insult to all scientists, who make their livings discovering things that, according to proponents of this atrocious mindset, aren't true because we don't know them yet.

I am not offended by your comments. They are a bit harsh and your impatience with people who agree with Intelligent Design / Creationism is shown.

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:02

I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:02

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

^^^

And since it's highly likely I'll be asked to delete a lot of that post, just read Richard Dawkins, who explains all I've said with more elegance and less anger than I've done.

I don't mind anger, though i think reason is more convincing to me.

Same as for The Evolution theory Creationism stands or falls with the discovery of the origin of life.

The evolution theory can be proven if we discover the first living organism, and are able to recreate the creation of life from unliving material in a controlled envirement (ergo, when man becomes God)

Creationism can be proven if we discover god, and ask him upfront and personal, why did you create us, and he answers back, and explains how he creates life. (ergo, when Man trully becomes God's apprentice as was meant to be).

But if neither are found, all theories and hypothesis can be correct, and believe plays an important aspect of the foundations of the different theories, either you believe in chance, or you believe in a creational force. Both are belief systems.

scientific theories are easier to find indications of possible truth for than religious beliefs, for God doesn't show himself all too often directly to man, but the facts of life (possibly how god created it) are always the same, and give an aura of scientific value.

well something like this.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:02

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

bluetailfly wrote:

Logos wrote:

Creationism as a science is a joke.

Who claims it's merely a science?

Creationism is a scientific hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong.

And since, at least to me, there is no God, there is nothing more than science that it could be.

I don't think anyone is really vested in proving that the creationism hypothoisis is based in "science," whatever that means in this context. That seems like a fool's argument...

-------------
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."

Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:03

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

bluetailfly wrote:

Logos wrote:

Creationism as a science is a joke.

Who claims it's merely a science?

Creationism is a scientific hypothesis that is almost certainly wrong.

And since, at least to me, there is no God, there is nothing more than science that it could be.

Ah, dismissing a theory based on your personal beliefs. You, my friend, would make a ridiculously horrible scientist.

-------------
Bassists are deadly

Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:06

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.

-------------
Bassists are deadly

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:09

progismylife wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

All in all, intelligent design is a thinly veiled version of biblical creationism put forth by a bunch of crackpots who are holding on to unfounded beliefs.Last time I checked, I am not a crackpot. You're right, that was a bit harsh. If you advocate it as a scientific alternative to evolution, that would make you a crackpot in my mind. If you believe in it as religion and discount evolution because it disagrees with religion, well, I think you're quite silly, but that's not nearly as bad. I don't mind if you are religious, even though I'm not, but don't try to force religion on science.

Also, intelligent design's main "evidence" touted by its followers are gaps in the fossil record. Well, just because we don't understand something now, doesn't mean we'll never understand it. Same with creationism/intelligent design. Ah, but evolution theory doesn't base its sole evidence on this type of argument, as creationism/intelligent design does. Honestly, we used to believe that the earth was flat, but now we know better. I'd just like to point out that it says in Isaiah that the earth floats in space and orbits the sun, totally different to the view at that time that the earth was held up by a huge animal. I'll have to check that and get back to you. I made up the floating on an animal part, however. Most believed the world was flat at that point. I'm sorry if I insult any of you in what I will say next, but it needs saying.

I honestly cannot trust the intelligence of anyone who seriously believes that just because we don't know everything means that everything we do know is wrong. Same with Intelligent Design/Creationism. Same as before, evolution bases itself on hard evidence, creationism/intelligent design on the argument that just because we don't know now, we'll never know, and therefore it must have been God. This is sheer impatience and shows a supreme lack of the ability to approach problems with an open mind. I concur. Well, that's good. This belief is an incredible insult to all scientists, who make their livings discovering things that, according to proponents of this atrocious mindset, aren't true because we don't know them yet.

And all these people who fly in the face of evidence would be perfectly happy to accept science as valid if it proved that God existed, or that prayer worked, or that evolution was false. This hypocrisy is disgusting, and intelligent design simply isn't a valid belief. If any evidence were found that proved that evolution were false, if one irreducibly complex organ were discovered, I would be one of the first to abandon the belief... but only AFTER it was found that that organ truly was irreducibly complex. Would the brain count? I mean look at the things they do for blindness, the electrodes that determine what we see is electrically transmitted by the tongue. The brain realizes this is sight and thus makes the person see what the electrodes are saying that person is seeing. Very complex in my opinion. True, it is very complex, as is all life. However, irreducibly complex simply means that it couldn't have evolved as a series of steps. I guarantee you that with an organ as important as the brain, there have been many tests showing that the brain is not irreducibly complex. In fact, I can reasonably say that fossil evidence show how the human brain came from the brains of earlier human forms (now extinct). Also, our brains contain some parts that, say, fish brains do not, because ours have evolved out of fish brains, and have had to adapt to life on land, which requires different brain functions.

I am not offended by your comments. They are a bit harsh and your impatience with people who agree with Intelligent Design / Creationism is shown.

I'm glad you're not offended, it is this type of good dialogue that I was hoping to spark, and it seems I've succeeded.

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:10

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

progismylife wrote:

Also please explain the difference between hypothesis and theory. Don't they have the same meaning?

Hypothesis: an idea a scientist (or anyone) has that is testable scientifically but has not been backed by evidence.

Theory: a combination of a bunch of hypotheses backed by mounds of evidence that come together to form a greater explanation for some part of our universe.

Dictionary says( I'm sorry but I cannot take your statement as the definition for these words as they are clearly your opinion and are very biased)

Hypothesis: an unproved theory or a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification or accepted as likely to be true. compare to theory

Theory: a nontechnical term for hypothesis or a set of hypothesizes related by logic in mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms

By my dictionary (The Collins English Dictionary latest reprint of this edition 1990) these terms are very very similar and thus you cannot argue that Intelligent Design / Creationism Hypothesis is different from Evolution Theory in the sense that hypothesis is different from theory.

Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:10

Scapler wrote:

stonebeard wrote:

I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology.

No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:11

Scapler wrote:

stonebeard wrote:

I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology.

Both should not be taught. School is for teaching kids things supported by evidence. Support by scientists is different from support by actual evidence, and there is no evidence for intelligent design, while there is plenty of evidence for evolution.

Honestly, nothing in science can be "proven," and if we had to teach every alternative to what we know, nothing would ever get done.

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:12

sleeper wrote:

Scapler wrote:

stonebeard wrote:

I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology.

No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

I have to disagree... science is not provable, but unlike religion, it is disprovable, and that is what lends it credence.

Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:14

My school had a good way of dealing with the issue of evolution. My teacher gave a short prepared speech saying that you dont have to believe evolution, you just have to know the theory. Anyway, evolution should be taught in schools, not creationism because it has a lot more scientific evidence and connections. It's a key part to studying genetics

-------------

<font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR]

Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:14

To me, creationism and intelligent design hypotheses are just philosophical/metaphysical possibilities. We'll probably never find out, but our minds still continue to pose these possibilities in the hope that we might get closer to something like the "truth" or maybe just a more startling higher awareness of an "awsome symmetry"...

-------------
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:14

I should rephrase: I don't care necessarity if religious perspectives were incorporated into teaching, becase religion is a huge force in our world, whether we believe or not. We all know which religion would be taught though, and it's wouldn't be Wiccan.

I'd prefer science to be "the religion" per se of the scientific classroom, because that way we avoid all the inner conflicts of having to give EVERY RELIGION's perspective on scientific matters, which is impractical and silly.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:14

sleeper wrote:

Scapler wrote:

stonebeard wrote:

I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology.

No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

Well then both would not be taught as both are theories and are not provable but one is seen as more likely than the other.

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:15

stonebeard wrote:

I should rephrase: I don't care necessarity if religious perspectives were incorporated into teaching, becase religion is a huge force in our world, whether we believe or not. We all know which religion would be taught though, and it's wouldn't be Wiccan.

Keep to the known facts, not the disputed theories imo.

Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:16

sleeper wrote:

Scapler wrote:

stonebeard wrote:

I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology.

No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

Prove evolution to me, I dare you Wink

-------------
Bassists are deadly

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:16

progismylife wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

progismylife wrote:

Also please explain the difference between hypothesis and theory. Don't they have the same meaning?

Hypothesis: an idea a scientist (or anyone) has that is testable scientifically but has not been backed by evidence.

Theory: a combination of a bunch of hypotheses backed by mounds of evidence that come together to form a greater explanation for some part of our universe.

Dictionary says( I'm sorry but I cannot take your statement as the definition for these words as they are clearly your opinion and are very biased) I'm so sorry, but it's just not my definition or my opinion. What I gave is the scientific usage of the two terms, and since we are arguing over whether Intelligent design is suitable science on the level of Evolution, that is what we have to go by.

Hypothesis: an unproved theory or a suggested explanation for a group of facts or phenomena, either accepted as a basis for further verification or accepted as likely to be true. compare to theory

Theory: a nontechnical term for hypothesis or a set of hypothesizes related by logic in mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms

By my dictionary (The Collins English Dictionary latest reprint of this edition 1990) these terms are very very similar and thus you cannot argue that Intelligent Design / Creationism Hypothesis is different from Evolution Theory in the sense that hypothesis is different from theory.

Perhaps, in 17 years, things have changed, but I wouldn't trust that dictionary from so long ago. Also, the basic definition given by your dictionary is the same as mine... a hypothesis tries to connect lots of facts (true), and a theory tries to connect a lot of hypotheses once they have been supported by evidence. The dictionary is wrong in saying that theory is a non-technical term. Admittedly, in common speech, the two are interchanged, but that usage is incorrect in scientific terms, which, for reasons I have explained, is what we have to go by.

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:17

progismylife wrote:

Keep to the known facts, not the disputed theories imo.

Facts are disputable and interpretable, so even facts aren't as solid as you want them to be.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:17

Scapler wrote:

sleeper wrote:

Scapler wrote:

stonebeard wrote:

I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology.

No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

Prove evolution to me, I do you Wink

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.

Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:20

progismylife wrote:

Keep to the known facts, not the disputed theories imo.

I would only add that each instructor should make VERY clear what science is and what it cannot presume--even for a second--to answer. Science is only a method; it's not a metaphysical position.

-------------
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."

Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:20

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.

No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

Prove evolution to me, I do you Wink

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.

-------------
Bassists are deadly

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:20

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.

give me one piece of evidence that rules out Intelligent Design, or 1 piece of evidence that supports The evolution theory, but at the same time doesn't support I.D.

and i will be converted.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:21

tuxon wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

^^^

And since it's highly likely I'll be asked to delete a lot of that post, just read Richard Dawkins, who explains all I've said with more elegance and less anger than I've done.

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:21

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

progismylife wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

progismylife wrote:

Also please explain the difference between hypothesis and theory. Don't they have the same meaning?

Hypothesis: an idea a scientist (or anyone) has that is testable scientifically but has not been backed by evidence.

Theory: a combination of a bunch of hypotheses backed by mounds of evidence that come together to form a greater explanation for some part of our universe.

Thanks for the clarification.

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:26

tuxon wrote:

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.

give me one piece of evidence that rules out Intelligent Design, or 1 piece of evidence that supports The evolution theory, but at the same time doesn't support I.D.

and i will be converted.

There is no evidence that rules out intelligent design. However, all the evidence that supports Darwinian Evolution makes intelligent design less likely, because the two really cannot go together in their current forms.

To humor you, however: The fossils that show that homo erectus (upright man) gradually evolved into homo sapiens (wise man - a.k.a. humans) certainly supports evolution. It shows how, over time, the time spent carrying babies in the womb changed to save the mothers' lives because of the increasing brain size, which is also documented by the fossil record. While you could make an argument that would let this fit into ID (e.g. God created fossils to test our faith - an argument I have heard used), it certainly does not actively support it.

If you really want evidence for evolution, read Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species.

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:26

progismylife wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

progismylife wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

progismylife wrote:

Also please explain the difference between hypothesis and theory. Don't they have the same meaning?

Hypothesis: an idea a scientist (or anyone) has that is testable scientifically but has not been backed by evidence.

Theory: a combination of a bunch of hypotheses backed by mounds of evidence that come together to form a greater explanation for some part of our universe.

Thanks for the clarification.

No problem.

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:27

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

tuxon wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

^^^

And since it's highly likely I'll be asked to delete a lot of that post, just read Richard Dawkins, who explains all I've said with more elegance and less anger than I've done.

I don't mind anger, though i think reason is more convincing to me. You are correct there.

Same as for The Evolution theory Creationism stands or falls with the discovery of the origin of life.

The evolution theory can be proven if we discover the first living organism, and are able to recreate the creation of life from unliving material in a controlled envirement (ergo, when man becomes God) NO! Evolution theory cannot be proven. It is, however, possible to say that it is almost certainly true. Also, scientists are incredibly close to being able to recreate life in the laboratory under conditions like those of the ancient earth (i.e., no oxygen). Probably in another five to ten years (short in scientific matters).

Creationism can be proven if we discover god, and ask him upfront and personal, why did you create us, and he answers back, and explains how he creates life. (ergo, when Man trully becomes God's apprentice as was meant to be). God could lie...

But if neither are found, all theories and hypothesis can be correct, and believe plays an important aspect of the foundations of the different theories, either you believe in chance, or you believe in a creational force. Both are belief systems. If neither are found (though it is almost certain that we will be able to recreate the formation of life), we should still go with Evolution because reasonable evidence supports it.

scientific theories are easier to find indications of possible truth for than religious beliefs, for God doesn't show himself all too often directly to man, but the facts of life (possibly how god created it) are always the same, and give an aura of scientific value. On the contrary, proving religion right would be quite easy. All God has to do is show him/her/itself to us, and hey presto, I'd believe in God. I wouldn't worship God, however, because I think no being is better or worse than me. If I'm going to Hell for it, then I'm going to Hell for it.Dammit man, this is what the Pharisees said when Jesus said he was the Messiah, they asked for signs and when the signs appeared they chose to ignore them, just like you are choosing to ignore the facts for Intelligent Design / Creationism, besides God shows himself in many ways (which you would say no to): the beauty of nature, conscience (which mean with knowledge) - the voice telling you you are doing something wrong
and your nonchalant attitude towards Hell is disturbing. Going to Hell is going away from everything that is good and pure and enjoyable for ete4rnity-- no going back on this one once you go to hell you're in there for good. Sorry for the rant but I must say this, must!!
well something like this.

Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:28

I believe in a God but to deny evolution is madness, not faith. After all, we are made in God's image. Americans in particular believe that God has blessed us the most. The average American is quite lazy (myself included), thus, God let stuff take its own course rather than be too hands on. Guess I subscribe to the watchmaker theory of God. Evolution should be taught in schools because it presents one theory; varying religions could present many. To me, saying that all life evolved from similar organisms only reinforces the idea of a God, becasue it suggests that everything is united. That's why I can't understand how people can blast evolution for debasing religion.

For a laugh about all this, read the brilliant The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:29

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.

No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

Prove evolution to me, I do you Wink

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. Which we have. He himself said that without those fossil records, his theory held no ground and was inprovable. He's wrong. His theory holds plenty of ground based on the fossils we know.The fossils have never been found. You're wrong. We know plenty of fossils that explain various stages of evolution on earth. You're straying dangerously close to the argument that just because we don't know them now, we'll never know them, which is truly a crackpot argument.

The theory is inprovable anyway, for reasons I've explained about five times already.

Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:30

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

sleeper wrote:

Scapler wrote:

stonebeard wrote:

I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology.

No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.

I have to disagree... science is not provable, but unlike religion, it is disprovable, and that is what lends it credence.

I really should take more time when posting! LOL

I meant effectively what Stony said a few posts after mine.

-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Posted By: bluetailfly
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:30

1800iareyay wrote:

I believe in a God but to deny evolution is madness, not faith. After all, we are made in God's image. Americans in particular believe that God has blessed us the most. The average American is quite lazy (myself included), thus, God let stuff take its own course rather than be too hands on. Guess I subscribe to the watchmaker theory of God. Evolution should be taught in schools because it presents one theory; varying religions could present many. To me, saying that all life evolved from similar organisms only reinforces the idea of a God, becasue it suggests that everything is united. That's why I can't understand how people can blast evolution for debasing religion.

For a laugh about all this, read the brilliant The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

I don't know about that "made in God's image" stuff...

If there is a god, I wouldn't want to think he's like we are...

-------------
"The red polygon's only desire / is to get to the blue triangle."

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:31

1800iareyay wrote:

I believe in a God but to deny evolution is madness, not faith. After all, we are made in God's image. Americans in particular believe that God has blessed us the most. The average American is quite lazy (myself included), thus, God let stuff take its own course rather than be too hands on. Guess I subscribe to the watchmaker theory of God. Evolution should be taught in schools because it presents one theory; varying religions could present many. To me, saying that all life evolved from similar organisms only reinforces the idea of a God, becasue it suggests that everything is united. That's why I can't understand how people can blast evolution for debasing religion. Because it goes against the literal interpretation of the bible.

For a laugh about all this, read the brilliant The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

From what you've said, you don't believe in the watchmaker God. The watchmaker God invented everything as it is now and then let things go.

What you believe has no official name, so far as I know.

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:34

progismylife wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

tuxon wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

^^^

And since it's highly likely I'll be asked to delete a lot of that post, just read Richard Dawkins, who explains all I've said with more elegance and less anger than I've done.

I don't mind anger, though i think reason is more convincing to me. You are correct there.

Same as for The Evolution theory Creationism stands or falls with the discovery of the origin of life.

The evolution theory can be proven if we discover the first living organism, and are able to recreate the creation of life from unliving material in a controlled envirement (ergo, when man becomes God) NO! Evolution theory cannot be proven. It is, however, possible to say that it is almost certainly true. Also, scientists are incredibly close to being able to recreate life in the laboratory under conditions like those of the ancient earth (i.e., no oxygen). Probably in another five to ten years (short in scientific matters).

Creationism can be proven if we discover god, and ask him upfront and personal, why did you create us, and he answers back, and explains how he creates life. (ergo, when Man trully becomes God's apprentice as was meant to be). God could lie...

But if neither are found, all theories and hypothesis can be correct, and believe plays an important aspect of the foundations of the different theories, either you believe in chance, or you believe in a creational force. Both are belief systems. If neither are found (though it is almost certain that we will be able to recreate the formation of life), we should still go with Evolution because reasonable evidence supports it.

scientific theories are easier to find indications of possible truth for than religious beliefs, for God doesn't show himself all too often directly to man, but the facts of life (possibly how god created it) are always the same, and give an aura of scientific value. On the contrary, proving religion right would be quite easy. All God has to do is show him/her/itself to us, and hey presto, I'd believe in God. I wouldn't worship God, however, because I think no being is better or worse than me. If I'm going to Hell for it, then I'm going to Hell for it.Dammit man, this is what the Pharisees said when Jesus said he was the Messiah, they asked for signs and when the signs appeared they chose to ignore them, just like you are choosing to ignore the facts for Intelligent Design / Creationism, besides God shows himself in many ways (which you would say no to): the beauty of nature, conscience (which mean with knowledge) - The beaty of nature as well as conscience are both perfectly explainable by evolution and are not at all evidence or "signs" of God. the voice telling you you are doing something wrong
and your nonchalant attitude towards Hell is disturbing. Going to Hell is going away from everything that is good and pure and enjoyable for ete4rnity-- no going back on this one once you go to hell you're in there for good. Sorry for the rant but I must say this, must!! I'm nonchalant about Hell because I don't believe in it. I'm not too worried about going there because I have no reason to believe that a) it exists and b) that people go there just for believing in evolution and not the bible. So far as I know, I am a good person, and well deserving of Heaven. Just my opinion though, and there are those who woul disagree. well something like this.

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:34

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

tuxon wrote:

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. give me one piece of evidence that rules out Intelligent Design, or 1 piece of evidence that supports The evolution theory, but at the same time doesn't support I.D. and i will be converted.

If you really want evidence for evolution, read Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species.

Homo Erectus did not evolve into man, they evolved from the same pre-humanoid, so are related, but no direct link, just nephews.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:35

bluetailfly wrote:

I don't know about that "made in God's image" stuff...

If there is a god, I wouldn't want to think he's like we are...

Too true... but having read the Old Testament several times, I must say that he's even worse than we are... if you take the bible literally.

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:36

tuxon wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

tuxon wrote:

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. give me one piece of evidence that rules out Intelligent Design, or 1 piece of evidence that supports The evolution theory, but at the same time doesn't support I.D. and i will be converted.

If you really want evidence for evolution, read Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species.

Homo Erectus did not evolve into man, they evolved from the same pre-humanoid, so are related, but no direct link, just nephews.

You are getting Homo Erectus and Neanderthal mixed up. We did evolve from Homo Erectus. But even if we didn't, we have plenty more evidence of evolution.

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:42

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

progismylife wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

tuxon wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

^^^

And since it's highly likely I'll be asked to delete a lot of that post, just read Richard Dawkins, who explains all I've said with more elegance and less anger than I've done.

I don't mind anger, though i think reason is more convincing to me. You are correct there.

Same as for The Evolution theory Creationism stands or falls with the discovery of the origin of life.

The evolution theory can be proven if we discover the first living organism, and are able to recreate the creation of life from unliving material in a controlled envirement (ergo, when man becomes God) NO! Evolution theory cannot be proven. It is, however, possible to say that it is almost certainly true. Also, scientists are incredibly close to being able to recreate life in the laboratory under conditions like those of the ancient earth (i.e., no oxygen). Probably in another five to ten years (short in scientific matters).

Creationism can be proven if we discover god, and ask him upfront and personal, why did you create us, and he answers back, and explains how he creates life. (ergo, when Man trully becomes God's apprentice as was meant to be). God could lie...

But if neither are found, all theories and hypothesis can be correct, and believe plays an important aspect of the foundations of the different theories, either you believe in chance, or you believe in a creational force. Both are belief systems. If neither are found (though it is almost certain that we will be able to recreate the formation of life), we should still go with Evolution because reasonable evidence supports it.

scientific theories are easier to find indications of possible truth for than religious beliefs, for God doesn't show himself all too often directly to man, but the facts of life (possibly how god created it) are always the same, and give an aura of scientific value. On the contrary, proving religion right would be quite easy. All God has to do is show him/her/itself to us, and hey presto, I'd believe in God. I wouldn't worship God, however, because I think no being is better or worse than me. If I'm going to Hell for it, then I'm going to Hell for it.Dammit man, this is what the Pharisees said when Jesus said he was the Messiah, they asked for signs and when the signs appeared they chose to ignore them, just like you are choosing to ignore the facts for Intelligent Design / Creationism, besides God shows himself in many ways (which you would say no to): the beauty of nature, conscience (which mean with knowledge) - The beaty of nature as well as conscience are both perfectly explainable by evolution and are not at all evidence or "signs" of God. the voice telling you you are doing something wrong
and your nonchalant attitude towards Hell is disturbing. Going to Hell is going away from everything that is good and pure and enjoyable for ete4rnity-- no going back on this one once you go to hell you're in there for good. Sorry for the rant but I must say this, must!! I'm nonchalant about Hell because I don't believe in it. I'm not too worried about going there because I have no reason to believe that a) it exists and b) that people go there just for believing in evolution and not the bible. So far as I know, I am a good person, and well deserving of Heaven. Just my opinion though, and there are those who woul disagree.I diasagree. You cannot go into Heaven as a good person. You have to meet Gods standards which is impossible. That's why he sent Jesus to give humanity a way to reach heaven. Besides if you don't beleive in Hell why do you believe in Heaven? In your view it doesn't exist!!! well something like this.

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:43

there is plenty more evidence of evolution, but non that rule out creationism or I.D.

so based on that you are correct that maybe evolutionism can't be proven, but the options for Creationism and I.D. will always remain open.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:45

Where did you get that. I won't trust it without knowing it's from a reputable source. There is certainly evidence that we have evolved from homo ergaster, however, and I may have just gotten my names mixed up.

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:47

progismylife wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

progismylife wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

tuxon wrote:

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

^^^

And since it's highly likely I'll be asked to delete a lot of that post, just read Richard Dawkins, who explains all I've said with more elegance and less anger than I've done.

I don't mind anger, though i think reason is more convincing to me. You are correct there.

Same as for The Evolution theory Creationism stands or falls with the discovery of the origin of life.

The evolution theory can be proven if we discover the first living organism, and are able to recreate the creation of life from unliving material in a controlled envirement (ergo, when man becomes God) NO! Evolution theory cannot be proven. It is, however, possible to say that it is almost certainly true. Also, scientists are incredibly close to being able to recreate life in the laboratory under conditions like those of the ancient earth (i.e., no oxygen). Probably in another five to ten years (short in scientific matters).

Creationism can be proven if we discover god, and ask him upfront and personal, why did you create us, and he answers back, and explains how he creates life. (ergo, when Man trully becomes God's apprentice as was meant to be). God could lie...

But if neither are found, all theories and hypothesis can be correct, and believe plays an important aspect of the foundations of the different theories, either you believe in chance, or you believe in a creational force. Both are belief systems. If neither are found (though it is almost certain that we will be able to recreate the formation of life), we should still go with Evolution because reasonable evidence supports it.

scientific theories are easier to find indications of possible truth for than religious beliefs, for God doesn't show himself all too often directly to man, but the facts of life (possibly how god created it) are always the same, and give an aura of scientific value. On the contrary, proving religion right would be quite easy. All God has to do is show him/her/itself to us, and hey presto, I'd believe in God. I wouldn't worship God, however, because I think no being is better or worse than me. If I'm going to Hell for it, then I'm going to Hell for it.Dammit man, this is what the Pharisees said when Jesus said he was the Messiah, they asked for signs and when the signs appeared they chose to ignore them, just like you are choosing to ignore the facts for Intelligent Design / Creationism, besides God shows himself in many ways (which you would say no to): the beauty of nature, conscience (which mean with knowledge) - The beaty of nature as well as conscience are both perfectly explainable by evolution and are not at all evidence or "signs" of God. the voice telling you you are doing something wrong
and your nonchalant attitude towards Hell is disturbing. Going to Hell is going away from everything that is good and pure and enjoyable for ete4rnity-- no going back on this one once you go to hell you're in there for good. Sorry for the rant but I must say this, must!! I'm nonchalant about Hell because I don't believe in it. I'm not too worried about going there because I have no reason to believe that a) it exists and b) that people go there just for believing in evolution and not the bible. So far as I know, I am a good person, and well deserving of Heaven. Just my opinion though, and there are those who woul disagree.I diasagree. You cannot go into Heaven as a good person. You have to meet Gods standards which is impossible. That's why he sent Jesus to give humanity a way to reach heaven. Besides if you don't beleive in Hell why do you believe in Heaven? In your view it doesn't exist!!! I don't believe in Heaven. I said that as a joke. And it's pretty hypocritical of God to have high standards for us given how he behaved in the Old testament

. well something like this.

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:53

You know what, inpraiseoffolly? I am done trying to reason with you. You do not see the reason behind God's actions in the old testament and are clearly taking them out of context by saying humanity had done nothing taht provoked God's wrath. God is a loving merciful God but is also a just God. And that is it I am done arguing with you. And yo will probably say I am doing this so I can think I had the final word with this, but I am done with these type of arguements. They go nowhere and are not helpful to anyone as they exasperate people on any side of an arguement.

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:58

progismylife wrote:

You know what, inpraiseoffolly? I am done trying to reason with you. This is exactly what I was hoping this would not come to...

You do not see the reason behind God's actions in the old testament and are clearly taking them out of context by saying humanity had done nothing taht provoked God's wrath. I joke about religion a lot, and to do that I am required to take things out of context... surely you don't truly believe I meant that particular comment. God is a loving merciful God but is also a just God. I could say here that you are being just as picky and choosy as I was, but given how touchy this has become, I won't. And that is it I am done arguing with you. And you will probably say I am doing this so I can think I had the final word with this, but I am done with these type of arguements. They go nowhere and are not helpful to anyone as they exasperate people on any side of an arguement. I disagree here. I found this quite a refreshing argument, it helped reiterate why I believe in evolution and do not believe in God, and perhaps it did the opposite for you, in which case I may not have achieved my goal, but at least it was not worthless. Debate (this really was more a debate than an argument) is almost always useful. I don't think that refusing to argue with me because I won't concede your point is fairly silly.

Just to point out, I'm sure you're coming across more harshly than you meant, and I should have done more to indicate when I was joking, and for that, I apologize.

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 17:58

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

Where did you get that. I won't trust it without knowing it's from a reputable source. There is certainly evidence that we have evolved from homo ergaster, however, and I may have just gotten my names mixed up.

I don't know the site, i know i saw a better family tree once, but I don't know if I can find that on the net.

I believe the Neanderthal isn't actually as close a relation as this image imply's. So don't pay too close attention.

Neanderthal man came to europe well before Homo sapiens, and originated from far earlier than Homo Sapiens, so the link isn't proven to be from the same ancestors.

It's been 10 years since college, so my knowledge weakens every second

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 18:00

tuxon wrote:

Neanderthal and homo sapiens interbred... that's why we have blonds...

I may be wrong, as I've said, and I will do some research of my own into and get back to you.

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 18:06

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

tuxon wrote:

I don't know the site, i know i saw a better family tree once, but I don't know if I can find that on the net. I believe the Neanderthal isn't actually as close a relation as this image imply's. So don't pay too close attention. Neanderthal man came to europe well before Homo sapiens, and originated from far earlier than Homo Sapiens, so the link isn't proven to be from the same ancestors. It's been 10 years since college, so my knowledge weakens every second

Neanderthal and homo sapiens interbred... that's why we have blonds...

I may be wrong, as I've said, and I will do some research of my own into and get back to you.

we have blonds and red haired people because of an overpopulation of woman in Europe, which lead to differtiation, the odd woman with little differences in hair, were favourable mates to the regular, brown/black haired woman.

the situation has normalised, so lesser blonds are born currently, untill they become scarce once more.

try and find a blond outside western/northern Europe (not counting migration), they excist, but merely as freak (not negatively meant) occurences.

the fact they do excist outside NW Europe means it's likely an inbuild (dormant) gene. and not the result of localised breeding with non-homo sapiens



-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 18:09

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

progismylife wrote:

You know what, inpraiseoffolly? I am done trying to reason with you. This is exactly what I was hoping this would not come to...

Okay I lied (how very unchristian of me) but those are crocodile tears Wink

) and to do that I am required to take things out of context... surely you don't truly believe I meant that particular comment. My reaction was uncalled for, I am just sick and tired of people who actually use this as a basis for an arguement and I overreacted (like I usually do with such debates) God is a loving merciful God but is also a just God. I could say here that you are being just as picky and choosy as I was, but given how touchy this has become, I won't. And that is it I am done arguing with you. And you will probably say I am doing this so I can think I had the final word with this, but I am done with these type of arguements. They go nowhere and are not helpful to anyone as they exasperate people on any side of an arguement. I disagree here. I found this quite a refreshing argument, it helped reiterate why I believe in evolution and do not believe in God, and perhaps it did the opposite for you, in which case I may not have achieved my goal, but at least it was not worthless. Debate (this really was more a debate than an argument) is almost always useful. I don't think that refusing to argue with me because I won't concede your point is fairly silly.

Just to point out, I'm sure you're coming across more harshly than you meant, and I should have done more to indicate when I was joking, and for that, I apologize.

Sorry to be so harsh. I have just been having to deal with people who actually have no opinion of their own but rather use the same exact arguments and don't listen to my reasoning (no matter how simply I put it).

I usually don't react so harshly.

Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 19:20

We are all gonna be dead by the time they find out something about this... and I'm not even researching...

-------------
¡Beware of the Bee!

Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 21:02

Look, I'm a pretty devout Catholic, but I'm willing to say that creationism/intelligent design is absurd when compared to evolution, a theory many times more valid. I find a lot of what's in the Old Testament to be misleading myths. I mean, compare the creation story in the Bible to the creation stories in "extinct" religions no one follows anymore, like ancient Greek religion. Very similar. Put the story of creation in an outdated religion and all the creationists would call it crazy. The only reason anyone believes this stuff is that it's in the Bible. The fact is, evolution is much more likely than creationism, and intelligent design is just a cop-out to try to join the other side when the battle is being lost.

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 21:09

oh boy... *micky turns and runs for the exit before getting sucked in*

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: Jeams Pfirp
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 21:21

I believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design.

-------------

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 21:33

inpraiseoffolly wrote:

and thus a supernatural being called God must have done the creating. What it fails to explain, however, is how this supernatural being could have come about. God’s existence requires no explanation and no proof because He is God. That’s the argument that gives Idealism the most enviable advantage over Materialism. After all, if you're just going to claim that God has been there forever, you might as well say that the universe and life have been there forever, That’s almost exactly what dialectic materialism says. because you accomplish the same in both situations. Absolutely, that’s how materialism deity-izes (deifies) the matter. As a materialist, you can’t explain what the matter is, can you? That’s why your basic premise is false. For this reason, any materialist theory (including the Evolution theory) is flawed and will always be just that – a theory.

We’ve been through this on the atheist thread... how about the following statement: think of creationism in wider terms – not the 6-day deal, but a process, which the ancient man who wrote the Bible could never imagine. God created the matter. What was the initial shape and form of it – we don’t know and will never know; it could be the Big bang particles, or the Bang itself, or something else. From that point on, everything went the way science describes it. Thus the matter/science/etc., becomes a particular case of creationism.

Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 23:23

I can't believe I looked at this for a second time...

-------------
¡Beware of the Bee!

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 23:26

cuncuna wrote:

I can't believe I looked at this for a second time...

The fact that you don't believe, doesn't make it implausable of happening.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 23:34

Indeed. And three it is... I'm bored beyond my own perception. Must sleep...

-------------
¡Beware of the Bee!

Posted By: Moatilliatta
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 00:00

I am late to the discussion, but this is what I have to say:

Science has already found numerous faults with evolution. Science can not disprove the creation.

I don't believe the story in the Bible is meant to be taken word for word; it did not necessarily take 6 of our days to create, day is surely used as a term for a period of time, but not the 24 hour days we have now. Otherwise, I don't see any other way the universe was created. Even if there were a big bang, where did the matter come from that were part of the big bang? Darwin himself even said "In spite of all the efforts of trained observers, not one change of species into another is on record."

Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 00:15

Everything points to an intelligent design. No beautiful thing is ever formed out of, lets say, an explosion. Just consider your own body. I studied human physiology for 4 years, every year, every new knowledge learned points out that there is a creator. A hurricane won't form a complete and functioning airplaine out of an airplaine junkyard, even if all the parts are there. A building wont exist unless built. You can't form a building by making all the parts explode. Reason and logic points out, without a doubt that there is an intelligent designer behind all this.

-------------

Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 02:16

I'm very late to the discussion but my knowledge of the subject (albiet very limited) points to evolution as the most likely theory. Unfortunately evolution can't be observed as it is a process which takes millions of years but the evidence left behind in the form of fossils does in my opinion point towards evolution being correct.

Yes there are many 'missing links' in the chain but just because we don't know about the existance of a species now it doesn't mean we will never know about it, and even if we never find fossils of a missing link it doesn't mean that they never existed afterall the missing species may have lived in areas which don't produce fossils as often as other areas.

So to sum up, just because we don't know something today it doesn't mean we won't know it tomorrow.

Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 03:27

Majestic_Mayhem wrote:

Everything points to an intelligent design. No beautiful thing is ever formed out of, lets say, an explosion. Just consider your own body. I studied human physiology for 4 years, every year, every new knowledge learned points out that there is a creator. A hurricane won't form a complete and functioning airplaine out of an airplaine junkyard, even if all the parts are there. A building wont exist unless built. You can't form a building by making all the parts explode. Reason and logic points out, without a doubt that there is an intelligent designer behind all this.[IMG]height=17 alt=Hug src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley31.gif" width=45 align=absMiddle>

If there is a limited amount of matter with infinite time and space then infinite possiblities occur. Eventually an explosion could turn into an internet conversation between two people debating whether an intelligent creator designed the world or we just happened.
That of course has little to do with evolutionary theory.

-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa

Posted By: JrKASperov
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 04:46

video vertigo wrote:

with infinite time and space

Neither of which, according to current science, exist.

-------------
Epic.

Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 05:10

Vompatti wrote:

What exactly does the intelligent design theory say?

Didn't read the whole thread, but by now, I'm sure you have an uidea of what creatiosim is about.

However, the hidden face of it, is that the clergies after having derided and discredited Darwin's evolution theories, they have come to a point where they must face the fact: THEY were wrong!!!

They were deadset against all kinds of evolutions and the fact that Darwin dared claimed monkey as our cousins were irritating the clergies beyond belief. When Darwin started lecturing in universities about his theories, those opponents in the gallery started throwing peanuts at him to stop him from proceeding >> hence the origin of the expression for hecklers The Peanut Gallery.

But once more the clergies have been proven wrong.

But rather than admitting this and fear loosing completely their credibility (due to the many proofs unearthed, proving Darwin's work was not only a theory but close to the reality) , they are now adapting those theories to fit their needs. Hence the intelligent design crap.

micky wrote:

oh boy... *micky turns and runs for the exit before getting sucked in*

I wish I had your wisdom!! But I like trouble!!!

-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Posted By: Psychedelia
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 07:26

Majestic Mayhem, your argument that an explosion wont make a fully functioning airoplane is completely flawed as evolution is not a sudden process which quickly makes the desired result. It is more likable to a huge mountain that must be climbed which can only be taken slowly and in stages.

-------------
Another emotional suicide, overdosed on sentiment and pride

Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 08:02

Anyone who says evolution is "just a theory" has no idea what the term "theory" means in science. The name "theory" is only given to thought constructs that are very well proven, although of course any contradictory finding or experiment might disprove it. But this will in case of a theory very likely not mean the whole theory has to be thrown away, it will only mean the theory will have to be improved a bit. Anything that is NOT well proven in science is called a "hypothesis". The 20th century only developped 2 major scientific theories: The theory of relativity (special and general, developped by Einstein) and the theory of quantum mechanics, developped by Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac and again Einstein (Einstein received his nobel prize not for developping the theory of relativity but because of his contribution to the theory of quantum mechanics, the explanation for the so-called "photo-electric effect", which is the principle photo cells work by). So it is not for nothing that the theory of evolution is called a "theory". No serious scientist worth his salt doubts it. There may be new findings to the mechanisms of mutation and selection, but the basic principle is not in doubt at all. Those who propel the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" cleverly make use of the different meanings of "theory" in science and in everyday language, but that will only impress a scientific layman.

-------------

BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.

Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 08:23

BaldFriede wrote:

Anyone who says evolution is "just a theory" has no idea what the term "theory" means in science. The name "theory" is only given to thought constructs that are very well proven, although of course any contradictory finding or experiment might disprove it. But this will in case of a theory very likely not mean the whole theory has to be thrown away, it will only mean the theory will have to be improved a bit. Anything that is NOT well proven in science is called a "hypothesis". The 20th century only developped 2 major sientific theories: The theory of relativity (special and general, developped by Einstein) and the theory of quantum mechanics, developped by Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac and again Einstein (Einstein received his nobel prize not for developping the theory of relativity but because of his contribution to the theory of quantum mechanics, the explanation for the so-called "photo-electric effect", which is the principle photo cells work by). So it is not for nothing that the theory of evolution is called a "theory". No serious scientist worth his salt doubts it. There may be new findings to the mechanisms of mutation and selection, but the basic principle is not in doubt at all. Those who propel the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" cleverly make use of the different meanings of "theory" in science and in everyday language, but that will only impress a scientific layman.

There was a program on Sunday morning in the UK last week which debated intelligent design. The issue was 'ID' being taught to kids in Biology lessons in the UK. Education authorities have been put under some considerable pressure by the 'ID' lobby to introduce ID to science lessons. Thankfully our government is opposed to this. One of the few good decisions Blairs lot have made!

The point is, as you rightly say, ID is not a theory in scientific terms. It is a lobby of Christians (many of them ironically, scientists) who are trying to push Christianity in thorugh the back door. Their arguments are weak and flacid and centre around the complexity of the natural world; cell structures, DNA etc. They argue that it is BECAUSE they understand how complex these systems are, they have no choice but to conclude that a higher intelligence was responsible for them. In a nutshell...

I've not had time to read all of this thread, and I dont know what the situation is in the US with ID being taught in schools. Is it part of the curriculum in every high school? It's back door religious indoctrination, and I dont think children should be exposed to it. Thats just my opinion.

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!

Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 08:37

Psychedelia wrote:

Majestic Mayhem, your argument that an explosion wont make a fully functioning airoplane is completely flawed as evolution is not a sudden process which quickly makes the desired result. It is more likable to a huge mountain that must be climbed which can only be taken slowly and in stages.

Well, yeah I understand that. I'm not even talking about evolution here. The whole universe coming into being is not evolution per se. Evolution and the "coming into being" of the whole universe as we know it is completely different. What I'm trying to say here is that the universe is not created by a large chaotic explosion... that is not evolution. There are 2 kinds of evolution. One of which is natural selection. It's a process, it's happening and it is without a doubt, true. But the notion that men evolved from some primeval goo is impossible. As I've said earlier on this thread, logic compells me to believe that there is an intellegent creator. It's a bit ironic, don't you think,that some scientists even try to prove that life can exist without intellegence, yet, there they are, using all their wisdom proving it. Everything out of nothing is just plain impossible.

-------------

Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 08:42

video vertigo wrote:

If there is a limited amount of matter with infinite time and space then infinite possiblities occur. Eventually an explosion could turn into an internet conversation between two people debating whether an intelligent creator designed the world or we just happened.
That of course has little to do with evolutionary theory.

Who/ what placed it there?

-------------

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 08:42

BaldFriede wrote:

Anyone who says evolution is "just a theory" has no idea what the term "theory" means in science. The name "theory" is only given to thought constructs that are very well proven, although of course any contradictory finding or experiment might disprove it. But this will in case of a theory very likely not mean the whole theory has to be thrown away, it will only mean the theory will have to be improved a bit. Anything that is NOT well proven in science is called a "hypothesis". The 20th century only developped 2 major scientific theories: The theory of relativity (special and general, developped by Einstein) and the theory of quantum mechanics, developped by Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Dirac and again Einstein (Einstein received his nobel prize not for developping the theory of relativity but because of his contribution to the theory of quantum mechanics, the explanation for the so-called "photo-electric effect", which is the principle photo cells work by). So it is not for nothing that the theory of evolution is called a "theory". No serious scientist worth his salt doubts it. There may be new findings to the mechanisms of mutation and selection, but the basic principle is not in doubt at all. Those who propel the hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" cleverly make use of the different meanings of "theory" in science and in everyday language, but that will only impress a scientific layman.

Wikipedia’s definition of theory states, “In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation…. In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.” Assuming that Darwin meant science, how is the Theory of Evolution capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind? Not to mention being tested through experiment. So what remains? conjecture, opinion, speculation – your choice.

The same applies to the Intelligent Design theory

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 08:45

Majestic_Mayhem wrote:

MM,
Point well taken

Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 08:49

Thank you IVNORD.

-------------

Posted By: Psychedelia
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 08:52

But your argument seems to propell on the fact of things we dont yet know. It is by no means certain that we will not find these things out in the future. And explosions can cause beautiful things, for example coral reefs which flourish in places where nuclear bombs have been tested. I dont see how a theory can be based on a lack of knowledge rather than evidence to back something up. This seems to me anti-logic.

-------------
Another emotional suicide, overdosed on sentiment and pride

Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 09:06

Psychedelia wrote:

But your argument seems to propell on the fact of things we dont yet know. Like what? Tell me something that is an absolute when it comes to this.It is by no means certain that we will not find these things out in the future. And explosions can cause beautiful things, for example coral reefs which flourish in places where nuclear bombs have been tested. Hmmmnn... Nuclear bombs are not made to act as fertilizers. So your argument is way off my friend. I dont see how a theory can be based on a lack of knowledge rather than evidence to back something up. This seems to me anti-logic. I mean, look at yourself, myself and everyone else. Can you say that the beauty that you can see, the excellency of the human body just came out of nothing? Out of an explosion that happenned a long long time ago? That alone is proof to me. We all know that anything, and I mean anything deteriorates with time. Sorry but the equation VERY VERY BIG EXPLOSION + MATTER ( I don't even know where that matter came from, maybe SOMEBODY placed it there) + TIME wont add up for me. It can't produce the intellegence that we humans have, the beauty of nature and everything else.

-------------

Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 09:10

Anywyas, I'm going to sleep.

-------------

Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 09:10

Psychedelia wrote:

But your argument seems to propell on the fact of things we dont yet know. It is by no means certain that we will not find these things out in the future. And explosions can cause beautiful things, for example coral reefs which flourish in places where nuclear bombs have been tested. I dont see how a theory can be based on a lack of knowledge rather than evidence to back something up. This seems to me anti-logic.

Is there a causal relation between the two events? So we can expect coral to be formed in North Korea, they did nuclear tests.

-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT

Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 09:17

Majestic_Mayhem wrote:

But the notion that men evolved from some primeval goo is impossible. As I've said earlier on this thread, logic compells me to believe that there is an intellegent creator. It's a bit ironic, don't you think,that some scientists even try to prove that life can exist without intellegence, yet, there they are, using all their wisdom proving it. Everything out of nothing is just plain impossible.

You don't understand the chance that life evolves on another planet the same is almost nil. Life could be mineral for all you know, or even a gazeic (single molmecules only) or another state we cannot even begin to think of.

You said that something as beautiful as life on earth had to be created. What's beautiful? Have you seen how some life parasites other. how some virus just wait to be dug out of the earth (Ebola virus) to expand... This life as we know it and the whole evelving process it undertook is not only uncontrolled, it is also a complete fluke it turned out the way it did. There is no way we (humanity and life on Earth) would've been even resembling this life, if there were 2% less O2 in our air or even 3% sulfur (as is on Venus).

life (as we know it on earth) = Complete and utter fluke.

Majestic_Mayhem wrote:

video vertigo wrote:

If there is a limited amount of matter with infinite time and space then infinite possiblities occur. Eventually an explosion could turn into an internet conversation between two people debating whether an intelligent creator designed the world or we just happened.
That of course has little to do with evolutionary theory.

Who/ what placed it there?

Nobody placed it there according to the Big Bang theory (at least as I understand it).

There was nothing. and out of the Big Bang came out matter and anti matter (obviously in equal quantity since the total result must equal to O). And it just happens that those black holes are supposed to represent the way to anti-matter, but the thing is hyper dense (in matter or anti-matter? who actually knows right?)

So we don't exactly know and will we ever? This leads to anxiety/anguish which in turns leads to fear (of the unknown) and superstitions.

So this is why I am not hostile to the idea of a creator.

But to say therte is one for sure and that he controls life and universe (and orders us to behave according to his rules and force us to adore and obey him) is absolute rubbish .

So the people that are out there talking to the creator annd telling us these fallacies are charlatans out to exploit our collective fears and superstitions and they extract a power from it.

creator = nothing (since we don't know)

Religion=power

Hope I was clear enough.

Posted By: Psychedelia
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 09:23

i agree with Sean Trane, there are many parts of the world which aren't at all beautiful and animals like digger wasps which paralyse caterpillars so there young can feed on live meat.

When looking into the coral reefs thing a bit further it seems i may have been mistaken. Coral reefs show surprising resilience to nuclear blasts but although possible it doesn't appear likely that they flourish on them.

-------------
Another emotional suicide, overdosed on sentiment and pride

Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 09:25

you might be thinking of rosebay willowherb

-------------
FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL

Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 09:37

Why not believe that an entity, call it God or Goddess, created a situation that led to the big band, from which a huge self-organizing system slowly evolved? Isn't an entity that creates so complex a process that we, as part of the current state of it, can start thinking about it, much more powerful and creative than an entity that goes and builds the world as it is today out of nothing? I personally find this idea much more attractive. I am not opposed to creation per se, I am only opposed to creation as it is depicted in the bible. No scientist can explain what was before the big bang or what caused it; this is where all science currently ends, and most likely will end in the future too. As some scientists claim, nothing, not even time, existed before the big bang. As a concept this is very intruiging, but it is not fully understandable for any human brain, including the brains of the scientists. The big bang is a so-called singularity in time-space (as are black holes, by the way).
When it comes to matters of science, I highly recommend "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. It accurately describes the current frontiers of science, with chapters on all the currently unanswered questions.

-------------

BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 09:55

Sean Trane wrote:

You don't understand the chance that life evolves on another planet the same is almost nil. Life could be mineral for all you know, or even a gazeic (single molmecules only) or another state we cannot even begin to think of.

You said that something as beautiful as life on earth had to be created. What's beautiful? Have you seen how some life parasites other. how some virus just wait to be dug out of the earth (Ebola virus) to expand... Everything has its purpose This life as we know it and the whole evelving process it undertook is not only uncontrolled, it is also a complete fluke it turned out the way it did. It may be uncontrolled, it may not. We just don't know There is no way we (humanity and life on Earth) would've been even resembling this life, if there were 2% less O2 in our air or even 3% sulfur (as is on Venus).

life (as we know it on earth) = Complete and utter fluke. Wow!!! That’s super pessimistic

Nobody placed it there according to the Big Bang theory (at least as I understand it).

So we don't exactly know and will we ever? This leads to anxiety/anguish which in turns leads to fear (of the unknown) and superstitions.

So this is why I am not hostile to the idea of a creator. You contradict yourself. If you’re not hostile to the idea of a creator, then he’s the one who’s provided the matter for your beloved Big bang. We can’t say that for sure, but our logic dictates that if the matter could not create itself, then it was created. From that point on, how it evolved into the living matter is a matter for discussion. It’s possible that non-organic matter evolved into organic one, etc., but the point is that the coming into being was performed by someone

But to say therte is one for sure and that he controls life and universe (and orders us to behave according to his rules and force us to adore and obey him) is absolute rubbish . You're at it again - you mix God and religion

So the people that are out there talking to the creator annd telling us these fallacies are charlatans out to exploit our collective fears and superstitions and they extract a power from it.

creator = nothing (since we don't know) For the same token, can we say the matter = nothing?

Religion=power

Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 10:02

Because we rely on language and reason, it is the level of the visible that we regard as reality. It appears to have an order, and is stable and predictable. Yet in actuality, it is elusive, temporary and ever changing. What we judge as permanent reality is only the surface appearance of an unfathomable force.

The Sorcerers' Crossing