Evolution vs. Creationism

^ That's a truly awful interview ... the interviewer is supposed to be neutral, asking questions. Instead he's constantly commenting on Dawkin's responses, twisting (indeed, like you said) his arguments.

Dawkings completely rejects the idea of intelligent design in connection with evolution - in fact one of the sections of his latest book is called "Unintelligent Design". What he might have meant is that on some level an entity of higher intelligence may have been involved in creating the first form of life on this planet, but in the book he clearly favors the idea that it might simply have been an fortunate coincidence. But from that moment on the rest happened by natural selection, without any interference. The whole point about all the evidence for evolution/natural selection is that there's nothing pointing towards a designer or architect of any kind.

Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ If little by little everything the bible says is meant to be read idiomatically, it's longer a religion ... it's myth. Which is exactly how I see it. If little by little everything in the newspaper is meant to be read idiomatically, it's not longer news. Some things in the Bible are literal, some are figurative.  Just like pretty much every piece of writing ever made.

That is what I have always thought.

I don't think is sense of humor is particular great either, and I didn't find it funny, but I don't see it as something to get offended at either, is more what I meant really.

p0mt3 wrote: ^ Dawkins himself has said that there may be evidence of a designer of some sort in things. A common thread in everything, almost like a 'signature'.

Where did he say that - and in which context? There surely is not designer at work in the process of evolution, he made that abundantly clear in the book.

Vibrationbaby wrote: Why is it that whenever I flew my airplane at 50,000 ft that I never saw God? But then again, I never saw any UFOs either.

It's quite rare for me to read something that offensive and ridiculous.

^ After reading this book I went from agnostic to atheist ... I still believe that there's more to the universe than we can understand, but I also believe that whatever that might be it's of no importance for us humans. For all intents and purposes, we are bi-pedal mammals with huge brains.

Proletariat wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Proletariat wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Proletariat wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Proletariat wrote: wheres the option for "who cares how stuff got here" That's in the ''sit on our ass and smoke pot'' thread. Go find it. Hurry, hurry. i think you are confusing apathy with acceptance of the fact that neither you or i are informed enough or intelligent enough to be able to comprehend somthing this complex. rather than throwing one book agains another and one theory against another without comprehensive understanding of either i choose to live (and listen to awsome music)   i certainly understand the joy associated with these debates. I just recognize that the pleasure of winning will not be awarded to any debater who chooses a topic that can not unquestionably be proven one way or the other   Read Dean's last post, my friend. Creationism isn't a theory; it's a story out of a book. If you honestly think science can't be proven, you are an idiot. evolution can (and i think will be) proven. I just dont feel you are the one to decide. Oh, don't worry. Every scientist in the world has already decided for me, thanks. 'Theory' does not equal 'unproven'. You must not have checked out Dean's link like I suggested. Pity. You know gravity? The earth's rotation around the sun? The earth being round? Guess what? All of that is 'theory' too! Gee, I sure hope they get 'proven' sometime soon! please reread my argument   i am not strictly debating the relivence of the evolutionary theory, rather i am choosing to make a statement about the futility of such arguments.   I am not saying that evolution is not or can not be proven but rather that the religious mind will not be convinced.   I infact do accept evolution as being true. 100%, however as you have pointed out there is not good way to test god. so while i dont believe in god, i cant say he does not exist, there is still a possibility, however small it may be

Edited by p0mt3 - November 28 2009 at 15:13

OK correct me if I'm wrong please, but science states that every organism on the planet evolved from a single celled Amoebe, and through millions upon millions of year of genetic reconstruction, we ended up with what we have now. Correct? Most religions state that God created the universe and everything in it in the beginning. Correct? All I'm saying is that these are just two possible solutions. Yes, there may be evidence totally supporting evolution, but I'm sure if I went out and framed someone effectively for murder and fraud, the evidence for THAT would prove that the person I framed committed the crime, not me. I guess I'm saying that evidence can be taken in more than one way.

Hell, only evidence we have of us even existing full stop is what our senses are telling us. But what if they are in fact lying to us and red is actually purple, corn smells like rubber and a G#dim chord is actually a single bass note? And we ALL know our senses are capable of lying to us. Look at hallucinagenic drugs and dream sequences (technically caused by a natural hallucinagenic).

I'm just looking at things from a different perspective, and that "proof" as you call it can be taken in different ways.

If anyone believes in creationism instead and wants to post a video - be my guest.

Why is it that whenever I flew my airplane at 50,000 ft that I never saw God? But then again, I never saw any UFOs either.

Edited by Vibrationbaby - November 28 2009 at 14:52