Creationism/Intelligent Design

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.

    

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.

Edited by tuxon - January 24 2007 at 17:45

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

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.   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.

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

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

Edited by inpraiseoffolly - January 24 2007 at 17:31

inpraiseoffolly wrote: sleeper wrote: Scapler wrote: stonebeard wrote: I think public teaching sould be secular, unless it's a course on sociology or theology. Then both should be taught. Neither of them are provable, and there are big names in science throughout history who support both. Remeber, refusing to include something you deem may have religous signifigance in a class is not secular, it is making science a religion in a way. No its not, its trying to keep what is being taught to provable fact.   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!

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

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

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. 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.     Thanks for the clarification.

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. 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.

Thanks for the clarification.

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.