Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 7891011 29> |
| Author | |||||
Mr ProgFreak 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
 Posted: December 02 2009 at 06:46 |
||||
|
^ something doesn't become "circular reasoning" just because you want it to. The evidence for natural selection is there, for everyone to examine, and strongly contradicts the concept of an intelligent designer.I fail to see the circle in that argument.
|
|||||
 |
|||||
|
rdtprog
Special Collaborator 
Heavy, RPI, Symph, JR/F Canterbury Teams Joined: April 04 2009 Location: Mtl, QC Status: Offline Points: 5284 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 06:48 |
||||
|
Maybe we can consider the existence of both concepts : Here's Philosopher Bergson's theory :
The book provides an alternate explanation for Darwin's mechanism of evolution, suggesting that evolution is motivated by an élan vital, a "vital impetus" that can also be understood as humanity's natural creative impulse. |
|||||
|
Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness.
Emile M. Cioran |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32524 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 06:50 |
||||
"Creation can't be true because the evidence goes against it." WELL then...I guess we can just wrap it up! It isn't circular reasoning "because I want it to be." You are saying "creation can't be true because the evidence supports evolution." If that isn't begging the question, I don't know what is. Edited by Epignosis - December 02 2009 at 06:52 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 07:11 |
||||
|
^ "Can't be true" is not what I said. "Strong contradiction" is what I said, and you're welcome to draw your own conclusion from the evidence. To me it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that instead of an intelligent designer, the force of natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. And since I'm not that good with words, I invite you to watch some of the excellent presentations on Dawkins's YouTube channel, or to read his latest book (The Greatest Show On Earth) which is specifically about the evidence supporting evolution/natural selection and contradicting creationism and intelligent design. I'll happily look at any other books that you might suggest - but only if they contain evidence. Scripture is not evidence.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 02 2009 at 07:12 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 07:52 |
||||
I apologise for appearing to take that out of context - I should have put that in a new paragraph and included the appropriate quote as I was merely addressing an earlier comment you made regarding atheists and it obviously wasn't related to the para I did quote.
I have the same feelings about being lumped in with the nebulous soup of non-believers, which is why I pointed out that a three different people have similar a opinion of miracles and magic, to illustrate that not only do not all athiests think this way, but neither do a lot of other people.
I fail to see how that is me letting Mike get away with anything because what he said was not contentious - creationism is contradictory to process of evolution and the two are not compatible. I also do not quite see how that is circular reasoning since it did not arrive at a conclusion, but English Language is not my forté and I've been expertly tripped up on misusing the phrase "circular reasoning" before. Edited by Dean - December 02 2009 at 07:55 |
|||||
|
What?
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5208 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 09:18 |
||||
Quoting Dawkins as an atheist is like quoting Fox News for Republicans. The guy has an agenda and is not a reliable source either.
As an atheist, then, give a summary of how the Universe has come to be...instead I'll give you the best atheist version I can and then you can correct my errors.
In the beginning, all matter and and energy were concentrated into one point, which given our knowledge of black holes would mean that time was non-existent at that point.
However, something happened, and the equilibrium was broken, time began, and the universe (or at least the space that all energy and matter occupied) began to expand.
Again, for some reason, this did not happen uniformly and some of the primal forces caused more and more differentiation, first in concentrations of matter / energy, first in items we identify as subatomic particles and then simple atoms, and as things separated more and more, greater potential difference allowed for great differentiation.
Over time, we get stars, planets, dust, galaxies, black holes on the interstellar level, and liquids, gases, and solids.
Now there are gazillions of different combinations of heat stability, gravity, and individual compounds throughout the universe, on this particular planet we have a fairly unique situation of large liquid oceans. This allows for chemical interactions in solution, allowing even greater complexity to occur, mainly through local system conditions. Eventually we get a relatively complex set of chemicals called amino acids.
These chemicals interact with each other in complex ways, and one of the unique and most important that eventually occurred was that an amino acid was able to induce it's own replication. (Where this critical step happened is still not certain, to my knowledge). RNA comes along somewhere along this point.
Somewhere between free RNA and what we would now recognize as bacteria objects having a quality that we call life happened. Where exactly this point occurs is still poorly understood as far as I know.
Now replicating yourself is not an easy task. The proper environmental conditions and building blocks are only available in certain situations. So "life" congregates there and everyone wants to replicate, but there's not enough for everyone. So some specific little lifeforms get to replicate more than others. The vast majority of the time, it's because they are in closest proximity to the appropriate environment and building blocks, but for those close to the goods, some are better at using the resources, etc, and they make more of themselves. As an alternative, others that are able to live on less survive in different conditions. This selective process, determined by differential environments, allows for greater diversity in the little thingies we call "alive."
There two things happen exponentially, and more importantly, "life" expands spatially and encounters new environments, and the process happens over but with different boundary conditions. Along the way, simple life forms actually start forming complex arrangements where new properties impossible with single lifeforms occur. (Bacterial biofilms being an example) Eventually, some symbiotic relations become so entrenched that the individual lifeforms give way to new ones that cannot exist except in the complex arrangement (organelles).
Overtime, mainly as the result of interaction of more and more complex relationships between living things and their environments, more strange and interesting "emergent phenomenon" occur. These include multicellular organisms, eventually with complex multicellular organs, and of course eventually intelligence, culture, speech. From very early, information transfer has been key to the process.
That is a simplification of my understanding of the science of how we came to be. It is extremely naive to think that this narrative disproves an intelligent designer, only that is conceivable that maybe just maybe it COULD have occurred without one. To say anything regarding this story is "beyond all reasonable doubt" is insanity.
Don't overestimate your grasp of the universe. The Greeks love to write tragedies about such folks.
|
|||||
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32524 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 09:25 |
||||
Poor word choice- I didn't me you personally. I really need to stay out of this thread. It eats into my productivity here at home.  Edited by Epignosis - December 02 2009 at 09:32 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009 Location: Guatemala Status: Offline Points: 6802 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 09:41 |
||||
So scriptures are not evidence... well.. you know that most of the cases have been solved through scriptures.. you didn't knew that...??? how do you know that there was an earthquake 200 years ago or that Napoleon fought in France for the revoultion... you know it because someone wrote it while it was happening... so desestimate writing so easily is silly. OK, you want facts of physical proof... well, if there's is no god, then you don't have soul nor feelings because you cannot believe in what "science" cannot explain right...??? you are only flesh and bones and there's nothing more for you... so there's no importance in whatever ideals we have because at the end nothing matters, we are only dust and the death is the end right...??? if you think like that the only thing that you want to do is waste time and seek for pleasure right... nothing more is important cause nothing matters at all... only satisfaction of the physical needs... how pathetic life should be... pure hedonism and selfishness... sorry... I don't believe in that, is pathetic in every single aspect...
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 09:50 |
||||
Edited by Dean - December 02 2009 at 09:50 |
|||||
|
What?
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009 Location: Dayton, OH Status: Offline Points: 113 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 09:53 |
||||
|
I believe it's very, very, very simple. Most people ignore the obvious scientific proof that evolution could NOT be true. Forget the religious arguments for now and let's focus on simple things. The reasoning is so simple that most people dismiss it as not being "intellectual" enough.
I think much more faith is required to believe in evolution than in intelligent design.
For example, take the big bang. So something the size of a period exploded and formed the universe? Really? That's fine but you must first explain where that matter came from. Scientists accept the big bang in large numbers, but fail to look at the obvious. As a matter of fact if you accept scientific law...it states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. If that were the case...how did matter originate? And if you don't accept the Big Bang you still have to explain how matter magically appeared. I've heard stuff about "dark matter" and the like...but matter is matter, energy is energy.
In order to disprove intelligent design you first have to assume that matter spontaneously appeared from nothingness with no cause or reason. So if you believe this, you are in effect saying "poof, there it is". As a creationist, I am also saying "poof there it is" but with a reason behind it.
I could go on and on...the fact that there should be a bajillion fossils of steps between monkeys and man if it were true, like whole populations. Instead you have monkeys...and man....and scientists digging and digging and causing a bunch of hoopla if they think they might have found ONE that MIGHT be in between There is a such thing as minor variations and changes along the way, but species never change to another species, which is required for evolution. This was a theory created by one guy, and accepted by billions because it's an easy explanation.
Now I'm not saying you are stupid if you believe it at all. But I think if you go back to the simple arguments you simply cannot get past it.
Now is when I hear "well if God created everything, who created God?". All I can say is go read the book where God tells us all about himself. The bible pretty much lays it all out and I can't add to the argument. He says that he himself is the beginning, and without him TIME would not even exist, let alone space and matter. That's a big concept, and our mortal finite minds can't really comprehend it...and if we could comprehend everything then we would be God...and I sure know I'm not.
Even in the book of Job, it is laid out that the earth is a sphere and floats in space, and describes the hydrologic cycle..and that's the oldest book in the bible! This was thousands of years before everyone found out the earth was not flat. I enjoy thinking about these things actually...like trying to wrap my mind around the fact that there was a time when space did not even exist.
Intelligent design is more awe inspiring and thought provoking IMHO.
*edit* please don't take anything I say as an insult to anyone's beliefs. I used to believe in evolution, big bang and all that....but when I thought about the things they DON'T teach you in school, I had questions Edited by AmbianceMan - December 02 2009 at 10:17 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009 Location: Guatemala Status: Offline Points: 6802 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 10:16 |
||||
No, Dean... is not what I think about... is what it should be if you are accurate with what those people said... I mean, if there is no meaning at all besides of physical reactions, that means that we are animals, and animals the only thing they "want" is feel pleasure and escape from pain and death... if you understand that, from the point of view of society, the only thing that as individuals we have to do is seek for pleasure (food, sex, sleep, whatever) and everything else doesn't matter... Now, some could say that because of society we have other goals... but that's not right because our ideas and concepts are as well only chemical reactions... did I explain myself well...??? do you get my point...???
BTW: I don't think people is like that... just that if there's nothing more than chemical reactions, then no ideals have sense at all... but I'm not sure you get me...
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009 Location: Dayton, OH Status: Offline Points: 113 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 10:31 |
||||
I get what you are saying. In order to say that there is no intelligent design, we have to accept the fact that we are all only animals. Part of being human is that we have a void in ourselves that tells us that we are more than that. I believe that void was put there intentionally. Unfortunately, I believe people fill this void with all kinds of other beliefs. People know that there is a higher power at work somewhere, because if they didn't, everything you said would be true. That's why we have so many religions, cults, etc in the world. People have to fill this void with something. Personally, I wanted to know what the absolute true meaning of this void was. I am sure I found it but I can't convince anyone else by any kind of intellectual or scientific argument. It goes beyond the physical, but it is in the realm of every human being. I don't believe that the bible is a bunch of man made stories because I've seen enough evidence personally to convince me otherwise. Most people have not seen that evidence so they continue to believe what they have always believed. Not saying I am special or privileged, I just went looking for answers. To me it's as simple as a dead bloody man hanging on a tree.
After that, the theory of creation became clear to me. Not because I WANTED to believe it but because it's like my mind was opened to other possibilities and it made total sense scientifically, reasonable and spiritually. Edited by AmbianceMan - December 02 2009 at 10:33 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009 Location: Dayton, OH Status: Offline Points: 113 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 10:53 |
||||
I am willing to say that "science does not support science". Sound crazy? Good.
Think back to your first days in grade school, learning about the scientific laws, #1 and #2.
Basically the LAWS of science (not theories or opinions of science) state that matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred from place to place. So tell me again, where did that matter condensed into a little dot that exploded come from? And people usually jump on this one and provide some kind of weird explanation that contradicts the laws of science for the sake of trying to hold on to their theory.
The way I see it, a big flaw in science is to discount intelligent design, because if you accept scientific law then I postulate: Science proves that the universe does not exist! Science cannot account for matter and energy. Edited by AmbianceMan - December 02 2009 at 10:57 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 10:55 |
||||
I rather think that it's pathetic (since you used the word, I'll use it too) when people look for god(s) to tell them what to do. Every human being has a sense for morality and social behavior - it can be shown in many animals, too. It's a result of evolution and natural selection ... those social skills improve our chances of survival. And I can assure you, like I tried to explain above, that atheism does not imply nihilism or immorality. BTW: Of course there are situations where you need to rely on records, especially when it comes to history. But in this discussion we have plenty of solid evidence in favor of evolution, and in order to challenge that IMO scripture is not at all sufficient ... especially considering that most of that scripture comes from a time when the scientific knowledge about biology and human physiology was extremely limited, which even theists have to admit. Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 02 2009 at 11:00 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009 Location: Guatemala Status: Offline Points: 6802 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 10:59 |
||||
Man... I never said that you are a nihilist or inmoral... I'm saying that if you stick to what you called "facts" and "science" you should be like that... pure flesh and bones pleasures and nothing more... not that you are... as well as you think that bible is not correct if said that someone walk on water... the same to you, if there's no soul and even our thoughts are just chemical reactions, then there's no transcending ideas nor ideals at all...
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5208 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:02 |
||||
|
Jampa, that is a common line of thought but it isn't necessarily true.
You can live a life of grace in the now without expectations for past or future.
|
|||||
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:10 |
||||
Oh bugger. I wish I wasn't at work and could spare the time to answer this. Posts like this one don't come along very often. Ho Hum. Science does answer all your questions without the need to contradict the laws of science. Show me some of the answers you've been given in the past that contradict these laws and I'll see if I can spot the mistakes. And pelase stop quoting the matter and energy thing... it's mass and energy.
later. perhaps.
|
|||||
|
What?
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009 Location: Guatemala Status: Offline Points: 6802 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:12 |
||||
yeah.. I'm been a little "totalist" but is to make a point... sure I don't wish that people who denied the existence of God become selfish and nihilist... I understand as well the state of grace in some people... especially in the most simple thought persons... I respect a lot the people who don't stop to ask for the misteries of the life and still live each day as their last and being so focus on grace... I know a lot of people like that... I'm just refering to physical facts and if we as mankind are nothing more than chemical reactions... I refuse to believe it...
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
AmbianceMan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 30 2009 Location: Dayton, OH Status: Offline Points: 113 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:15 |
||||
So this begs the question.....WHY do we need to survive? WHY do we need social skills?
When you accept evolution, and atheism, and talk about society it gets way too complicated. Notice that you start having to qualify everything like "I accept this or that BUT it does not imply nihilism, immorality...etc etc" Pretty soon you have this big belief system with all these qualifications. And then you have to add qualifications later because what you said before changed and you have to qualify the qualifiers.
Yes human biology and physiology were limited way back then, but IMHO more knowledge has actually reinforced creationism with the knowledge we have gained about DNA and RNA.
And the bible knew about the earth being a sphere, and floating in space, and how water evaporates and returns as rain WAY before science knew this.
People just try to be way too intellectual sounding and ignore the basic info.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: December 02 2009 at 11:16 |
||||
|
|||||
|
What?
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 7891011 29> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Evolution vs. Creationism
Topic Options
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
You also seem to believe that angels and rising from the dead can somehow be proven by 'real' science, since apparently the science we have now doesn't use this 'real' since you speak of.