Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"As for evolution vs intelligent design...it's harder to believe in evolution, since there are so many gaps in the logic or just plain leaps in logic to really understand anything. Besides, doesn't the laws of thermodynamics already prove it wrong? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, matter goes from a state of union to disunion (can't remember the correct terms, but u get it)?"

What I don't get is why people can't reconcile these two seemingly disparate terms. There is a great deal of evidence of life adapting to changes in the environment. Humans in different areas of the world, such as artic vs. equitorial, have important and subtle differences in physiology to help them survive. Think of what happened to the variety of life in Africa when the Sahara slowly became a desert (it used to be covered with water.)

Let's not forget plate techtonics (as the recent floods reminded us are still very much in play.) Plant and fossil records show that where the plates used to meet (i.e. Pangea), modern-day organisms from those same areas share remarkable similiarities, despite now being millions of miles apart. Of course, Austriala is almost an island unto itself in this regard ( ), having been separated from the other continents for a greater period of time, and having a wider range of animals with very unique characteristics (i.e. marsupials.)

What people seem to miss is, regardless of whatever the "intelligent design" might have been, it is always affected by outside forces - i.e. nature. Of course, seeing as how I think the design is to adapt, survive and propogate, I have no problems with how life has changed to suit its needs. Someone who thinks there is a "higher purpose" to life might have a little more difficulty reconciling these ideas.

As to your other points, here's some fun reading:

order versus complexity. I loved the distinction made here. Excellent stuff.

types of entropy.

hye i am just curious as to how many people read those two articles and understood them.

and as for evolution i have stated many times my ideas on it. as far as i am concerned i split the theory it into two different catagories, macro evolution, and micro evolution. mircoevolution is a fact, it happens and it is observed all the time. it why we get super bugs i.e. antibiotic resistant bacteria. The idea of survival of the fittiest IS what drives mirco evolution. macro evolution is how structures like eyes came into being. now this in my opinion is where all the contoversy is. there are many theories on how this occurs known of which i am very farmilar with, i used to know them but alas i have forgotten all of the ideas and concepts in them so i wont try to explain them in fear of doing a bad job of it.

another misconception about the theory of evolution is that people think it is try to explain how life was created. this is not the case what evolution does is explain how life progressed from one type of organism or organisms. evolution requires is a starting life form from which all life arose, evolution does say or even atempt to explain where this life form came from it only says that it had to be there. the article posted my MEBEJEDI shows evidence for how that one life form came into existance. again that is a theory and is NOT part of darwins theory of evolution.

now i find that i have a very scientific mind, and at the same time i feel i believe very much in god. now i am not chirstian i am sikh and i find that the idea of the world and all of its beings being created in 6 days as being rediculous. now that is 6 caldendar days, who is to say that a day for god isnt a billion years or a mutliple of a fraction of our years. we define a year as one go around the sun. a juptor year is many more earth days longer then an earth year. on jupitor-year has even more jupitor days in it cus a jupitor day is shorter then an earth day. IMO it all comes down to preception and POV. so gods six days could really be ANY period of length cus whos to say that the 6 days recorded was written from our POV. it could be written from the point of veiw of a galaxtic day which would be like 255 million years(not sure) where one day is the time is takes for the galaxy to make one rotation. who knows only god knows.

and another thing this is just my personal belief and i guess you could call it a bias i however feel that it is not. I have listened to maybe people talk about the bible infact my best friend is an extemely religious chirstian, and a creationist i might add, and from waht he has told me about the bible, and what i have heard about it from numerous other sources i feel that almost 99% of the bible should be taken figuretively and not literally. this not jsut the my take on the bible thou i have the same opinion of every other holybook in every other religon. sadly in the world today too many people take the words in holy books as literal fact, and that is why you have the war on terror and unrest in the middle east, that is why you get genicide and suffering. its just like the cursades people endless fighting over ideas that use different words to discribe the same idea.

There are millions of people who would disagree with you and your friend about interpreting the bible figuartively instead of literally, including Orthodox Jews, Christians, and Muslims. There is much evidence that proves the bible reliable in it's depiction of historical events, and there are many secularists who agree with that assertion.

Also, you may want to do some research on the Crusades. They were fought predominantly because the Muslims invaded Europe.

Your last point about "fighting over ideas that use different words to describe the same idea" is relativistic. Too often we hear "Well, all beliefs and morals are all equally valid. All roads lead to God". This leads down a dangerous path, one from which polytheists, monotheists, wiccans, satanists, gaia worshippers, aethists, and cannibals are all right, and no act or belief could justifiably be condemned, including: genocide, murder, theft, etc. The result being that the state is the final arbiter of right and wrong. Unfortunately, the inherent hipocrisy of this position is that anyone who disagrees with it is automatically fingered as being "intolerant" or bigoted, and in more and more of the world are being ostracized or outright arrested.