logo Sign In

A Big Debate for the New Century — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
well, it looks like we basically proved that it is really hard to have a intelligent debate about intelliegent design vs. Evolution. This doesn't really suurprise me as many have almost been brainwashed into thinking that people who question evolution or don't believe it are religious nuts.

I just have one question: why on earth would you want to believe that you were made by accident? In my experience, the world works by cause and effect. Things don't just happen for no reason. We see cause and effect all throughout the scientific communitiy. To say that there wasn't a cause to the big bang goes contrary to all that science has shown us. Also, take the law of entropy, things get more dis-orderly over time. Evolution says that things got more orderly over time. That goes against the law of entropy. Also, with the large number of spiecies of animals we know about, there should be an even larger amount of "missing links". I say larger because the animals would have to evolve in stages so there has to be more than one link between each known spiecies. Yet, we have not found one missing link at all. And all those so called Homonids, how do you know that those aren't just people who lived a really long time. We know for a fact that bones get tougher and bigger over time. A babies bones for example are more flexible than a 20 year-olds bones. These kinds of things just don't add up. Then there's the Van Allens belts. They are getting weaker over time, but if you were going to say that man existed on the earth for millions of years, that couldn't happen with the way the Van Allens belts would be. Those things would be so strong that live would not be able to exist on this world much less man. These things and more just don't add up in my head and i'm not looking at this from religion, just pure fact.
"Who's scruffy-lookin'?" - Han Solo
"I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself." -sybeman
"You know, putting animals in the microwave is not a good idea. I had to learn that one the hard way." -seanwookie
Author
Time
Post link
"I just have one question: why on earth would you want to believe that you were made by accident?"

You presume the belief makes a difference with the reality. Also, why should a theory's validity be determined by one's like or dislike for it?

"In my experience, the world works by cause and effect. Things don't just happen for no reason."

There are reasons. Whether or not they make sense from our point of view seems to be the issue here. You, yourself, are now proving the difficulty of having an intelligent debate by using straw-man arguments.

"Evolution says that things got more orderly over time. That goes against the law of entropy."

Over millions of years? Systems do eventually break down, but not always immediately, and not all at the same time. You need to expand your frame of reference here.

"Then there's the Van Allens belts. They are getting weaker over time, but if you were going to say that man existed on the earth for millions of years, that couldn't happen with the way the Van Allens belts would be. "

Except not one person here said that humans lived millions of years ago.

"Those things would be so strong that live would not be able to exist on this world much less man."

And again, I would ask the same question I've asked many times, and yet no one seems to want to answer: WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS?!?

It sure makes me wonder why everyone keeps sweeping that aspect under the rug.

Not to mention the fact that the Earth's atmosphere (a major factor in protecting life on Earth from extra-terrestrial forces) could have changed as well. We see weather systems on Earth changing and adapting all the time, and yet it doesn't occur to anyone that the conditions of the Earth may not be quite the same millions of years ago as they are now?

BTW, as a little research shows, the "deadliness" of the Van Allen belts isn't quite what you believe it to be.

Quote
The Inner V.A. Belt reaches its maximum intensity at 5000 km (3000 miles) but extends inward to about 1000 km (600 miles) The Outer Belt starts at 1500 km (9300 miles) and peaks at 22000 km (15500 miles). That belt is dominated by trapped electrons from the solar wind; the Inner Belt is marked by protons brought in mainly as cosmic rays. Two important conclusions from the discovery of the Van Allen Belts: 1) they have for eons provided protection from these potentially devastating particle bombardments - a fact critical to the successful development of life on Earth; and 2) both spacecraft and humans would need to be shielded effectively when passing through the Belts.LINK


Quote
The Van Allen Belt's Impact on Space Travel

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion and several satellites ceased operation. Magnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.

A object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (3) (25 Sv) per year.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose.

Apollo nevertheless deliberately timed their launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts that have travelled to the moon probably have an increased lifetime risk of cancer, but would be expected not to (and did not) have noticeable illness.LINK


Quote
"The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried."

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts. This site is my favorite


Astronauts traveled right next to the Belts and survived, and yet you think they were in a position to destroy life millions of years ago? I think you'll need to drum up a little more proof of that belief.

And here's a nice, short discussion of entropy versus organization.

This is a rather wordy explanation.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Now, HERE is some interesting reading on Creationism/Evolution/Intelligent Design.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Hokey religions and ancient beliefs won't cure partial tetrasomy nor will it pay my rent...

-- Rikter Blaksvn


Quote
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!'

--Douglas Adams






“My skill are no longer as Mad as the once were” RiK

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"I just have one question: why on earth would you want to believe that you were made by accident?"


Quote
And again, I would ask the same question I've asked many times, and yet no one seems to want to answer: WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS?!?


MeBe: I'll answer this. You are right I failed to before, but only because I forgot about it.

The existence of dinosaurs does not prove anything about the validity of evolutionary bio as a first cause. The question of origin still remains (again, the Miller experiment is a joke), and also the very existence of another species does not negate man's seeming special place in the world. There are other species on the planet that have been around for millions of years that have not accomplished what man has.

What is the Cambrean Explosion? I'm curious, because I've heard it mentioned before but not too sure what it entails...
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
And again, I would ask the same question I've asked many times, and yet no one seems to want to answer: WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS?!?

It sure makes me wonder why everyone keeps sweeping that aspect under the rug.



MeBe - The Dino's weren't christian or made in the image of "god" (that was man ) - therefore they don't exist


As for this whole "intelligent design" gimmick - Make it sound scientific... simply throw around some vauge "facts" around get a few scientists (outspoken religious ones that is) to write papers and do "research" and NO ONE will notice that it's just creationism wrapped in a new shiny package.


Quote
Our mission statement plainly says that we "promote, as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an intelligent designer."

-- that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.


Visit any of these alleged "intelligent design" websites and like ANY other CULT they give a BIT of information on the site then encourge you to BUY their books and suggest that you should become "Members".


"Intelligent design" is PURE metaphysics much like Scientology, Wicca, Christianity or the Force.

“My skill are no longer as Mad as the once were” RiK

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Rikter
Quote
And again, I would ask the same question I've asked many times, and yet no one seems to want to answer: WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS?!?

It sure makes me wonder why everyone keeps sweeping that aspect under the rug.



MeBe - The Dino's weren't christian or made in the image of "god" (that was man ) - therefore they don't exist


As for this whole "intelligent design" gimmick - Make it sound scientific... simply throw around some vauge "facts" around get a few scientists (outspoken religious ones that is) to write papers and do "research" and NO ONE will notice that it's just creationism wrapped in a new shiny package.


Quote
Our mission statement plainly says that we "promote, as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an intelligent designer."

-- that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.


Visit any of these alleged "intelligent design" websites and like ANY other CULT they give a BIT of information on the site then encourge you to BUY their books and suggest that you should become "Members".


"Intelligent design" is PURE metaphysics much like Scientology, Wicca, Christianity or the Force.


Wow...I'm glad you're able to look into this with such an open mind.

Keep in mind that the position of "Evolution is a fact, it's been proven, case closed" is as much a philosophy as any religion, and the problem is that it's got government backing in that it's the only explanation that's tought in schools. I'd be interested to know who actually inserted the statement about "...that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible", and where it came from in your statement from above.

In all your statements above you once again take the defensive position that most naturalists take when someone asks whether or not evolution can account for origins. But, whatever. Attack us as religous nuts, it's part of the indoctrination.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
"The existence of dinosaurs does not prove anything about the validity of evolutionary bio as a first cause."

As a first cause, no, but as an indication of evolution over long periods of time, yes.

And again, I have no problem with the "intelligent design" scenario. The fact that all living things, regardless of their actual physiology, have DNA kinda makes this a no-brainer. I just think the design, itself, is very intelligent and ultimately will be decipherble, just as we are still attempting to understanding the process of other natural phenomena, such as hurricanes and earthquakes.

There is a system (otherwise, we wouldn't have repeatable phenomena, such as seasons) - I just don't believe there's a sole superbeing or intelligence overlooking it.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"The existence of dinosaurs does not prove anything about the validity of evolutionary bio as a first cause."

As a first cause, no, but as an indication of evolution over long periods of time, yes.

And again, I have no problem with the "intelligent design" scenario. The fact that all living things, regardless of their actual physiology, have DNA kinda makes this a no-brainer. I just think the design, itself, is very intelligent and ultimately will be decipherble, just as we are still attempting to understanding the process of other natural phenomena, such as hurricanes and earthquakes.

There is a system (otherwise, we wouldn't have repeatable phenomena, such as seasons) - I just don't believe there's a sole superbeing or intelligence overlooking it.


Cool beans. I see your point of view. Enjoy the weekend, as I won't be around much.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Ironically enough we are just starting the whole big evolution chapter in my Life Sciences course...

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)?
Which is the more foolish, the fool (the OT) or the fool who follows (the PT)?

"Stay back, or Mr...Fett gets it!"
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSageWow...I'm glad you're able to look into this with such an open mind.

Keep in mind that the position of "Evolution is a fact, it's been proven, case closed" is as much a philosophy as any religion, and the problem is that it's got government backing in that it's the only explanation that's tought in schools. I'd be interested to know who actually inserted the statement about "...that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible", and where it came from in your statement from above.

In all your statements above you once again take the defensive position that most naturalists take when someone asks whether or not evolution can account for origins. But, whatever. Attack us as religous nuts, it's part of the indoctrination.



Evolution IS NOT a fact ask any NON-BIASED biologist and they will say it is JUST A THEORY it IS NOT fact nor has anyone CLAIMED IT WAS FACT... BUT the most likely source of our being...

I have NO BELIEFS either way on the subject - THERE is NO PROVE that there is in anyway a sole creator... (any of them... be it "God" or "Zeus")

We (as humans) are NOTHING more then beings that just happen to be here - I do not see any reason to make us "SPECIAL" - we just are there is no magical answer as to why we are here - we just are.

YES, life is amazing and sure it can be hard - but why blame the pain and joys of being alive on a mythical being that we can not see, here or interact with?

Simple... It's just easy to blame someone else that is NOT around.

“My skill are no longer as Mad as the once were” RiK

Author
Time
Post link
"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.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Hi guys, I haven't been near the computer all weekend and it looks like this debate has come alive since last I posted. First, JediSage, nice response to my point (What if Evolution is God's method) and no hard feelings about Kyoto either. I take your point, but the way I see it (I was raised Catholic by the way, but now I don't go in for the organised religion part but still believ in Jesus and God, etc) is that God created the world. He didn't do it in 6 actual days. He maybe done it in 6 'ages' or perhaps just millions of years (I'm sure creating a planet full of life is a tough job). I also believe that there is life on other planets, also created by God. IMO the 6 days idea, and the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor. My belief is that God did create the earth and life on it, Evolution is his Method, but that doesn't mean he stepped back and let it happen, he guided it, watched (and still watches) it, he is there for us, to help us if we want, but we also have free will. I really don't think that one idea cancels out the other, I don't think that evolution existing means God doesn't, if anything I think it demonstrates the amazing complexity and brilliance of the world he has created. As a final point, I don't necessarily believe in God as a He, She or It, but I use that description to give people something to hang their mind on while they read my thoughts. Anmd these are just my thoughts, so feel free to pick them apart - I will not be offended, in fact I welcome it. Maybe togehter we can get closer to the bottom of this by discussing it...

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Exactly. Understand that much of what is in the Bible is symbolic and not meant to be taken literally at all. I am a Christian but do not believe that we were created literally in 6 days (with 7 being a day of rest). It may have been an expression for "a long time" (as was "forty days") at the time Genesis was written. It may have been more noteworthy had it said, "64 days" or 103 days". But "7" is a perfect and symbolic number in the Church, which leads me to believe that it is not meant to be a literal fact. Who was around back then to keep track, anyway?

And the Bible doesn't tell us how the universe was created; it could very well have been done with a "Big Bang". But the theory that there was just a "Big Bang", air, water, the Earth, and everything else just popped out of a void (for scientific reasons), and that little single-celled organisms "evolved" into humans with souls and the ability to reason is ridiculous, IMO.

I do, however, believe in the part of evolution stating that species unable to adapt die, and that species can improve over time.

Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side

Emperor Jar-Jar
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition

Author
Time
Post link
I'm very into Christian Apologetics is, so this thread is of great interest to me.

The Bible does indeed say that God created the Earth in six days, and that is what I perscribe to. Now, much debate has been raised as to whether that would be six calender days as we know them or very long periods of time. There's the Day-Age theory that uses the verse "a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years" to justify things, but in fact, this verse has nothing to do with the creation account. Some of the so called "scientific" theories of today have so many loopholes and flaws that we are disrespecting the Bible if we twist its words to match up with such ridiculous notions. In fact, it is science which should match up with the Bible, and in every TESTABLE circumstance, it does. Creationism actually is the most viable theory when looking at things without the evolution-colored glasses so many wear today. Occam's Razor states "When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better." I don't know if I'm misuing the razor in this instance, so if so, let me know, but think about it. Does it makes more sense for such a complicated universe, structured just right to the smallest detail for life to exist, to have come into existence though random chance, or through the intervention of a Surpreme Being?

I apologize if I've covered things that were already mentioned, but I really didn't have time to go through the whole thread. I'll go back and read it all when I get a chance, and look forward to the intelligent discussions that await.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Commander Courage
I'm very into Christian Apologetics is, so this thread is of great interest to me.

The Bible does indeed say that God created the Earth in six days, and that is what I perscribe to. Now, much debate has been raised as to whether that would be six calender days as we know them or very long periods of time. There's the Day-Age theory that uses the verse "a thousand years is as a day, and a day is as a thousand years" to justify things, but in fact, this verse has nothing to do with the creation account. Some of the so called "scientific" theories of today have so many loopholes and flaws that we are disrespecting the Bible if we twist its words to match up with such ridiculous notions. In fact, it is science which should match up with the Bible, and in every TESTABLE circumstance, it does. Creationism actually is the most viable theory when looking at things without the evolution-colored glasses so many wear today. Occam's Razor states "When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better." I don't know if I'm misuing the razor in this instance, so if so, let me know, but think about it. Does it makes more sense for such a complicated universe, structured just right to the smallest detail for life to exist, to have come into existence though random chance, or through the intervention of a Surpreme Being?

I apologize if I've covered things that were already mentioned, but I really didn't have time to go through the whole thread. I'll go back and read it all when I get a chance, and look forward to the intelligent discussions that await.


I too am very interested in Christian Apologetics (Duh!) :-) However, I think we need to be careful when saying science MUST match up with the bible. I think there is much evidence of the bible's historical accuracy and authenticity to be sure, however it is not going to answer how an apple falls from the tree (ie: describing how/why gravity works).

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
MeBe:

Some actual history on the Crusades

Crusades
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
I too am very interested in Christian Apologetics (Duh!) :-) However, I think we need to be careful when saying science MUST match up with the bible. I think there is much evidence of the bible's historical accuracy and authenticity to be sure, however it is not going to answer how an apple falls from the tree (ie: describing how/why gravity works).

I was just saying it was ridiculous for people to say, "Because of the theory of (fill-in-the-blank), the Bible is obviously inaccurate." The key word is theory, and since creation is not testable in a laboratory, theories are all we have. Therefore, I'm going to go with the one presented in the Bible, which has yet to be proven wrong by scientifc FACT. And of course the Bible isn't a textbook explaining the likes of gravity, that is for science, true testable science. The Scientific Method itself will weed-out the nonsense.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Commander Courage
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
I too am very interested in Christian Apologetics (Duh!) :-) However, I think we need to be careful when saying science MUST match up with the bible. I think there is much evidence of the bible's historical accuracy and authenticity to be sure, however it is not going to answer how an apple falls from the tree (ie: describing how/why gravity works).

I was just saying it was ridiculous for people to say, "Because of the theory of (fill-in-the-blank), the Bible is obviously inaccurate." The key word is theory, and since creation is not testable in a laboratory, theories are all we have. Therefore, I'm going to go with the one presented in the Bible, which has yet to be proven wrong by scientifc FACT. And of course the Bible isn't a textbook explaining the likes of gravity, that is for science, true testable science. The Scientific Method itself will weed-out the nonsense.


True...all we have is supposition that fits the available facts. The scientific method is a good tool to have.

Have you ever heard the idea that in order model something, or simulate it, your model needs to be as complex/large/intricate as the actual thing you're modeling? For instance, in order to model how the human body does certain things, your model needs to be a human body.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
More info on who currently controls the debate...

Link
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Hi guys, I haven't been near the computer all weekend and it looks like this debate has come alive since last I posted. First, JediSage, nice response to my point (What if Evolution is God's method) and no hard feelings about Kyoto either. I take your point, but the way I see it (I was raised Catholic by the way, but now I don't go in for the organised religion part but still believ in Jesus and God, etc) is that God created the world. He didn't do it in 6 actual days. He maybe done it in 6 'ages' or perhaps just millions of years (I'm sure creating a planet full of life is a tough job). I also believe that there is life on other planets, also created by God. IMO the 6 days idea, and the Adam and Eve story is a metaphor. My belief is that God did create the earth and life on it, Evolution is his Method, but that doesn't mean he stepped back and let it happen, he guided it, watched (and still watches) it, he is there for us, to help us if we want, but we also have free will. I really don't think that one idea cancels out the other, I don't think that evolution existing means God doesn't, if anything I think it demonstrates the amazing complexity and brilliance of the world he has created. As a final point, I don't necessarily believe in God as a He, She or It, but I use that description to give people something to hang their mind on while they read my thoughts. Anmd these are just my thoughts, so feel free to pick them apart - I will not be offended, in fact I welcome it. Maybe togehter we can get closer to the bottom of this by discussing it...


you know your the only other person i have met to have the exact same belief on the matter and i mean EXACT. and i have met alot of people on this issue.
Author
Time
Post link
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.
Author
Time
Post link
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.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Cannibalism is a religious view? I thought it was just a tasty food alternative!
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: greencapt
Cannibalism is a religious view? I thought it was just a tasty food alternative!


LMAO!
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com