Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: dug777
i don't see how cancer (as an arbitrary example) fits in with the whole ID argument, God likes to see us dying horrible deaths so he designed that? yeah, that makes sense

I won't turn this into a Bible thread, but you don't seem to understand much about it.

Most ID proponents claim the theory is not adherent to any specific religion, it merely proposes the existence of some designer. So the Bible should have nothing to do with ID, yes?

Cancer (and many many other things) indicate the proposed designer could've done a much much better job, or perhaps he just wanted random people to suffer and die.

Or the so-called "intelligent designer" had a bug in the program, where cell reproduction value gets stuck in a IF loop.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: verndewd
You are begging for throwing knives

I believe in intelligent design.
I believe God is the perfect unity of the human soul,And that we are subjects of a spiritual multiverse.
I believe there are 3 stages to the existence of the spirit,and a fourth as indicated in the bible is a harvesting field ,expressly for the infinite expansion of the super conciousness.
The first tier of spirit is individual
the second is oneness with the absolute in creation
the third is the holy spirit or the parameter for the existence of all and its purpose is to guide.

I believe that evolution is an example of divine principal and the explicit example of what bieng eternal means.
I also believe we had a hand in aiding the creation of this material reality, I believ the time before earth was when our forebearers and the god and holy spirit ,knew of the next phase of growth for infinity,and could sense from our prebirth what we would need to learn to survive.

I also believe that hell is the choice to not be eternal And regardless of belief and doctrine I believ the choice will remain eternally.

I dont believ the god platform is so narrow as minds of men can concieve.I believe it is likened to a quantum spiritual dimensional tetrahedric mobius like continuum.

I think science and god are one,and i think man is an ignorant beast.

Time to put down the pipe and step away from the keyboard, son.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: dug777
i don't see how cancer (as an arbitrary example) fits in with the whole ID argument, God likes to see us dying horrible deaths so he designed that? yeah, that makes sense

I won't turn this into a Bible thread, but you don't seem to understand much about it.

Most ID proponents claim the theory is not adherent to any specific religion, it merely proposes the existence of some designer. So the Bible should have nothing to do with ID, yes?

Cancer (and many many other things) indicate the proposed designer could've done a much much better job, or perhaps he just wanted random people to suffer and die.

Cancer and all sickness and problems of the world are direct results of the first sin. God did not force Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, but he did provide it for the purpose of giving them a choice. Resulting from their disobedience, was the spiritual death of mankind (Genesis 2:17). All of the problems and the depravity of mankind are products of this choice, but none of them are enjoyed by God. The Psalmist acknowledges that he was conceived in sin (Psalms 51:5), and Christ, in speaking to the Pharisees, proclaimed that they "are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do..." (John 8:44).

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: dug777
i don't see how cancer (as an arbitrary example) fits in with the whole ID argument, God likes to see us dying horrible deaths so he designed that? yeah, that makes sense

I won't turn this into a Bible thread, but you don't seem to understand much about it.

Most ID proponents claim the theory is not adherent to any specific religion, it merely proposes the existence of some designer. So the Bible should have nothing to do with ID, yes?

Cancer (and many many other things) indicate the proposed designer could've done a much much better job, or perhaps he just wanted random people to suffer and die.

Cancer and all sickness and problems of the world are direct results of the first sin. God did not force Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, but he did provide it for the purpose of giving them a choice. Resulting from their disobedience, was the spiritual death of mankind (Genesis 2:17). All of the problems and the depravity of mankind are products of this choice, but none of them are enjoyed by God. The Psalmist acknowledges that he was conceived in sin (Psalms 51:5), and Christ, in speaking to the Pharisees, proclaimed that they "are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do..." (John 8:44).

From what you say if it wasn't for sin then you would not have been born.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: dug777
i don't see how cancer (as an arbitrary example) fits in with the whole ID argument, God likes to see us dying horrible deaths so he designed that? yeah, that makes sense

I won't turn this into a Bible thread, but you don't seem to understand much about it.

Most ID proponents claim the theory is not adherent to any specific religion, it merely proposes the existence of some designer. So the Bible should have nothing to do with ID, yes?

Cancer (and many many other things) indicate the proposed designer could've done a much much better job, or perhaps he just wanted random people to suffer and die.

Cancer and all sickness and problems of the world are direct results of the first sin. God did not force Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, but he did provide it for the purpose of giving them a choice. Resulting from their disobedience, was the spiritual death of mankind (Genesis 2:17). All of the problems and the depravity of mankind are products of this choice, but none of them are enjoyed by God. The Psalmist acknowledges that he was conceived in sin (Psalms 51:5), and Christ, in speaking to the Pharisees, proclaimed that they "are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do..." (John 8:44).

So, you're saying ID is a Christian theory?

 

[Caveman]

One thing is always missing from the creation vs evolution discussions;

Facts

May have missed it, but I don't think one post has addressed the fact that the creation of the earth according to the bible did not take place ~6000 years ago. The genesis account (in the original Hebrew) implies that the original creation of the earth could have been trillions of years ago...

What happened ~6000 years ago was a "refurb", that can be proven out by historical secular records emmanating from the "cradle of civilization"...

As for Cavemen, etc... the bible is *almost* silent on this... But to conclude that "evolution must be true" because there are fossil records that predate the ~6000 year history of man is as illogical, petty, and ignorant as mainstream Christianity is at ignoring the scientific data staring them in the face.

Everyone can relax. The bible and science fit together like a glove... and of course they do... The inspiration behind the book is the same inspiration that made the subset of reality we call the "physical world".

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Caveman
One thing is always missing from the creation vs evolution discussions;

Facts

May have missed it, but I don't think one post has addressed the fact that the creation of the earth according to the bible did not take place ~6000 years ago. The genesis account (in the original Hebrew) implies that the original creation of the earth could have been trillions of years ago...

What happened ~6000 years ago was a "refurb", that can be proven out by historical secular records emmanating from the "cradle of civilization"...

As for Cavemen, etc... the bible is *almost* silent on this... But to conclude that "evolution must be true" because there are fossil records that predate the ~6000 year history of man is as illogical, petty, and ignorant as mainstream Christianity is at ignoring the scientific data staring them in the face.

Everyone can relax. The bible and science fit together like a glove... and of course they do... The inspiration behind the book is the same inspiration that made the subset of reality we call the "physical world".

Yet another person trying to draw the bible into the conversation.

We're talking about Intellectual Design in this thread, not the Bible.

ID does not equal the Bible.

 

[verndewd]

Man has no idea,biblically or otherwise. I dont think the bibles design is to be explicit about things we will eventually uncover; Having said that I dont think the bible is anything but a roadmap for the soul.

When you start thinking about gods time vs mans time with the information that a man has given in the bible and then you look at science and various forms of dating; obviously one of these ideas is distorted;even bieng a christian i lean towards looking at the bible as divinely inspired apespeak and that ist references about time and measure ment of time are seriously flawed or poorly translated.

 

[verndewd]

You guys are funny, really seriously comical ,hilarious. :?
Joking Intelligent design renders all theological writings ,imperfect attempts to create communion from the self to the higher self.

My readings were not based on christianity alone,but i do think its one of the most direct books out there.
I spent ten years or better reading all theology;I must admit that some were a total turn off.(i didnt read much of them)
I dont like fae folk magic garbage especially in theology.I read philosophy for 6 yrs.
I consider my self a christian taoist rastafarian(sarcastic humor directly implied ) .in short that is. actually the persuit is theological metaphysics.

So who would like to be open minded?You cant be a little house on the prarie christian to have a conversation about god with me.

You cant be a zealot from or of any religion or science.

You have to have a maleable mind to create a beneficial discussion;not believe but see how the concept could work and be free enough from ego to be able to speak about it in terms of IF.

Let me know when the self worship has stopped long enough to go forth with intelligent design.

Whats the answer? YOU DONT KNOW BECAUSE SCIENCE HAS YET TO ARRIVE AT THE DESTINATION marked on the map as the everything is described, township.

Science is just as faith driven.oh and the tetraheric bull,call it a sense of humor.my theological beliefs look alot like string theory.
but isnt that a darling to scientists?when arguing against the possibility of god one must consider the motivation for such a position;"if there were a god all men would be eternally resonsible for not living up to a set of standards that allow infinite life"

And since that doesnt suit the carnal carnival actor in the temporal earth circus/county fair and there is no actual proof of god especially if you block phenomenon from your vision;It is simpler to just not believe and hopefully if i dont do any thing mean and there is a god he will understand.But I see no reason to bow to something and lessen my own enjoyment while i am here.

your motivation is clear,very clear.The complicated trickling down of the attitude is what makes life as difficult as it is. Self servitude permeates this world. I know as hard as I try it affects me.Core motivation for most actions is ones self.And that is not an infinite quality.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: inspire
I disagree with the premise that ID necessarily discredits science. ID/Creationism may belong more in a philosophy class - as long as evolution doesn't claim to explain the ultimate origin of life. Once that happens, and evolution crosses the boundary, then you get apples and oranges arguments like today.

You're wrong. You equate ID and creationism, and they're two separate ideas.

You people are going to go on forever discussing this because nobody is stepping forward to say a few things:

1) Evolution does not discredit a "god." Evolution simply states that we started in a puddle as simple organisms and have slowly changed into all of the various species you see now.

2) Creationism is the belief that a higher power created everything. You can be a creationist and an evolutionist, you would simply believe that God created everything, big bang happened, and we evolved from amoebas. However a strict creationist or a fundamentalist creationist would say that Genesis tells exactly how the world was created. This is of course stupid since Genesis gives two distinct versions of how the world was created (one in chapter 1, one in chapter 2).

3) Intelligent Design says that God created everything and directed it to be as it is now. That specifically contradicts evolution. It does not say that God made things just as in Genesis (as strict creationism does), but it does say that God was first, created everything, and made things the way they are today. Evolution includes the idea of NATURAL (not god-guided) selection, so therefore, evolution and ID are inherently opposites. So, in your statement, inspire, you are wrong. If you want to believe an alternative of ID where it does not discredit science (evolution), go right ahead, but that is not the common interpretation, and it is not what we're discussing in this thread.

 

[verndewd]

you didnt read my post
not only did i say god and evolution are complimentary,but that bibles and sujch texts cannot be considered a reliable source of time.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Something to consider about Intelligent Design:

We only observe 1 universe. We have nothing to which we can compare it. How, then, can they make the implicit assumptions about what an undesigned universe would look like when IDers make the claims that what we do observe does not look undesigned? How many undesigned universes have they observed?

This illustrates clearly how unfalsifiable ID is, and why it cannot be a scientific hypothesis. There's no means to test it.

 

[verndewd]

Originally posted by: Garth
Something to consider about Intelligent Design:

We only observe 1 universe. We have nothing to which we can compare it. How, then, can they make the implicit assumptions about what an undesigned universe would look like when IDers make the claims that what we do observe does not look undesigned? How many undesigned universes have they observed?

This illustrates clearly how unfalsifiable ID is, and why it cannot be a scientific hypothesis. There's no means to test it.

I will ignore the ver batim meaning.In closing you say ID is not falsifiable,I presume you meant unverifiable.Man has yet to become so inclined as to offer soluble god theorem as a science;And it is the bane of religion as a whole.The persuit itself is riddled with unimaginable difficulty.
But we do have the means to begin the endeavor,few are brave enough and the process is bound to encounter the same drawbacks as science where calculations must be verified.I think its possible that the times may require the scientific persuit of god,But only the product of the persuit ,surfacing is the true indication of its need.

I ascribe to the points that science makes about god,in the sense that It is very difficult and impossible and unverifiable to define god in science at this point.Not to say it will remain so.So I can see it from both views which in the end strengthens my resolve and determination to make sense about my assertions and be willing to allow science its overwhelming weight against my arguments in such discussions.

what it does not change is the direction i choose ,To allow god to define for me the science of existence ,by my reading and his allowance of heightened understanding.
the more I digest about science ,the more god in me applies it to defining him or us as a whole.But this is what is subject to the searing criticism of science,and I accept the validity of the points against the persuit,as it can only strengthen a response should one eventually arrive.

 

[verndewd]

I feel a great preliminary study of time description is the big bang versus genesis.Trying to take the timeline and break it into mathematics and see if a correlation exists.

I would be inclined to assert one should take the timeline and consider the day = 1000yrs as a mathematical potential rather than a solid statement.how many years would equal the point to mans insertion and how would that be divided in days?whats more is what we call days and years do not apply to god these would be creative segments not guaged in time but in process.

one of the most validating things in genesis is that man was made from earth,where even the big bang theory can agree.where once plasmic states existed in matter on a cosmic level so the same in biochemical.

I dont see the days as bieng a reference to time but to segments of process. Honestly I think alot of biblical descriptors can be thrown out,as we have a largely educated world now and there is no need to dumb things down,,,,ok maybe there is a little bit of a need there.

what religion needs to do is operate under the agreement that evolution was part of the process,if for no ther reason than the massive catalog of evidence to support it.
Darwin on his deathbed acknowledged god ,but it in no way discredits his findings on evolution,on the contrary ;to me it asserts the validity of evolution and the necessity of it to an infinite conciousness.evolution is an eternal trait exemplified by jesus,where before jesus god would personally destroy men and after christ could redeem them.

getting beyond the literal bull crap of that it signifies an evolution in the conciousness which created another segment of itself to deal with finite limitations as one could not so then a buffer was needed.what jesus was ,was literally god lived as man to understand the trial and offer grace in the struggle of the defeat of the finite delusions.

And he wasnt the only buffer,just the evolution of the penultimate buffer.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: verndewd

Originally posted by: Garth
Something to consider about Intelligent Design:

We only observe 1 universe. We have nothing to which we can compare it. How, then, can they make the implicit assumptions about what an undesigned universe would look like when IDers make the claims that what we do observe does not look undesigned? How many undesigned universes have they observed?

This illustrates clearly how unfalsifiable ID is, and why it cannot be a scientific hypothesis. There's no means to test it.

I will ignore the ver batim meaning.In closing you say ID is not falsifiable,I presume you meant unverifiable. ---snip---

Not exactly. Text

 

[verndewd]

unfalsifiable
One entry found for unfalsifiable.


Main Entry: un·fal·si·fi·able
Pronunciation: "&n-"fol-s&-'fI-&-b&l
Function: adjective
: not capable of being proved false <unfalsifiable hypotheses>

from merriam webster,and yes I grasp the concept,same applies to string theory. The reason it doesnt apply is that unlike string theory the persuit of god bears no mathematical quantification;thus there is nothing to falsify or unfalsify.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: verndewd

Originally posted by: Garth
Something to consider about Intelligent Design:

We only observe 1 universe. We have nothing to which we can compare it. How, then, can they make the implicit assumptions about what an undesigned universe would look like when IDers make the claims that what we do observe does not look undesigned? How many undesigned universes have they observed?

This illustrates clearly how unfalsifiable ID is, and why it cannot be a scientific hypothesis. There's no means to test it.

I will ignore the ver batim meaning.In closing you say ID is not falsifiable,I presume you meant unverifiable.

No, like Gibsons showed you, I meant exactly what I said. Propositions which in principle cannot be shown false cannot be scientific. The vulnerability to falsification is precisely what makes scientific ideas so valuable. It is the fact that they could be shown false yet they are not that attests to their explanatory power.

Man has yet to become so inclined as to offer soluble god theorem as a science;And it is the bane of religion as a whole.The persuit itself is riddled with unimaginable difficulty.
But we do have the means to begin the endeavor,few are brave enough and the process is bound to encounter the same drawbacks as science where calculations must be verified.I think its possible that the times may require the scientific persuit of god,But only the product of the persuit ,surfacing is the true indication of its need.

I'm very sorry, but the above is simply gibberish. Anything quantifiable and analyzable via scientific methods necessarily must be natural in its ontology, and it is therefore a form of language abuse to insist that somehow these things are elements of a deity in any way.

{snip}

what it does not change is the direction i choose ,To allow god to define for me the science of existence ,by my reading and his allowance of heightened understanding.
the more I digest about science ,the more god in me applies it to defining him or us as a whole.But this is what is subject to the searing criticism of science,and I accept the validity of the points against the persuit,as it can only strengthen a response should one eventually arrive.

I don't think you have a very clear understanding of the scope of scientific investigation.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Garth Propositions which in principle cannot be shown false cannot be scientific.

^^ QFT

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: verndewd
you didnt read my post
not only did i say god and evolution are complimentary,but that bibles and sujch texts cannot be considered a reliable source of time.

NO THEY ARE NOT! Unless youre a hypocrite. A quote from me on page 2:

To clarify:

Belief based systems of knowledge acquisition IGNORE all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Empirical based systems of knowledge acquisition EMBRACE and search for all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Look up diametrical opposition in the dictionary, this is it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: verndewd
you didnt read my post
not only did i say god and evolution are complimentary,but that bibles and sujch texts cannot be considered a reliable source of time.

NO THEY ARE NOT! Unless youre a hypocrite. A quote from me on page 2:

To clarify:

Belief based systems of knowledge acquisition IGNORE all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Empirical based systems of knowledge acquisition EMBRACE and search for all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Look up diametrical opposition in the dictionary, this is it.

Even as an atheist, I have to disagree with you here. There is no necessary contradiction between theism in general and evolutionary theory.

Of course, there are theists that believe in a god-who-created-the-universe-in-six-days, and there are theists that believe in a god-who-created-the-universe-and-life-to-unfold-via-evolutionary-mechanisms. The beliefs of these two groups of theists are incongruous, obviously. The beliefs of the latter group are not incongruent with evolutionary science, however.

Certainly, the epistemologies of god-belief vis a vis scientific knowledge differ markedly, but it remains that the resultant beliefs can coexist in a single coherent worldview.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: verndewd
you didnt read my post
not only did i say god and evolution are complimentary,but that bibles and sujch texts cannot be considered a reliable source of time.

NO THEY ARE NOT! Unless youre a hypocrite. A quote from me on page 2:

To clarify:

Belief based systems of knowledge acquisition IGNORE all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Empirical based systems of knowledge acquisition EMBRACE and search for all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Look up diametrical opposition in the dictionary, this is it.

Even as an atheist, I have to disagree with you here. There is no necessary contradiction between theism in general and evolutionary theory.

Of course, there are theists that believe in a god-who-created-the-universe-in-six-days, and there are theists that believe in a god-who-created-the-universe-and-life-to-unfold-via-evolutionary-mechanisms. The beliefs of these two groups of theists are incongruous, obviously. The beliefs of the latter group are not incongruent with evolutionary science, however.

Certainly, the epistemologies of god-belief vis a vis scientific knowledge differ markedly, but it remains that the resultant beliefs can coexist in a single coherent worldview.

They can only coexist in an individual who is hypocritical about forms of knowledge gathering. Hence, a hypocrite.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: verndewd
you didnt read my post
not only did i say god and evolution are complimentary,but that bibles and sujch texts cannot be considered a reliable source of time.

NO THEY ARE NOT! Unless youre a hypocrite. A quote from me on page 2:

To clarify:

Belief based systems of knowledge acquisition IGNORE all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Empirical based systems of knowledge acquisition EMBRACE and search for all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Look up diametrical opposition in the dictionary, this is it.

Even as an atheist, I have to disagree with you here. There is no necessary contradiction between theism in general and evolutionary theory.

Of course, there are theists that believe in a god-who-created-the-universe-in-six-days, and there are theists that believe in a god-who-created-the-universe-and-life-to-unfold-via-evolutionary-mechanisms. The beliefs of these two groups of theists are incongruous, obviously. The beliefs of the latter group are not incongruent with evolutionary science, however.

Certainly, the epistemologies of god-belief vis a vis scientific knowledge differ markedly, but it remains that the resultant beliefs can coexist in a single coherent worldview.

They can only coexist in an individual who is hypocritical about forms of knowledge gathering. Hence, a hypocrite.

That is absolute nonsense. Nobody adheres strictly to one and only one epistemology. Different propositions carry with them different epistemological burdens, but nobody is a hypocrite for believing that his mother loves him despite the fact that you can't prove it mathematically. Come on.

 

[dogooder]

Originally posted by: Garth
Something to consider about Intelligent Design:

We only observe 1 universe. We have nothing to which we can compare it. How, then, can they make the implicit assumptions about what an undesigned universe would look like when IDers make the claims that what we do observe does not look undesigned? How many undesigned universes have they observed?

This illustrates clearly how unfalsifiable ID is, and why it cannot be a scientific hypothesis. There's no means to test it.

On the whole, you're right, but there are some aspects from ID (which usually just refers to the design of life, not the universe) which I would say are scientific.

For example, the idea of irreducible complexity. If a thing cannot be broken up into parts which have functions of their own, then it cannot be evolved and, since such a thing can't come about by chance (probabilistic argument), it must be designed. This seems to be a valid scientific hypothesis. Of course IDiots (as they're affectionately called) haven't shown this for anything other than human inventions and have been completely wrong on their attempts (eye, bacterial flagellum, etc.).

More generally, I would simply say that all ID arguments--regardless of whether they're scientific or not--are spectacularly wrong. They're embarrassingly wrong.


Besides being true, evolution is probably the most beautiful theory I know. It's sad that so many people fail (or refuse) to understand it.

 

[verndewd]

you refusal to accept my views as a respectable property of my own would in your view warrant inflammatory remark,such as you offer.

scientific minds are just now beginning to unfold the correlation to deity from material fact.And ultimately since you must rely on empirical mechanisms with inherent flaws you can not prove the beginning of existence any more than I can.

so who is the hypocrite?

I am not here to indulge your sick mind in name calling exchanges;I am here to exchange possible solutions to ID problems and debate them rationally and with a level head.Feel free to exclude yourself from this process if you cannot do this.

 

[verndewd]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: verndewd
you didnt read my post
not only did i say god and evolution are complimentary,but that bibles and sujch texts cannot be considered a reliable source of time.

NO THEY ARE NOT! Unless youre a hypocrite. A quote from me on page 2:

To clarify:

Belief based systems of knowledge acquisition IGNORE all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Empirical based systems of knowledge acquisition EMBRACE and search for all evidence which contradicts their current understanding.

Look up diametrical opposition in the dictionary, this is it.

Even as an atheist, I have to disagree with you here. There is no necessary contradiction between theism in general and evolutionary theory.

Of course, there are theists that believe in a god-who-created-the-universe-in-six-days, and there are theists that believe in a god-who-created-the-universe-and-life-to-unfold-via-evolutionary-mechanisms. The beliefs of these two groups of theists are incongruous, obviously. The beliefs of the latter group are not incongruent with evolutionary science, however.

Certainly, the epistemologies of god-belief vis a vis scientific knowledge differ markedly, but it remains that the resultant beliefs can coexist in a single coherent worldview.

They can only coexist in an individual who is hypocritical about forms of knowledge gathering. Hence, a hypocrite.

That is absolute nonsense. Nobody adheres strictly to one and only one epistemology. Different propositions carry with them different epistemological burdens, but nobody is a hypocrite for believing that his mother loves him despite the fact that you can't prove it mathematically. Come on.

This is good thinking,while he doesnt adhere to my views he does recognize the needed relationship between evolution and god in order for it to progress to a level of rationale beyong religion.