evolution vs creation vs Intelligent Design

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I humbly offer this evidence against evolution. h34r:

http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=82 :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 8 2006, 02:08 PM) [snapback]236833[/snapback]</div>

Whoa, there. Be careful with that F-word (no, not *that* F-word). I don't know anyone in science that would be comfortable calling evolution "fact." Evolution is a theory (in the scientific sense) that has been pieced together from a preponderance of the evidence. As hjon71 points out, there is always the possiblity that God has made everything on earth and has constructed all bits of evidence (i.e. fossil record, sharing of genetic material, etc, etc, etc) in an elaborate ruse. Also, perhaps everytime a scientist "makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage." Unlikely? I think so. Impossible? Never.

The FSM is intended as a joke, but I think that Bobby Henderson makes a very good point at one place on the web page. Intelligent Design is not science whether or not it is correct. Science is interpreting the world through observation and experiement. ID is finding data to match the story you already have in mind. Again, ID is not science, regardless of if it is correct.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that thought. Thank you, Betelgeuse.

I do believe that God made everything, Daniel, but even people who don't believe what I do may argue your assertion that evolution is "fact."

True, scientists do NOT use the word "theory" the way the general public does (in a way that implies doubtfulness), but evolution is, in fact, a theory. You got a little emotional there, but I didn't want to jump in and just be branded a Christian with his brain turned off.

I should probably quit reading this sub-forum, because it is often filled with completely divisive and non-productive threads that pit people's very-unlikely-to-change-due-to-an-internet-argument belief systems against each other. I can't even blame Squid for this thread, remarkably enough.

 

Evolution is not a theory. There are several competing theories of evolution. These theories try to understand how evolution procedes. But I repeat that it is a fact that living things evolve from other living things. There is no longer any doubt about this. Most mainstream christian denominations accept this fact, and believe that evolution is the tool god uses to create life: that he is the driving force behind evolution. Only a few very vocal fundamentalist, literalist churches still assert that all living things were created in one week and have remained essentially unchanged since then. These are the same belief traditions that would have tortured Galileo for saying that the Earth moves around the sun.

For an example of one scientist who repeats over and over again that evolution is a fact, see this
lecture series by Robert M. Hazen, titled "The Joy of Science" and sold by The Teaching Company. This company sells university-level lecture series by some of the best university professors around.

Jay: When you use terms like "energy level" and "dimension" in ways that bear no reference to anything understood by science, you have moved into the realm of religion, where everything is make-believe, nothing is based on observation, and observed reality is rejected when it does not conform to dogma. Religion cannot be falsified because it rejects all evidence. Therefore it serves no useful purpose.

The purpose of science is to help us understand the world. Science works, because we clearly understand the world much better, because of science, than we did 10 or 100 or 500 years ago. The purpose of religion is to teach us how to get along with each other. It has utterly failed, which we can see in all the wars and hatreds and prejudices and selfishness all around us.

Religion is one of the principal causes of preventable suffering in the world today.

On the other hand, perhaps god enjoys suffering, chose evolution as his tool for creating life precisely because it is so utterly heartless and cruel, and favors people like Bush and bin Laden because they help to increase the amount of suffering in the world, and will punish all the do-gooders who obstruct his purpose by working to alleviate suffering. Perhaps Mother Theresa will go to hell and Pol Pot will go to heaven. We don't really know, but it does conform to obervation of the world better than the theory (which is, of course just a theory) that god loves us. Of course, in this case, religion does serve god's purpose, because it so significantly increases suffering. ... I don't believe any of that. But as a theory it's just as valid as the theory that god loves us.

Maybe we should try to force churches to teach that god's love is just a theory. Violation of freedom of speech? We'll, they're violating the freedom of speech of science teachers by trying to force them to say that "evolution is just a theory."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 10 2006, 11:20 AM) [snapback]237501[/snapback]</div>

Most mainstream.....I doubt it!

God is not cruel, he just allows man to have free will and WE are cruel. God is merciful in that he provided a method to escape our own stupidity and it requires NOTHING but faith. Quite simple actually.

And my brother has a theory that jellyfish actually are the highest life form and may indeed be God. So what!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 10 2006, 11:20 AM) [snapback]237501[/snapback]</div>

This right here says a lot.

If it wasn't religion, it would be something else. Think about WHY people subscribe to concepts such as religions, and you'll have your answer. Simply blaming religion does not go far enough.

h34r:

 

Genesis 2:17 - "In the day you eat from it, you will positively DIE".
Genesis 3:19 - "For dust you are, and to dust you will return".
Ecclesiastes 9:5 - "The dead are conscious of nothing at all".
Ezekiel 18:4 - "The soul that is sinning, it itself will die".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 8 2006, 07:54 PM) [snapback]236965[/snapback]</div>

Interesting observation. From my studies, I've found that Jewish and early Christian thinking was devoid of the concept of a "soul that lived on", but considered the soul to be simply the complete, living person. Even animals were called souls. It was only with the increased advancement of the Greek/Platonic philosophies that the idea of an immortal soul began to corrupt Christianity. Not ALL Christians make this "core mistake".

 

The Big Problem I have with Crationism/Intellegent Design when they adhere to the 7-Day Creation story is that no science-based explaination seems to exist to explain evidence of a longer creation period. Usually, stuff like carbon dating is dismissed as a local phenomenon not suitable for anything older than the 30,000-odd years expected to cover the age of the Earth.

A faith-based theory would have to rely on "God made it like that" to explain fossels, dinosaur bones, and anything else seemingly dating back millions of years. Stars seemingly millions of light-years away? All the electrons required to fill the gap were part of Creation, and didn't just start flowing our way after Creation was over.

An alternate theory would be that the Devil created any data that makes the Earth look too old, to tempt people away from 'the truth'. Not sure anyone WANTS to give the Devil that much crative credit, but the idea of God pre-planning to fool people into thinking dinosaurs actually lived once might seem beneath Him to them...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Apr 10 2006, 12:48 PM) [snapback]237532[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps eternal damnation was required to scare people into coming to service each week. And no sex outside of reproductive sex, to create future generations of paying attendees...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 10 2006, 11:26 AM) [snapback]237502[/snapback]</div>

ok i'll agree with you on the humanity being more cruel than god part.

but we can't escape people imposing their free will upon us in a harmful way through believing in something. how merciful is that?

 

My two cents...

Strictly speaking, to say that there was a beginning to the universe does not imply the existance (or non-existance) of any deity. However, when one gets into the why or how the universe came into being, then the discussion becomes philosophical, and cannot even be scientific. Certainly there are many ideas as to how or why things got started, but it would be rather hard to test any of these theories with any degree of certainty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 10 2006, 10:20 AM) [snapback]237501[/snapback]</div>

Daniel:

I was trying - quite poorly I must admit - to paraphrase some memorable passages out of quantum mechanics books I have read. All I can suggest is to look at the following material:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html

http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/13...es/node478.html

My head hurts once folks start talking about time derivatives ...

jay

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 10 2006, 11:06 AM) [snapback]237515[/snapback]</div>

Because folks want an easy way out, that's why. It's far easier to fear/blame some mystical being - thus you can't do anything about the situation or even worse you "deserve" it - than to just fix the damn problem.

But fixing the damn problem is complicated and painful, since you usually are at least partially responsible for the problem to begin with. Want to solve most of the issues in your life? Look in the mirror and point a finger.

Most folks simply can't do that. It's far easier to fear/blame somebody else, such as a mystical entity, a different skin color, a different political party, etc.

 

Why can't the "Chariots of the God" theory be true?

No one has talked about it here... so lets bring it up about Human evolution/creation or whatever.

There is much prove to it as GOD created us.... its all FAITH and theories anyways.

 

Not entirely true. I'd argue that "Process Makes Perfect" religions are guilty of this, but not all religions. My gripe with most religions is that they are slaves to a process and reject all other processes which lead to the same functional end. What's the difference between taking Jesus as my savior and living life as the Buddah suggests? Very little except the specific process that achieves the end.

 

I used to have a religion or two and traveled the world looking for God.
When God found me he gave me an unshakeable relationship with Him
through His Son Jesus Christ.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SirGreen @ Apr 10 2006, 07:07 PM) [snapback]237848[/snapback]</div>

Glad you found what makes you comfortable.

But to me, I prefer doing "Religious Studies", not "Christian Studies". There is a big difference. "Religious Studies" to me is being able to have an open mind to understand differences (actually commonality with cultural differences).

I am inline with tripp's thinking. All major religions have the same goodness theme.

I believe that if people cannot have an open mind about other religions, then it is no difference than being a racist.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman @ Apr 10 2006, 07:40 PM) [snapback]237789[/snapback]</div>

Sure, that can be a part of it, no doubt, but go further:

A lot of people need the feeling of "belonging" to something or other. Just like kids and street gangs. Most of us want to be accepted by our peers. We need to "belong" to some sort of "community". It makes us feel like we're part of something greater, need to feel that we are right, and need to "fix" everyone who isn't. This is why simply blaming religion is short sighted. If it wasn't the concept of religion, it would be something else: large scale street gangs/cults/factions of this or that/Republicans/Democrats, whatever mechanism fills that basic human need. Religion just seems to be the biggest, and most popular mechanism for such.

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Apr 10 2006, 08:25 PM) [snapback]237857[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps there's quite a bit of truth to the statement "The Devil's in the details".