Jump to content
Science Forums

Intelligent design / creationism


Stargazer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Personally I'm here at this forum to study science, I can wait for Sunday to go to church.

Then you must understand the frustration of those of us who are tired of having Sunday thrust into their classrooms in the guise of science. It comes out in many ways, e.g., challenging the religious to back their scientific claims with science, not religious faith. You're probably not the problem. Highly organized, very well funded, and ultimately subversive fundamentalists are. Sorry -- it's hard to forget them when trying to talk science, like it's hard to ignore a million mosquitoes while you're trying to appreciate a beautiful moonlit night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely Aquagem; Even though I'm a believer, I'm totaly disgusted with the constant attempt by many religious organizations to solicit funding for their hidden agendas. I think that this money would be better used to help those in need rather than to build bigger building. There are only a few that truly have a mission to care for their fellow man. This is an inditement against mankind however and not against the God that I believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, where are we on this curve.
that's a good question. so where? As i mentioned, science is getting quite accurate these days. but only accurate relative to the past. the future might be ever so more accurate than now. so my point is useless here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all Tinny, your point is quite useful. It begs the question, where are we on this curve. Very good point, I might add. If we can find an answer that question, we can make choices about our next move as it were. If we don't get offcourse , we will have more success in finding the answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I would quickly like to just say a "snippet" about all of the atrocities committed in the name of religion.

 

If you truly knew the message and person of Jesus Christ, you would know that things such as the Crusades, were committed by those with a horrible agenda who used religion as a sorry excuse for their hatred.

 

In no way did their actions reflect the teachings of the Bible, or of Jesus.

 

I must point out that just as many or more atrocities were committed by those with an Atheistic worldview. For example: Hitler and the Nazi regime. Hitler was an avowed atheist who regularly read the writings of Nietchze.

 

But on the same token, I don't believe that atheists are killers or murderers. That would be a horrible assumption. And yet, Christians are judged by this same measuring stick. Completely unfair, and a fine example of ignorance.

 

-JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd first like to thank everyone who writes in these forums... I learn much by reading your postings. It is obvious that everyone is very intelligent and thoughtful in their postings and responses. I'd also like to say that I am very open to discussion on evolution/ID/Origins... etc. I love talking about it.

 

Since there seem to be more evolutionists in this forum than ID proponents, I would like to respectfully throw out a few ideas to be discussed:

 

I believe the weight of evidence needs to be on the skeptic, not the believer. I have yet to meet anyone able to prove that there is NOT a God.

 

And even though many claim that evolution (the emergence of life as we know it today from a single-celled organism) is fact, I still have not heard or seen hard scientific evidence that supports it. I haven't seen any fossils that back up evolution. I haven't heard of any experiments that have shown that living organisms can rise out of non-living organisms. I haven't seen macro-evolution replicated. If we as humans truly descended from apes, shouldn't there be at least one half-ape/half-man skeleton. I may be wrong, but I don't believe any have been discovered as of yet. And I do believe many evolutionists are having a tough time explaining the Cambrian Explosion through evolutionary theory.

 

So if evolution can't explain the origin of life, what are we to look to? Or should I say, WHO?

 

I hope this kicks of some awesome discussion and debate. I appreciate any replys, corrections, refutations, and arguments. After all, aren't we all after the truth?

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to meet anyone able to prove that there is NOT a God.

 

I tried to use this argument at one point, but have come to realize that it is illogical. There cannot be proof that something doesn't exist unless there could be definitive proof that it did. Unless you can come up with an experiment that would test for the existance of god, you cannot possibly disprove or prove his existance. It is a basic logic problem "If there is proof against god, then god does not exist" does not prove that "If there is no proof against god, then god exists" anymore than "If it rains, then I will not go to the store" proves that "If it does not rain, then I will go to the store", I may not go in either case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to use this argument at one point, but have come to realize that it is illogical.

 

Ok, if nothing else ever comes out of this site (which is HIGHLY unlikely!), it will at least have accomplished this for many people.

 

Freethinker, I think you can add a feather to your bonnet, ok? As I was getting ready to post something similar to our new member, JP, i noticed that dave had already taken care of things. I think it's pretty cool to watch people learn and grow, and even watch tehm watch themselves.

 

People learn here, Tormod. They learn from others, they learn from themselves, and they pass their knowledge on. You have truly accomplished something here, my friend. Hat is off to you!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the weight of evidence needs to be on the skeptic, not the believer.

Oh dear. Do people still say things like that? You do know, of course, that the weight of the evidence is on the one making the claim, right? So if you say "there is a god" we can expect evidence. No, wait, we can't expect it, but you should certainly provide it. Oh, and bring a definition with you, that would be great. Thanks!

 

I have yet to meet anyone able to prove that there is NOT a God.

I have yet to meet anyone able to prove that there is NOT an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I have yet to meet anyone able to prove that there is NOT a dragon in my garage.

I have yet to meet anyone able to prove that there are NO fairies.

 

And even though many claim that evolution (the emergence of life as we know it today from a single-celled organism) is fact, I still have not heard or seen hard scientific evidence that supports it. I haven't seen any fossils that back up evolution. [...] I haven't seen macro-evolution replicated. If we as humans truly descended from apes, shouldn't there be at least one half-ape/half-man skeleton. I may be wrong, but I don't believe any have been discovered as of yet. And I do believe many evolutionists are having a tough time explaining the Cambrian Explosion through evolutionary theory.

Evolution has been observed, as has speciation, several times.

There is a great website called http://www.talkorigins.org if you really do want to know more. Another one I just found is http://evolution.berkeley.edu

 

I haven't heard of any experiments that have shown that living organisms can rise out of non-living organisms.

Oh, you're talking about abiogenesis?

And what are these non-living organisms?

 

So if evolution can't explain the origin of life, what are we to look to? Or should I say, WHO?

First of all, this is getting rather tiresome. The theory of evolution does not include the origins of life. And even if we currently do not have a great theory of the origins of life, what in the world makes people think that such ignorance is an excuse to invent a god just to have something to believe in? Utterly bizarre! We don't fully understand gravity yet, but that doesn't make us say "Hey, we don't have a complete theory for gravity, we better make something up to cover the holes. Let's see, how about tiny little angels flying about pushing things together? What? We can't see any angels? Well... they're invisible! And really small. That's right. We better write a book about this new theory. I shall call it Intelligent Grappling. We will commence school board lobbying at once."

 

I hope this kicks of some awesome discussion and debate. I appreciate any replys, corrections, refutations, and arguments. After all, aren't we all after the truth?

No, some are after having their faith confirmed no matter what, even if it includes basic misunderstandings of contemporary science. We don't want that, now do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, ok. Let me throw out one argument that I see for intelligent design. In the next few days I'm just going to toss one argument at a time into the forum so we can discuss them. It's a bit easier than doing a bunch at once, and it gives everyone time to think about each one individually.

 

 

DNA. DNA has been best described as computer code. In fact, that's exactly what it is. It is information that directs, organizes, and gives commands. If we saw a paper full of computer code laying around, we would naturally infer that someone wrote it. Why can't we do the same thing with the ridiculously wonderful and complex code that is in every living thing? ***Note: By saying complex, I am not insinuating disorder.

 

 

Ok, there's my first argument. I look forward to your replies, remarks, and arguments.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On difference - DNA replicates itself. If, by some chance, molecules were to come togeather to form computer code, it would eventually be lost to time, but, if molecules formed DNA, then it would reproduce itself, making sure that it would be noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great point pg. I do have a reply, however.

 

On difference - DNA replicates itself. If, by some chance, molecules were to come togeather to form computer code, it would eventually be lost to time, but, if molecules formed DNA, then it would reproduce itself, making sure that it would be noticed.

 

I don't believe the difference is in the information, it is in the substance of the code. You're completely right that if molecules formed computer code on a piece of paper it would be lost to time. Of course! That's exactly the same thing that would happen if DNA were merely written on paper. But it's not. DNA is "written" inside of each cell with biological substances, not on paper with ink. It's all information, just in different forms. Therefore, the inference can still be used.

 

While your point is very good, I don't think that it quite debunks my argument. If I misunderstood your point, please let me know.

 

Looking forward to more discussion.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, Tormod. I can't get away from you! Great thought, though. I have a reply.

 

I actually fail to see what your argument is, and how you have substantiated it with any evidence whatsoever. I suggest starting there. :rant:

 

My evidence for this specific point about DNA is evidence by inference. We use inference as evidence every single day.

 

Example:

 

There's already a pot of coffee brewing at the office when you arrive. Inference would give you about 2 realistic options: a) Someone arrived before and started the coffee :hihi: The coffee pot has an automatic timer to start brewing in the morning

 

But it could definitely be used as evidence to show that someone was there, if that evidence was needed.

 

Further investigation is required to see which is correct. However, the inferences are reasonable without question.

 

Much of court-case evidence is based solely on evidence through inference. That is what I'm using for this particular argument.

 

I appreciate the thought and the humorous manner in which it was delivered. Like I said in an earlier post, DNA is merely the first of my arguments which I will toss out for discussion. Thanks for the reply.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I suppose the question is, which is more likely - that god created DNA or that through a strange coincedence, DNA happened to form. I understand that DNA is much more complex in us than it is in bacteria, and I would imagine that it was even less complex when it started, so I have no problem with the second. If it had happened that a human was the first lifeform, then I would've had to agree with the first being simpler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DNA has a history which is much more complex than coffee drip machines (if you exclude the fact that coffee drip machines are the result of billions of years of evolution...). Infer all you like, it will not help you much in this case. You're arguing against 3,7 billion years of evolving life on this planet.

 

DNA evolves. It replicates and mutates. But DNA is neither the first step in the ladder of life, nor the last. It is, however, one of the key pieces in the puzzle of life.

 

The entire human genome has been mapped. We know there is a lot of junk DNA (ie, stretches in the genome which apparently serve no function). However, research seems to show that even the junk DNA tends to serve a purpose in given situtations. In other words, DNA is incredibly complex.

 

Yet it is possible to take simpler organisms where the genome is much smaller, and make changes to it. Take banana flies. Make a change here or there and its offspring has three eyes or only one wing.

 

But before we start arguing whether DNA can be compared to written code, let's take a look at the origin of life.

 

Here are some interesting reads:

 

Eukaryotic Origins

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article243.html

 

Were Bacteria the First Forms of Life on Earth?

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/jeffares_poole.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...