creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution

[Manako]

I'm kinda an open minded person, so I really don't care what other people believe... whatever makes them happy makes me happy.

I think the main problem people have is that they don't understand that evolution is a theory, meaning we aren't sure its the truth. But because it is a theory it also means that there was a methodlogical way in which the idea was thought out, and there have been lots of studies. I am sure most scientists would be highly intrigued by something that would wholeheartedly prove the theory false... that is what their experiments are typically designed for.

As for intelligent design, I'm not sure if they consider it a theory. I do know that it has not been researched in the same manner as evolution, so I personally do not think it is a theory. One of the larger arguments going on is whether it can be taught in schools, and whether colleges should be allowed to frown upon people applying from schools that do not teach evolution. I'm sure for alot of science majors this would be an issue, because alot of biology is inferenced from that. Its alot easier to look at a worm's heart or a fishes heart and then your own while being under the impression that at some point we were all the same creature on an evolutionary scale.

I'm not really religous, but for all anybody knows god created evolution. I really don't see why in this day and age we need to create such problems for ourselves. Believe what you want to believe, and if something disagrees with that belief, look at it.. if something can shatter your beliefs that strongly, maybe they weren't the right ones to have. I know plenty of people who have taken evolutionary science courses and are still really religous, and if they want to learn other ideas on the side-- more power to them.

[Gafgarionn]

Creationism and evolution just seems to linear to me. Consciousness and reality seems more the right path to take and perhaps were still missing the larger scope of what, who we are and where are we.

the human mind in its current state cannot comprehend the universe and everything in it. for example, people that argue to me that there is no other life PERIOD in the universe. i tell them that in our galaxy alone there are 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion) stars. there are believed to 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) galaxies in our ever expanding universe. suppose that each of those stars had but one planet orbiting them (some will have more, some less). thats an incredible amount of possible environments where some type of life exists (to me, does exist, and is surely more intelligent than us). i understand the conditions that existed that allowed life to arise on our planet are very unique, but still.

anyways, back on track, i donno what the heck you mean by reality being a path for anything. vague much?

I realize that that's a very large number, but if you even examine some of the probabilities associated with even microevolution, you'll realize that it might not be enough. For example, some systems within our body require like, 55 simultaneous mutations to actually be of use. Any of these single mutations would not be of any use to the organism, and would thus be weeded out of the species' genetics. Only when all 55 of them mutate at the same time will they stay within the gene pool. The probability of this occurring by itself is slim. If you look at how many planets are in the universe, you'll realize this could occur. But, then you have to look at the other factors. What if the organism this system successfuly developed in didn't survive? What if these genes weren't passed on to the offspring? Also, remember that this is only one system within one organism. Sure, one hundred billion times ten billion is a large number, but I don't know if it's still quite big enough.

[Andarvi]

intelligent design was created to combat the theory of evolution because evolution challenges so many long held beliefs.

while evolution may be a theory, its one with such credible evidence its hard, for me at least, to disregard it. you want to talk about reality, whats more realistic: natural selection that can be observed today and will continue to be observed in the future, or someone dying and rising from the dead/riding away on a chariot towards the sky?

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

Creationism and evolution just seems to linear to me. Consciousness and reality seems more the right path to take and perhaps were still missing the larger scope of what, who we are and where are we.

the human mind in its current state cannot comprehend the universe and everything in it. for example, people that argue to me that there is no other life PERIOD in the universe. i tell them that in our galaxy alone there are 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion) stars. there are believed to 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) galaxies in our ever expanding universe. suppose that each of those stars had but one planet orbiting them (some will have more, some less). thats an incredible amount of possible environments where some type of life exists (to me, does exist, and is surely more intelligent than us). i understand the conditions that existed that allowed life to arise on our planet are very unique, but still.

anyways, back on track, i donno what the heck you mean by reality being a path for anything. vague much?

I realize that that's a very large number, but if you even examine some of the probabilities associated with even microevolution, you'll realize that it might not be enough. For example, some systems within our body require like, 55 simultaneous mutations to actually be of use. Any of these single mutations would not be of any use to the organism, and would thus be weeded out of the species' genetics. Only when all 55 of them mutate at the same time will they stay within the gene pool. The probability of this occurring by itself is slim. If you look at how many planets are in the universe, you'll realize this could occur. But, then you have to look at the other factors. What if the organism this system successfuly developed in didn't survive? What if these genes weren't passed on to the offspring? Also, remember that this is only one system within one organism. Sure, one hundred billion times ten billion is a large number, but I don't know if it's still quite big enough.

Poke holes in evolution all you want but theres no proof for an intelligent designer at all, thats just a leap of faith.

Also remember that though the chance of humans developing is very low there are a rediculous number of beings that could have developed that didnt, and taking that into account the odds make more sense. If you have a quadrillion one in a quadrillion shots, chances are good that it will happen.

[Melisande]

Look up Avida, it was a program designed to test the principles of Evolutionary theory, and in the end it produced digital organisms of great complexity from a very simple begining. This more or less shows that the irreducible complexity "idea" has no legs to stand on. And many times organisms don't survive. Look back at the fossil record. If the gene wasn't passed on, if it didn't have the right traits, it died out. The world isn't like kindergarten where everyone wins.

And also to the person saying evolution is just a theory, the scientific definition of theory is much much differant than the vernaccular one. Saying evolution is just a theory is as ludicrous as saying that the idea of heliocentrism is just a theory or that gravity is just a theory.

[Gafgarionn]

intelligent design was created to combat the theory of evolution because evolution challenges so many long held beliefs.

while evolution may be a theory, its one with such credible evidence its hard, for me at least, to disregard it. you want to talk about reality, whats more realistic: natural selection that can be observed today and will continue to be observed in the future, or someone dying and rising from the dead/riding away on a chariot towards the sky?

AhhhHHh that's just wrong on so many levels. First of all, what credible evidence for macroevolution is there? That's what we've been discussing. There isn't as much as people think (once again, I'm talking on a MACRO level). Second, intelligent design has nothing to do with Christianity, or any religion in existence today. Any particular religion may support intelligent design (because if your particular brand of God exists, then he is the intelligent designer), but intelligent design does not support any particular God (because it doesn't matter who is the designer, it only says that there is one). AND, if it DID support a Christian God, who is to say that the bible isn't just a bunch of metaphors. Third, the argument for intelligent design is rooted in genetics, just like evolution. So, intelligent design might just be a response to evolution, but the argument could stand on its own.

[Manako]

Didn't the pope say something negative about intelligent design? (the Catholic Pope, I know we must make such a determination on thes forums :wink: )

I liked the world the way it was before Intelligent design started becoming popular, I like evolution and I can't see every religous community going towards intelligent design either. Like Gafgarionn said, this would imply the bible is a whole bunch of metaphors, and lots of people strongly disagree with that idea. I go to a tech school, and the general belief that the Faculty have is that faith and science are two separate things, the believe in God and evolution just plain fine.

[Andarvi]

Creationism and evolution just seems to linear to me. Consciousness and reality seems more the right path to take and perhaps were still missing the larger scope of what, who we are and where are we.

the human mind in its current state cannot comprehend the universe and everything in it. for example, people that argue to me that there is no other life PERIOD in the universe. i tell them that in our galaxy alone there are 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion) stars. there are believed to 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) galaxies in our ever expanding universe. suppose that each of those stars had but one planet orbiting them (some will have more, some less). thats an incredible amount of possible environments where some type of life exists (to me, does exist, and is surely more intelligent than us). i understand the conditions that existed that allowed life to arise on our planet are very unique, but still.

anyways, back on track, i donno what the heck you mean by reality being a path for anything. vague much?

I realize that that's a very large number, but if you even examine some of the probabilities associated with even microevolution, you'll realize that it might not be enough. For example, some systems within our body require like, 55 simultaneous mutations to actually be of use. Any of these single mutations would not be of any use to the organism, and would thus be weeded out of the species' genetics. Only when all 55 of them mutate at the same time will they stay within the gene pool. The probability of this occurring by itself is slim. If you look at how many planets are in the universe, you'll realize this could occur. But, then you have to look at the other factors. What if the organism this system successfuly developed in didn't survive? What if these genes weren't passed on to the offspring? Also, remember that this is only one system within one organism. Sure, one hundred billion times ten billion is a large number, but I don't know if it's still quite big enough.

all it takes is one single celled organism to start things off and let natural selection and evolution take its place. its generally stated that, at least in the case of the life on our planet, water is the most important factor in the existence of life. there are moons in our solar system alone that have liquid water on them. mars used to have oceans long ago. these are all standards of life as we know it. perhaps out the there life flourished using nitrogen, or hydrogen, or another molecule instead of oxygen to respire, assuming they even need to respire. when we think of other possible life we naturally think of the life we observe being found elsewhere, however it is just as believable, if not more, that life found another means of existing besides the methods we see here on earth.

to me, its self centered and narrowminded to say that in the universe there are just massive celestial bodies and no life anywhere.

[Lockecole]

And also to the person saying evolution is just a theory, the scientific definition of theory is much much differant than the vernaccular one. Saying evolution is just a theory is as ludicrous as saying that the idea of heliocentrism is just a theory or that gravity is just a theory.

Sup bias. I can see gravity all around me, I just dropped a pen and noticed it in action. Care to show me some evidence of macroevolution? No, didn't think so.

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

BUT GAF, HOW DOES THAT IMPLY A INTELLIGENT DESIGNER

[Andarvi]

Didn't the pope say something negative about intelligent design? (the Catholic Pope, I know we must make such a determination on thes forums :wink: )

I liked the world the way it was before Intelligent design started becoming popular, I like evolution and I can't see every religous community going towards intelligent design either. Like Gafgarionn said, this would imply the bible is a whole bunch of metaphors, and lots of people strongly disagree with that idea. I go to a tech school, and the general belief that the Faculty have is that faith and science are two separate things, the believe in God and evolution just plain fine.

dont get me started there lol. i LOVE when people argue that all of humanity stemmed from adam and eve. i went to a catholic school and heard it, from teachers.

whatever the bible was 2 millenia ago, now its is one, big parable.

so.fucking.retarded.

[Gafgarionn]

Creationism and evolution just seems to linear to me. Consciousness and reality seems more the right path to take and perhaps were still missing the larger scope of what, who we are and where are we.

the human mind in its current state cannot comprehend the universe and everything in it. for example, people that argue to me that there is no other life PERIOD in the universe. i tell them that in our galaxy alone there are 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion) stars. there are believed to 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) galaxies in our ever expanding universe. suppose that each of those stars had but one planet orbiting them (some will have more, some less). thats an incredible amount of possible environments where some type of life exists (to me, does exist, and is surely more intelligent than us). i understand the conditions that existed that allowed life to arise on our planet are very unique, but still.

anyways, back on track, i donno what the heck you mean by reality being a path for anything. vague much?

I realize that that's a very large number, but if you even examine some of the probabilities associated with even microevolution, you'll realize that it might not be enough. For example, some systems within our body require like, 55 simultaneous mutations to actually be of use. Any of these single mutations would not be of any use to the organism, and would thus be weeded out of the species' genetics. Only when all 55 of them mutate at the same time will they stay within the gene pool. The probability of this occurring by itself is slim. If you look at how many planets are in the universe, you'll realize this could occur. But, then you have to look at the other factors. What if the organism this system successfuly developed in didn't survive? What if these genes weren't passed on to the offspring? Also, remember that this is only one system within one organism. Sure, one hundred billion times ten billion is a large number, but I don't know if it's still quite big enough.

Poke holes in evolution all you want but theres no proof for an intelligent designer at all, thats just a leap of faith.

Also remember that though the chance of humans developing is very low there are a rediculous number of beings that could have developed that didnt, and taking that into account the odds make more sense. If you have a quadrillion one in a quadrillion shots, chances are good that it will happen.

I'm either reading what you're saying wrong, or you are confused. There are an infinite types of mutations that could occur that would result in an iinfinite set of variations. For example, humans could've been purple, or blue, or green, etc. BUT, we're dealing with a limited amount of mutations. Only a certain amount of mutationns have occured, so regardless of the possibilities, you're looking at the set that have occurred. So basically, yes, it could've happened that humans were green. But that doesn't account for how they got that pigment in their skin in the first place. Very shitty example, but if you look past it I think you can apply it to other things.

[Gafgarionn]

BUT GAF, HOW DOES THAT IMPLY A INTELLIGENT DESIGNER

JOOEETHEPLATYPUS I've said the entire time that I don't agree with intelligent design for that very reason. It doesn't really have much proof for an intelligent designer, but instead it just discredits evolution. I'm just playing devils advocate here (it's what I do best). Anyways, the intelligent design argument is way beyond most of us anyways. It deals with more complex stuff.

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

Creationism and evolution just seems to linear to me. Consciousness and reality seems more the right path to take and perhaps were still missing the larger scope of what, who we are and where are we.

the human mind in its current state cannot comprehend the universe and everything in it. for example, people that argue to me that there is no other life PERIOD in the universe. i tell them that in our galaxy alone there are 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion) stars. there are believed to 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) galaxies in our ever expanding universe. suppose that each of those stars had but one planet orbiting them (some will have more, some less). thats an incredible amount of possible environments where some type of life exists (to me, does exist, and is surely more intelligent than us). i understand the conditions that existed that allowed life to arise on our planet are very unique, but still.

anyways, back on track, i donno what the heck you mean by reality being a path for anything. vague much?

I realize that that's a very large number, but if you even examine some of the probabilities associated with even microevolution, you'll realize that it might not be enough. For example, some systems within our body require like, 55 simultaneous mutations to actually be of use. Any of these single mutations would not be of any use to the organism, and would thus be weeded out of the species' genetics. Only when all 55 of them mutate at the same time will they stay within the gene pool. The probability of this occurring by itself is slim. If you look at how many planets are in the universe, you'll realize this could occur. But, then you have to look at the other factors. What if the organism this system successfuly developed in didn't survive? What if these genes weren't passed on to the offspring? Also, remember that this is only one system within one organism. Sure, one hundred billion times ten billion is a large number, but I don't know if it's still quite big enough.

Poke holes in evolution all you want but theres no proof for an intelligent designer at all, thats just a leap of faith.

Also remember that though the chance of humans developing is very low there are a rediculous number of beings that could have developed that didnt, and taking that into account the odds make more sense. If you have a quadrillion one in a quadrillion shots, chances are good that it will happen.

I'm either reading what you're saying wrong, or you are confused. There are an infinite types of mutations that could occur that would result in an iinfinite set of variations. For example, humans could've been purple, or blue, or green, etc. BUT, we're dealing with a limited amount of mutations. Only a certain amount of mutationns have occured, so regardless of the possibilities, you're looking at the set that have occurred. So basically, yes, it could've happened that humans were green. But that doesn't account for how they got that pigment in their skin in the first place. Very shitty example, but if you look past it I think you can apply it to other things.

1. Pigment in skin as we know it is just one possibility. Who says we had to have skin as we know it? We didnt, it was one possibility.

2. WHERE DID THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER GET SCIENTIFICALLY PUT IN? I can't really believe this if the arguements and central theme are titled based on something that scientifically has no basis in reality.

[Melisande]

And also to the person saying evolution is just a theory, the scientific definition of theory is much much differant than the vernaccular one. Saying evolution is just a theory is as ludicrous as saying that the idea of heliocentrism is just a theory or that gravity is just a theory.

Sup bias. I can see gravity all around me, I just dropped a pen and noticed it in action. Care to show me some evidence of macroevolution? No, didn't think so.

Um what I was reffering to was the status of a theory in scientific terms. Evolution, Gravity, and Heliocentrism all enjoy the same status in the scientific comunity. Going up to a biologist and saying you're wrong about evolution is just as stupid as going to an astronomer and saying the Earth revolves around the sun.

And maybe this will be more clear, I understand this definition is from Wikipedia but if you want me to find another source I will

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

[Gafgarionn]

[quote=Jooeetheplatypus]

Creationism and evolution just seems to linear to me. Consciousness and reality seems more the right path to take and perhaps were still missing the larger scope of what, who we are and where are we.

the human mind in its current state cannot comprehend the universe and everything in it. for example, people that argue to me that there is no other life PERIOD in the universe. i tell them that in our galaxy alone there are 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion) stars. there are believed to 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) galaxies in our ever expanding universe. suppose that each of those stars had but one planet orbiting them (some will have more, some less). thats an incredible amount of possible environments where some type of life exists (to me, does exist, and is surely more intelligent than us). i understand the conditions that existed that allowed life to arise on our planet are very unique, but still.

anyways, back on track, i donno what the heck you mean by reality being a path for anything. vague much?

I realize that that's a very large number, but if you even examine some of the probabilities associated with even microevolution, you'll realize that it might not be enough. For example, some systems within our body require like, 55 simultaneous mutations to actually be of use. Any of these single mutations would not be of any use to the organism, and would thus be weeded out of the species' genetics. Only when all 55 of them mutate at the same time will they stay within the gene pool. The probability of this occurring by itself is slim. If you look at how many planets are in the universe, you'll realize this could occur. But, then you have to look at the other factors. What if the organism this system successfuly developed in didn't survive? What if these genes weren't passed on to the offspring? Also, remember that this is only one system within one organism. Sure, one hundred billion times ten billion is a large number, but I don't know if it's still quite big enough.

Poke holes in evolution all you want but theres no proof for an intelligent designer at all, thats just a leap of faith.

Also remember that though the chance of humans developing is very low there are a rediculous number of beings that could have developed that didnt, and taking that into account the odds make more sense. If you have a quadrillion one in a quadrillion shots, chances are good that it will happen.

I'm either reading what you're saying wrong, or you are confused. There are an infinite types of mutations that could occur that would result in an iinfinite set of variations. For example, humans could've been purple, or blue, or green, etc. BUT, we're dealing with a limited amount of mutations. Only a certain amount of mutationns have occured, so regardless of the possibilities, you're looking at the set that have occurred. So basically, yes, it could've happened that humans were green. But that doesn't account for how they got that pigment in their skin in the first place. Very shitty example, but if you look past it I think you can apply it to other things.

1. Pigment in skin as we know it is just one possibility. Who says we had to have skin as we know it? We didnt, it was one possibility.

2. WHERE DID THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER GET SCIENTIFICALLY PUT IN?[/quote:9eb5d]

1. That's my point. What we have now cannot be supported by statistics and probability (I have yet to take a look at that computer simulation thing, I'll do that)

2. Note above post.

[JoOeetheplatypuS]

That's my point. What we have now cannot be supported by statistics and probability (I have yet to take a look at that computer simulation thing, I'll do that)

We don't know all the possibilties. We dont know the genetic history. Without that knowledge we can't know the chances anyways. The concept of evolution is one thing that logically fits in the puzzle of our existance. And honestly, I can see macroevolution.

[Melisande]

And uh are you taking my post in support of ID? You should know most of the scientific community laughs at ID, most of its major tenants have major scientific doubt attached to them, if they haven't already been proven false.

And our skin pigment comes from the chemical melonin which is produced by exposure to the sun, the more you have of it the darker your skin color. We kept this trait because when humans were evolving they were a mostly hairless animal under the scorching sun all day. They needed some sort of protection.

[Manako]

Now, while this highly intellectual debate is interesting... umm... I don't think I actually see anybody defending intelligent design who actually believes in it >.>; just thought I'd point that out...

goodnight folks

[Gafgarionn]

And uh are you taking my post in support of ID? You should know most of the scientific community laughs at ID, most of its major tenants have major scientific doubt attached to them, if they haven't already been proven false.

No, I was basically saying as far as I knew it was statistically unprobable, but I had yet to look at the simulation thing. I could be misinformed