Intelligent Design vs. Evolution via Natural Selection


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Please discuss.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a non-question.

That's not a cop-out, by the way. It's a case of using the wrong tools for the job.

Theology is the wrong tool to debate scientific theories.
Science is the wrong tool to try to see if 'God' is real or not.

Cliff Richards once said, "God and Rock'n'Roll work together in the hands of someone who loves them both"... and it's much the same with theology and science. They're both interesting, they both can be used to explore the world around us, but they're going to show us different things.


Megan said it right.

Given that the OP had no real input or point to make, and that framing it in that, as Megan said, way as a non-question can only invite a fight. There can't really be a civil discussion.

Now to wait until someone starts a fight with me for saying this can only lead to fights.

Evolution happened, and when the theory was first revelaed by Darwin the church had no problem with it, they just saw it as part of Gods plan, their only problem was that natural selection implied that nature didn't care. And that was more of a shock than problem.

Evolution has nothing to do with the argument of whether creation was motivated by an intelligent force or not. Unless youy beleive that the bible is a literal, historical document. In which case, you may have alot of bigger problems with your understanding of the past.


vagrant-poet wrote:

Megan said it right.

Given that the OP had no real input or point to make, and that framing it in that, as Megan said, way as a non-question can only invite a fight. There can't really be a civil discussion.

Now to wait until someone starts a fight with me for saying this can only lead to fights.

Evolution happened, and when the theory was first revelaed by Darwin the church had no problem with it, they just saw it as part of Gods plan, their only problem was that natural selection implied that nature didn't care. And that was more of a shock than problem.

Evolution has nothing to do with the argument of whether creation was motivated by an intelligent force or not. Unless youy beleive that the bible is a literal, historical document. In which case, you may have alot of bigger problems with your understanding of the past.

Guys. Please let this thead die. Whiteknife is just trying to use this thread as a way to ghettoise critism of his political candidate of choice. It serves no useful purpose as a thread. If anyone actually wants to discuss evolution somewhere else that would be cool. But this is, in the words of our fishie saviour, A trap!


Zombieneighbours wrote:
...But this is, in the words of our fishie saviour, A trap!

{mumbles vaguely in sleep, rolls over, snores}

The Exchange

Megan Robertson wrote:

It's a non-question.

That's not a cop-out, by the way. It's a case of using the wrong tools for the job.

Theology is the wrong tool to debate scientific theories.
Science is the wrong tool to try to see if 'God' is real or not.

Thats not entirely accurate.

At superposition all life is the same life. I cant say life at Superposition is necesarily intelligent but it created the Universe from outside the Universe.

String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. That means every one is wrong and hostile toward the truth.


yellowdingo wrote:

Thats not entirely accurate.

At superposition all life is the same life. I cant say life at Superposition is necesarily intelligent but it created the Universe from outside the Universe.

String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. That means every one is wrong and hostile toward the truth.

{expectantly awaits updated news on the Grand Unified Dingo theory}

The Exchange

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:

Thats not entirely accurate.

At superposition all life is the same life. I cant say life at Superposition is necesarily intelligent but it created the Universe from outside the Universe.

String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. That means every one is wrong and hostile toward the truth.

{expectantly awaits updated news on the Grand Unified Dingo theory}

Go home. it will be a long wait. i just put on episode one of Firefly and intent to chase it with the entire BSG...


yellowdingo wrote:
String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. That means every one is wrong and hostile toward the truth.

Please, please, do explain how string theory invalidates both religion AND evolution. I want my eyes opened to the truth. I don't want to be hostile anymore.


My sixer of Milwaukee's finest invalidates GUDT. *burp*


vagrant-poet wrote:


Evolution happened, and when the theory was first revelaed by Darwin the church had no problem with it, they just saw it as part of Gods plan...

This is not an accurate statement. In fact there was wide spread criticism of the theory, mainly motivated on religious grounds, from day one.

I'm certianly not saying that it is impossible to be religious and also believe in Evolution at the same time. However it is not accurate history to imply that there was no back lash - there was and it was very significant.

In fact its of particular interest even in modern times because some of the arguments used against Evolution in the late 1800s are still being used to this day. Often despite the fact that some of these arguments make no sense in the modern context.

For example I relatively recently had a rather surreal argument with a Jehovah's Witness where she kept bringing up the lack of transitional fossils between Humans and Apes...I kept trying to point out to her that, for the purposes of this argument, any problems with the transitional fossil record where irrelevant since we clearly had fossils in the Genus Homo that predated Homo Sapien Hence I did not need a transitional fossil to show that we descended from primates we would clearly recognize as not Homo Sapien - any descendents would do.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
For example I relatively recently had a rather surreal argument with a Jehovah's Witness where she kept bringing up the lack of transitional fossils between Humans and Apes...

I like when you take such a person to a museum and SHOW them the fossils... and they say, "Well, that one just looks like a monkey to me." Because, you know, actually knowing anything about primate paleontology actually puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to accurate taxonomy; it's much more accurate to get a totally uninformed layperson to make a snap judgment. I get that with geology a lot, too.

So I think the main problem isn't science vs. religion; it's the attitude that knowling less somehow makes you a better expert at everything -- a bizarre glorification of, and reveling in, total willful ignorance and claiming that somehow makes one better able to judge matters than people who actually spend time studying real things.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

String theory does not invalidate religion. Religion is another venue entirely, and I don't have a problem with other people following it. When it's trying to masquerade itself as something other than religion is when you get intellectual fraud.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:


Evolution happened, and when the theory was first revelaed by Darwin the church had no problem with it, they just saw it as part of Gods plan...

This is not an accurate statement. In fact there was wide spread criticism of the theory, mainly motivated on religious grounds, from day one.

Huh, right you are. It seems it was mostly Church of England, and for political reasons that it wasw opposed, but my statement was in fact wrong.

Maybe it was that I read that the Catholic Church didn't have a huge problem with it. I'm certain there was a large set of religious people that didn't have a problem with evolution, but rather natural selection.

Need citation.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Please discuss.

What are their stats? I'll run them through my DnD Fight Simulator™.


Let's say that, as many devout christians and other religiously spiritual individuals postulate, that God/the Almighty/Allah/Supreme Being or whatever other label has been given is indeed omnipotent and omniscient. Being OP and OS and time being meaningless, having just existed and then one day deciding that something was better than nothing, created everything in existence. Then it would stand to logic, that in order to create mankind, God KNEW evolution AND natural selection were the best tools to create. All in all, it's Intelligent Design using evoultion AND natural selection.

I believe in god. However, science should stay out of the realm of faith and faith should stay out of the realm of science. I say faith, because I am of the opinion that religion - ORGANIZED RELIGION was created and exists for one purpose and one purpose only - CONTROL of the masses. Science explains what can be observed objectively, faith 'explains' what is believed - no less true than that which is observed scientifically.


Daniel Gunther 346 wrote:
However, science should stay out of the realm of faith and faith should stay out of the realm of science.

For the most part I agree, but there are areas of considerable overlap. For example, if science indicates that there was no actual historical Adam and Eve couple, then the garden stuff in Genesis becomes metaphorical -- which means that Original Sin is metaphorical as well -- which potentially means that salvation through Jesus as a scapegoat also becomes metaphorical rather than literal -- and that undermines a lot of Christianity, unless some complicated theology is undertaken to reconcile things.

I'm not saying that's impossible to do, but it DOES mean being able to juggle a lot of intertwined concepts, not all of which separate neatly into "science" or "religion" because of interconnections like the one cited.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
So I think the main problem isn't science vs. religion; it's the attitude that knowling less somehow makes you a better expert at everything -- a bizarre glorification of, and reveling in, total willful ignorance and claiming that somehow makes one better able to judge matters than people who actually spend time studying real things.

</thread>

Also, even excepting the regrettably arbitrary and heavy-handed moderation on the boards of late, I would give this thread about 5 hours.


I do not belive a serious discussion can take place as there is little way to disprove someone's faith in religion.

fake conspiracy theory I hope no one belives:
Intelligent design is a plot by infiltrators of the devil to make scientists go to hell. And then to advance science to build demon robot hybrids.


Must it be one or the other?

Oh, wait. Yeah, it is.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Daniel Gunther 346 wrote:


I believe in god. However, science should stay out of the realm of faith and faith should stay out of the realm of science.

I don't have a problem with religion touching on science, the purpose of religion after all is getting grips on reality. What I do have issues with are matters of scientific inquiry and education being subjected to standards that have nothing to do with scientific principle.


doctor_wu wrote:

I do not belive a serious discussion can take place as there is little way to disprove someone's faith in religion.

** spoiler omitted **

DOOM! DOOM! WE'RE ALL DOOMED WHEN OUR INFERNAL MACHINE OVERLORDS BURST FROM THE GATES OF HELL TO OVERWHELM MANKIND WITH HELLIFRE POWERED GADGETS!


Grand Magus wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Please discuss.

What are their stats? I'll run them through my DnD Fight Simulator™.

ID has the same stats as a mite

Evolution has the same stats as a shoggoth.


Then you get to have fun when people say evolution and ID are the same. The fact that we can understand the fundamental physics underlying the universe, they say, implies that something created it intelligently.

Of course, the "planned it all along" theory can also be considered a cop-out.


With out a doubt the Intelligent Design agents do exist and are responsible for creating us. I know this because I can feel it, and anything I feel must be correct.

Also, Intelligent Design-ers created the process of 'Evolution via natural selection' as a tool to create things -- like us. Just like humans can use a hammer as a tool, these Intelligent Design-ers craft and use their own tools.

Furthermore, >HERE< is an actual Intelligent Design agent who has projected himself down into our lower dimensions (11) in an attempt to communicate with us about our (human's) current level of understanding.

We are not there yet, but I can feel it is in the plans that we will be.

(Unless the world ends this weekend.)

That is all.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Daniel Gunther 346 wrote:
However, science should stay out of the realm of faith and faith should stay out of the realm of science.

For the most part I agree, but there are areas of considerable overlap. For example, if science indicates that there was no actual historical Adam and Eve couple, then the garden stuff in Genesis becomes metaphorical -- which means that Original Sin is metaphorical as well -- which potentially means that salvation through Jesus as a scapegoat also becomes metaphorical rather than literal -- and that undermines a lot of Christianity, unless some complicated theology is undertaken to reconcile things.

I'm not saying that's impossible to do, but it DOES mean being able to juggle a lot of intertwined concepts, not all of which separate neatly into "science" or "religion" because of interconnections like the one cited.

To be honest, the non-overlapping magisteria argument only makes sense in a deistic world view.

In a theistic world, the interaction of a god with the physical world would in principle detectable.

As such, with advanced enough science and enough data, it should be able to at least prove that if their is a god, he is Deistic in nature.

The Exchange

vagrant-poet wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. That means every one is wrong and hostile toward the truth.
Please, please, do explain how string theory invalidates both religion AND evolution. I want my eyes opened to the truth. I don't want to be hostile anymore.

I'll explain it just for you:

part one: 'At superposition (superposition being the moment when everything is the same thing) all life is the same life.'

Part two: 'Therefor the Universe was created by life from Superposition (a position of greater possibility that is the Universe in which you live)'.

Part Three: This means (a) That life created itself, and didnt need a God, and (b) Didnt Evolve because the distance between you and any other part of the Universe is always change in possibility and you are it at Superposition.

Part (a) Religion is currently dependant on the idea that a God is a seperate entity and thus creator of Life and the Universe from the inside. But Life Created the Universe from outside.
Part (b) Evolution is a little trickier to deal with because the whole concept of Evolution is dependant on the legitimacy of evolution from one generation to the next over time. However, Time is a consequence of continuous exposure to change in possibility. That occurs at the singularity. That means the perception of Generational evolution is false, and based entirely on the existance of Time as a standard against which every thing can be measured, as opposed to one you can subject others to and cause change in possibility in them.

Still with me? Hope so.


vagrant-poet wrote:


Huh, right you are. It seems it was mostly Church of England, and for political reasons that it wasw opposed, but my statement was in fact wrong.

Maybe it was that I read that the Catholic Church didn't have a huge problem with it. I'm certain there was a large set of religious people that didn't have a problem with evolution, but rather natural selection.

Need citation.

Currently the Catholic Church has no problem with it. Not exactly sure when they formulated their 'God is the cause of all causes' doctrine but there where issues initially.

That said I'm told that, these days, the only students in the USA that enter University with anything resembling an adequate understanding of Evolution by Natural Selection are the students coming out of the Catholic School system. The Public School system is, apparently, so determined to avoid controversy that they skip those chapters.

Hence one gets the rather ironic situation where a religious tinged education is, at least in this instance, better then the secular alternative at teaching science.

The Exchange

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

Not exactly sure when they formulated their 'God is the cause of all causes' doctrine but there where issues initially.

When the ywent looking for someone to blame for free will?

The Exchange

Kirth Gersen wrote:


So I think the main problem isn't science vs. religion; it's the attitude that knowling less somehow makes you a better expert at everything -- a bizarre glorification of, and reveling in, total willful ignorance and claiming that somehow makes one better able to judge matters than people who actually spend time studying real things.

Yes, this is why theologians should not speak on science and Scientists should not speak on religion.

The Exchange

Oh yeah and the only other word useful for this thread and the one that spawned it.

SMURF

The Exchange

What smurfy legs you have there, CJ.

The Exchange

Wolfthulhu wrote:
What smurfy legs you have there, CJ.

Why thank you. They were naturally selected for this oh so Intelligent discourse.


Smurfffffffffffffffffffff...........

Liberty's Edge

Oh yeah. This is going to go well.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
Megan Robertson wrote:

It's a non-question.

That's not a cop-out, by the way. It's a case of using the wrong tools for the job.

Theology is the wrong tool to debate scientific theories.
Science is the wrong tool to try to see if 'God' is real or not.

Thats not entirely accurate.

At superposition all life is the same life. I cant say life at Superposition is necesarily intelligent but it created the Universe from outside the Universe.

String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. That means every one is wrong and hostile toward the truth.

Dig that awesome science.

The parakeets need alcohol. Red green blue black king snakes on top of the mountain.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
So I think the main problem isn't science vs. religion; it's the attitude that knowling less somehow makes you a better expert at everything -- a bizarre glorification of, and reveling in, total willful ignorance and claiming that somehow makes one better able to judge matters than people who actually spend time studying real things.

</thread>

Also, even excepting the regrettably arbitrary and heavy-handed moderation on the boards of late, I would give this thread about 5 hours.

Taking bets neeeyowww.

I've got five hours, five hours, anyone here for four?

Collecting money in five. I'll be here all week, folks.

Liberty's Edge

Crimson Jester wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


So I think the main problem isn't science vs. religion; it's the attitude that knowling less somehow makes you a better expert at everything -- a bizarre glorification of, and reveling in, total willful ignorance and claiming that somehow makes one better able to judge matters than people who actually spend time studying real things.

Yes, this is why theologians should not speak on science and Scientists should not speak on religion.

This is why theologians should not speak on science (unless they come from a strong science background and still view their science background as valid) and Scientists should not speak on religion (unless they themselves are religious and give their religion credence).

The Exchange

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


So I think the main problem isn't science vs. religion; it's the attitude that knowling less somehow makes you a better expert at everything -- a bizarre glorification of, and reveling in, total willful ignorance and claiming that somehow makes one better able to judge matters than people who actually spend time studying real things.

Yes, this is why theologians should not speak on science and Scientists should not speak on religion.
This is why theologians should not speak on science (unless they come from a strong science background and still view their science background as valid) and Scientists should not speak on religion (unless they themselves are religious and give their religion credence).

Obviously there are always exceptions. Some of the biggest discoveries in science were done by very religious individuals.


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
So I think the main problem isn't science vs. religion; it's the attitude that knowling less somehow makes you a better expert at everything -- a bizarre glorification of, and reveling in, total willful ignorance and claiming that somehow makes one better able to judge matters than people who actually spend time studying real things.

</thread>

Also, even excepting the regrettably arbitrary and heavy-handed moderation on the boards of late, I would give this thread about 5 hours.

Taking bets neeeyowww.

I've got five hours, five hours, anyone here for four?

Collecting money in five. I'll be here all week, folks.

I can close it in 5 minutes if you want. I can also get myself banned.


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


So I think the main problem isn't science vs. religion; it's the attitude that knowling less somehow makes you a better expert at everything -- a bizarre glorification of, and reveling in, total willful ignorance and claiming that somehow makes one better able to judge matters than people who actually spend time studying real things.

Yes, this is why theologians should not speak on science and Scientists should not speak on religion.
This is why theologians should not speak on science (unless they come from a strong science background and still view their science background as valid) and Scientists should not speak on religion (unless they themselves are religious and give their religion credence).

I will now deliver my lecture on sobriety....

*hic*

F#~$ it. Pass the JD.


yellowdingo wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. That means every one is wrong and hostile toward the truth.
Please, please, do explain how string theory invalidates both religion AND evolution. I want my eyes opened to the truth. I don't want to be hostile anymore.

I'll explain it just for you:

part one: 'At superposition (superposition being the moment when everything is the same thing) all life is the same life.'

Part two: 'Therefor the Universe was created by life from Superposition (a position of greater possibility that is the Universe in which you live)'.

Part Three: This means (a) That life created itself, and didnt need a God, and (b) Didnt Evolve because the distance between you and any other part of the Universe is always change in possibility and you are it at Superposition.

Part (a) Religion is currently dependant on the idea that a God is a seperate entity and thus creator of Life and the Universe from the inside. But Life Created the Universe from outside.
Part (b) Evolution is a little trickier to deal with because the whole concept of Evolution is dependant on the legitimacy of evolution from one generation to the next over time. However, Time is a consequence of continuous exposure to change in possibility. That occurs at the singularity. That means the perception of Generational evolution is false, and based entirely on the existance of Time as a standard against which every thing can be measured, as opposed to one you can subject others to and cause change in possibility in them.

Still with me? Hope so.

Oh I have a question! Where do boobies fit in?

Scarab Sages

Mmmmm....boobies.


yellowdingo wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:
String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. That means every one is wrong and hostile toward the truth.
Please, please, do explain how string theory invalidates both religion AND evolution. I want my eyes opened to the truth. I don't want to be hostile anymore.

I'll explain it just for you:

part one: 'At superposition (superposition being the moment when everything is the same thing) all life is the same life.'

Part two: 'Therefor the Universe was created by life from Superposition (a position of greater possibility that is the Universe in which you live)'.

Part Three: This means (a) That life created itself, and didnt need a God, and (b) Didnt Evolve because the distance between you and any other part of the Universe is always change in possibility and you are it at Superposition.

Part (a) Religion is currently dependant on the idea that a God is a seperate entity and thus creator of Life and the Universe from the inside. But Life Created the Universe from outside.

Part (b) Evolution is a little trickier to deal with because the whole concept of Evolution is dependant on the legitimacy of evolution from one generation to the next over time. However, Time is a consequence of continuous exposure to change in possibility. That occurs at the singularity. That means the perception of Generational evolution is false, and based entirely on the existance of Time as a standard against which every thing can be measured, as opposed to one you can subject others to and cause change in possibility in them.

Still with me? Hope so.

This is deeply amusing. (I assume your joking, right?)

I will just say, as I can't let wonky physics slide without some comment, that you don't apply theories like that to all things and everything. Life =/= Universe or matter. I suppose you could argue that matter created itself, you could certainly prove that time isn't a perfect or standard metric for anything. BUT you can use it as a measure nonetheless, especially on local scales and sublight speeds, without supremely large gravitational effects. And life is something totally different to matter. Evolution is quite factual and string theory does not, nor cannot, invalidate it. Also, technically no physics can invalidate a wholly supernatural God that doesn't affect the natural world, because physics can only apply to the natural world.

Also, string theory has yet to be proven, or show any testable results. I myself am not entirely sold on it, or the Higgs boson, it would be nice and neat if we found them and proved them to be true, but I think thats the problem. Their neat, we want them to be true, doesn't mean they are.

/pedantry

As you were. Boobies!

Liberty's Edge

Ahhh... string theory, and branes, and all that are fun concepts to play with, aren't they?

Consider this:

The believing-in-a-deity scientist says, "By my work and that of my fellow scientists, we see more and more of how the universe works. Isn't God clever?"

The non-believing-in-a-deity scientist says, "By my work and that of my fellow scientists, we see more and more of how the universe works. Who needs God now?"

THAT'S why science is the wrong tool to go god-hunting with.


... still waiting for the boobies.


Kruelaid wrote:
... still waiting for the boobies.

{flashes Kruely}


To reiterate from the Ron Paul thread:

If Ron Paul or you or anyone else doesn't want to believe in evolution, that's fine with me. But evolution has passed and continues to pass the scientific model; that's why it's taught in science class. Creationism/ID isn't science because it doesn't pass the same rigorous models and testing... so it shouldn't be taught it in science class. If the school offers a Theology class, I think it'd be fine being taught there. A PotUS candidate or legislator calling it science when it clearly isn't concerns me.


SQUAWK!


Crimson Jester wrote:
Obviously there are always exceptions. Some of the biggest discoveries in science were done by very religious individuals.

And some of the biggest discoveries in religion...wait, nevermind.

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Intelligent Design vs. Evolution via Natural Selection All Messageboards