PDA

View Full Version : Evolution vs. Intelligent Design


Netto Azure
February 15th, 2009, 11:52 AM
To celebrate last week's Birthday of Charles Darwin let us go back to this never ending public debate on Evolution or Intelligent design (or Creationism, etc.) and also because PC likes controversial stuff. XD

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online:

evolution (noun)
1: a process of change in a certain direction <tumor evolution and progression — I. J. Fidler et al>
2 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

and

intelligent design (noun)
Date:1847
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

Trap-Eds
February 15th, 2009, 12:10 PM
I support evolution, but I'm not saying why because then it'll eventually conclude into a huge argument....

Oh, what the heck? I support evolution becuase it's kinda hard for me to believe that some random supreme being or beings created everything. Unless you think of atoms, cells and molecules as gods....*shot*

ShinjisLover
February 15th, 2009, 12:14 PM
I more support evolution. I'm more scientifically minded, I suppose.

Agent Cobalt
February 15th, 2009, 12:17 PM
I "support" intelligent design, if not outright creationism. I used to believe in evolution years ago when I was an atheist, but stopped after I started to think it was illogical and unfounded. But now I firmly believe that whether it all came into being in a short period of time or changed and morphed over a long period of time, God had a hand in the making of this world. I believe in a God that creates laws for the universe to follow, a God that set this world into motion, a God that created all that exists, and a God that intervenes in the lives of man. I believe in a Supreme Architect of the Universe.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
February 15th, 2009, 12:22 PM
Being an atheist, Intelligent design is a bit of a problem for me :D

Evolution is closer, but it still has flaws. Its by no means a perfect theory.

Metatron
February 15th, 2009, 01:32 PM
I believe strongly in evolution. Unlike the theory of "intelligent design," it actually has scientific evidence to back it up.

The idea that some magical creature that exists somewhere far away that none of us have ever made contact with before created all life on this planet just seems..ridiculous to me.

Not to knock any of the more religious people here, though. You're entitled to believe whatever you want; don't let me try and persuade your views.

Gary, the Magic Fairy
February 15th, 2009, 01:33 PM
Neither.

I find it hard to believe that someone snapped their fingers and created life, but I also find it just as hard to believe that microscopic life magically appeared, then somehow became fish that eventually sprouted legs and started walking on land.

I honestly don't care either way. We're here now, and probably have better things to worry about, so I try not to spend too much time wondering why.

Went
February 15th, 2009, 01:38 PM
Well, since Evolution is the most backuped theory (Scientific theory: set of laws based on real evidence and in experience, highest level of "fact" a scientific claim can be) in History, while Creationism is backuped by a 2000 years old book... I'm going with the first one.

If science can ever prove the second one, then I'll start looking at it from a more respectful point of view, though.

PD: Kenji, great way to look at it XD

Xairmo
February 15th, 2009, 01:56 PM
I believe more in evolution.

Though if there is a God out there, I believe that Ze would have created us with the ability to adapt to our surroundings and eventually evolve.

Milke
February 15th, 2009, 02:11 PM
I said intelligent design, but that's not really true. There should be an "other" category - Christianity isn't really the same as that. =/

Gumball Watterson
February 15th, 2009, 02:54 PM
In my opinion, creationism was done by hyper advancing evolution by a pair of apes.

No, I am not saying Adam and Eve were cavemen.

Cassino
February 15th, 2009, 03:25 PM
I never saw the worth of bothering to care.

No opinion; none of the above; other; not applicable.

Eucliffe
February 15th, 2009, 03:37 PM
I more or less support evolution. After all, it fits right alongside with natural selection :3 (and I just like to mention natural selection every so often XD)

I never really knew there was such a debate, but yeah, I place my money on evolution, even though this isn't a betting thing and whatnot. I just felt like saying that XD

Sublime
February 15th, 2009, 06:06 PM
I'm not really one for evolution at all. I just don't see how if we evolved from primeapes primeates, then why aren't they still evolving?

I don't really have much more to say, except that I'm a full-on Creationist.

Metatron
February 15th, 2009, 06:35 PM
I'm not really one for evolution at all. I just don't see how if we evolved from primeapes primeates, then why aren't they still evolving?


Well technically, humans are considered primates, so...

If you're talking about the idea that humans evolved from apes, then that's actually not true. The theory of evolution states that humans had evolved from the same common ancestor as apes, which branched off into several different organisms, humans being one, and apes being another.

Sublime
February 15th, 2009, 06:38 PM
Well technically, humans are considered primates, so...

If you're talking about the idea that humans evolved from apes, then that's actually not true. The theory of evolution states that humans had evolved from the same common ancestor as apes, which branched off into several different organisms, humans being one, and apes being another.

Ah, I see. I never knew that.
I guess that makes more sense though.

Capt. Couch
February 15th, 2009, 10:06 PM
Between the two, I support evolution. Evolution has scientific evidence to prove the theory. The constantly-changing and newly-forming strains of bacteria and viruses are an example of evolution occurring right this very minute.

The idea of a deity creating man has been kept through centuries, through most, if not all religions, but since both major and minor variations are present, there is no way to prove that your religion states the fact correctly. Intelligent design lacks basic proof to prove its own theories, something I've noted since I was young.

joey2joey
February 15th, 2009, 10:30 PM
I'm not really one for evolution at all. I just don't see how if we evolved from primeapes primeates, then why aren't they still evolving?

I don't really have much more to say, except that I'm a full-on Creationist.

You've got a lot to learn.


I support evolution because it has so much evidence (DNA, viral resistant microorganisms)
While intelligent design has very little.

*looks at all the atheists* It looks like I'm not the only one who is a member of America's most distrusted minority on PC.


P.S. Intelligent Design was first coined in a book called "Of Panda's and People" and was originally stated as creationism, but to try and get it into the school system, the word creationism and such, was replaced with "intelligent design"

ErickaVolt
February 16th, 2009, 03:07 AM
I support Evolution. Human species survived through genes and so does animals. I really don't believe that there's this "God" who created us all. Everything in this universe existed mysteriously. Everything has ending and you can do nothing to change that.

♣Gawain♣
February 16th, 2009, 03:31 AM
I always support Darwin's natural selection, on how an organism adapt and evolve at certain times, whether the condition is favorable for their survival. Intelligence comes next after the evolution of man.

TRIFORCE89
February 16th, 2009, 06:00 AM
I support both to an extent. I believe in evolution, not the Adam and Eve story - but...even though I follow evolution I still believe God to be the start of it in some fashion.

icomeanon6
February 16th, 2009, 09:21 AM
I'm another one of those weird people who believes in both Christianity and evolution. The way I see it: God's a programmer, not a painter. In his infinite wisdom, God made a system that would use a combination of random variables and survival of the fittest to have intelligent life develop on its own over time. The story of Adam and Eve would represent the time when humanity had evolved to the point that they could contain a soul and have free will.

Netto Azure
February 16th, 2009, 09:31 AM
I'm another one of those weird people who believes in both Christianity and evolution. The way I see it: God's a programmer, not a painter. In his infinite wisdom, God made a system that would use a combination of random variables and survival of the fittest to have intelligent life develop on its own over time. The story of Adam and Eve would represent the time when humanity had evolved to the point that they could contain a soul and have free will.

I agree completely with what you have said. Finally someone has put into context what I believe. I've been looking for a way to reconcile both and you've done it.

I should have put 2 more options in the poll. Since I voted for evolution. XD
Could a mod add: Both, and No opinion. =P

Edit: It's quite the misconception that the use of the word "Theory" is the same as we use it in everyday language. It's different in the scientific community.

latioslegends
February 16th, 2009, 11:14 PM
I'm a bit mixed opinion here.

I throw my faith into "intelligent design". I use to be a agnostic, at least during my freshmen year when Biology was really playing it's roll in my courses. Now I just don't find evolution, the best place for my faith, for one it's still a theory with gaps, and problems with even fossil records from what I've learned. Even if it is true I would firmly believe that it was God's way of creating life, evolution just seems too "perfect" when it comes to species evolving, that divine intervension must have happened. I rather believe in my religon that man has trusted for hundreds of years (Catholic), than theories.

Plus-
I find absolutly no love in the science of evolution.

UltimaLink007
February 16th, 2009, 11:18 PM
Evolution or a combination of both, where a "higher being" may have created the world, but they allowed it to develop, change and evolve untouched and entirely on its own.

Cherrim
February 17th, 2009, 09:56 AM
Evolution or a combination of both, where a "higher being" may have created the world, but they allowed it to develop, change and evolve untouched and entirely on its own.
I agree with this. While I'm undecided (or rather, don't care in the least) whether there's a higher being or not, if there is, I believe it just set the gears in motion for evolution.

Other creationist theories make no sense to me.

.Ozymandias
February 17th, 2009, 10:18 AM
I'm an evolutionist. I'm a scientist through and through, and to me the argument for evolution is stronger than it is for creationalism (but remember, this is my opinion - I'm not dictating my opinion to people, and my biology teacher at school tried for years to convince me that creationalism was correct).

Starom
February 17th, 2009, 11:20 AM
Evolution for me - there's plentiful evidence for it! Plus, I dislike the concept of the whole Creation Story and the whole idea of a creator...

Tokin
February 18th, 2009, 06:19 AM
Evolution vs Intelligent design? are the two truly exclusive, I believe in evolution, evidence supports it, and creationism is just not possible, now, intelligent design, I believe in it to an extent, I don't believe we have a single creator who designed everything, but that life itself and the universe possesses such a design, balanced, adapted to its environment, a symbiotic relationship with everything else, I agree with Ligntning's post, life occured, and an external force set sentience in motion, providing us with what we call our souls and conscience

Aurafire
February 18th, 2009, 08:12 AM
Although there are still many mysteries about how life on earth began, I feel that evolution (without influence from a higher power) is the most logical explanation. You can't really say that evolution didn't/doesn't occur...There's evidence all around us in the form of fossilized skeletons of early hominids and such. I think the real argument here is whether life spontaneously appeared and then evolved, or as others have said, was influenced by a higher power to set the path for evolution. I do believe that there is a scientific explanation for all of life's unanswered questions. However, I feel that some of these questions will never be answered, no matter what kind of technology we have. That won't really be enough to make me believe in intelligent design though...Some things wil just never have a definite answer.

Science and evolution can be proven. Intelligent design can't or hasn't established any solid evidence. So I have to go with my buddy science on this one ^___^

Penguin13
February 18th, 2009, 08:23 AM
Evolution plain and simple.

I mean, how else could we have gotten here, magic? I think not!

Corvus of the Black Night
February 18th, 2009, 08:24 AM
Why isn't "both" one of the poll suggestions?

Can't God be the "why" and evolution be the "how"?

Hm...

Penguin13
February 18th, 2009, 08:31 AM
Why isn't "both" one of the poll suggestions?

Can't God be the "why" and evolution be the "how"?

Hm...

To accept evolution would mean that an omnipotent being exists, and science says it doesn't.

To accept God would mean that evolution happened in 2000 years, and that rocks from 4 billion years ago don't actually exist.

Oh, and intelligent design is such a crock. It has absolutely no evidence to back it up. At least creationism has a really old book.

Tokin
February 18th, 2009, 08:33 AM
To accept evolution would mean that an omnipotent being exists, and science says it doesn't.

To accept God would mean that evolution happened in 2000 years, and that rocks from 4 billion years ago don't actually exist.
note that the other poll option says "intelligent design", not "creationaism", I agree with him, and I aid in my post the two aren't mutually exclusive

Penguin13
February 18th, 2009, 08:37 AM
note that the other poll option says "intelligent design", not "creationaism", I agree with him, and I aid in my post the two aren't mutually exclusive


Yes, but God is to creationism as generic omnipotent being is to intelligent design.

Tokin
February 18th, 2009, 08:40 AM
Yes, but God is to creationism as generic omnipotent being is to intelligent design.
indeed, yet you used arguments that are relevant to creationism, not this theory, also read my post up in this thread, and you'l see my views on this^^

UltimaLink007
February 18th, 2009, 09:42 AM
I agree with this. While I'm undecided (or rather, don't care in the least) whether there's a higher being or not, if there is, I believe it just set the gears in motion for evolution.

Other creationist theories make no sense to me.
I actually believe this is called something like the "Clockmaker Theory," and was believed if I remember correctly by Sir Isaac Newton. Where God, like a Clockmaker created the universe, and as the Clockmaker leaves their clocks to work on their own after they're built, God left the universe as it was to develop on its own. I'll try to look it up later, it was either in a video or my World History textbook last year for some reason...

Corvus of the Black Night
February 18th, 2009, 10:03 AM
To accept evolution would mean that an omnipotent being exists, and science says it doesn't.

To accept God would mean that evolution happened in 2000 years, and that rocks from 4 billion years ago don't actually exist.

Oh, and intelligent design is such a crock. It has absolutely no evidence to back it up. At least creationism has a really old book.
That's not what I said. Sometimes the Bible can be full of sh*t. Intellegent Design and Creationism is too.

I said that God could have sparked life, but it was evolution that drove it beyond the first bacterium. I believe in God, I believe He started life but I believe He just went off and did other things when life was evolving and doin' it's own thing.

Besides, God doesn't have to be a "being". He can be a force, the laws that hold the universe together or even every single little particle that makes up the entire universe. You also don't have to believe everything in the Bible to believe in a god, and you don't have to believe in their interpretation of it.

Isn't it nice being an individual?

parallelzero
February 18th, 2009, 10:11 AM
I actually believe this is called something like the "Clockmaker Theory," and was believed if I remember correctly by Sir Isaac Newton. Where God, like a Clockmaker created the universe, and as the Clockmaker leaves their clocks to work on their own after they're built, God left the universe as it was to develop on its own. I'll try to look it up later, it was either in a video or my World History textbook last year for some reason...

I'm pretty sure this is also called deism.

I can't remember if I posted in here already not, but I'm on the "who gives a dang!?" side of things. There's better things we can be focusing our resources on.

Went
February 18th, 2009, 10:12 AM
To accept evolution would mean that an omnipotent being exists, and science says it doesn't.

Hum hum where does exactly God takes part in evolution? I think creating the world is something that came before evolution, meaning it's not part of it (as everyone says, they say "God put the beings and they started evolving, AKA God isn't involved in evolution itself).

And as far as I know, science also has an atheistic explanation for that (which I support), the Big Bang.

And David, that's correct for what I know.

Aether
February 18th, 2009, 03:27 PM
I believe in a bit of both. I will say I do not believe that the universe was born from a simple 'bang.' Or that it was the work of one 'God' or any of the stuff that the torah, bible, or the quran foretells.

I do believe in a system of divinity that laid the groundwork for everything, however.
I think the meaning of existence is something that the human mind is not meant to comprehend.

Netto Azure
February 18th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Why isn't "both" one of the poll suggestions?

Can't God be the "why" and evolution be the "how"?

Hm...

I know I should have added the two other options as I said before...
I would ask one of the modz but I'm too afraid to do so now.

I never really thought about it while creating this thread...but now I agree with you...

Buoysel
February 18th, 2009, 04:04 PM
I believe in intelligent design, I see to many holes in the evolution theory.

Penguin13
February 18th, 2009, 07:47 PM
I believe in intelligent design, I see to many holes in the evolution theory.

Like what holes?

p.s. "Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations."

Infamous Amos
February 18th, 2009, 09:00 PM
I believe in intellegent design and evolution as true...
I do not believe evolotion as the origin of species.

I'll even go as far to say that humans today may not look like the humans 6000 years ago, but they were always human, never came from apes or pigs or whatever.

Evolution is a real process that happens every day.

Lets say we have one group of 998 rats in a house that are succeptable to a certain type of poison (lets call it Chemical Y), and two rats that are not. An exterminator comes in and set up traps in the house with Chemical Y and kills all the 998 rats who are succeptable.

These two rats breed and over time, we will have 1,000 rats in the house that are invulnerable to Chemical Y, and it no longer affects them. We will have to find another chemical to kill them with. Chemical Z may kill them all, but there is a possibility that there are rats that have mutated in the house that are not vulnerable to Chemical Z, and the process starts again.

That is the only thing about evolution that I belive to be true.

mystletainn
February 18th, 2009, 09:41 PM
http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2008/10/michael%20jackson%20gif.gif

This thread should get interesting.

I love how people say humans evolving from monkeys is ridiculous when creationism states that we were created from mud and a rib (male and females respectively). But I know this thread deals with intelligent design, not creationism. From the numerous research I've read on evolution, it just makes too much sense. Intelligent design just seems like something someone through together when they realized "Crap, creationism sounds like crap when compared to the theory of evolution. Let's make up something that sounds half credible so people have something they believe in."

Plus, I don't know why people are so offended by us descending from monkeys. They're freaking awesome.

txteclipse
February 18th, 2009, 09:56 PM
Seeing as the big bang is a mathematical impossibility, and the current evolution theory depends on the theory of the big bang, I side with intelligent design. That and it's more logical, as far as I'm concerned.

Infamous Amos
February 18th, 2009, 10:09 PM
From the numerous research I've read on evolution, it just makes too much sense.

Hmm...
What do you make of the theory of Irreducible Complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity)?


Plus, I don't know why people are so offended by us descending from monkeys. They're freaking awesome.
Actually, from what I have been hearing from evolutionists recently it is that they both came from a common ancestor, not that man came from monkeys.

Seeing as the big bang is a mathematical impossibility, and the current evolution theory depends on the theory of the big bang, I side with intelligent design. That and it's more logical, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree, but, mathmatical impossibility? Please explain.


I can't remember if I posted in here already not, but I'm on the "who gives a dang!?" side of things. There's better things we can be focusing our resources on.
An unexamined life is not worth living.
--Socrates

Went
February 19th, 2009, 05:46 AM
Seeing as the big bang is a mathematical impossibility, and the current evolution theory depends on the theory of the big bang, I side with intelligent design. That and it's more logical, as far as I'm concerned.

How is us being created by a higher all-powerful being of whose existence we don't have any empirical evidence more senseful that the most backuped scientific theory in History?

And evolution isn't based on Big-Bang. Big-Bang explain how the universe was created. But we are talking about how the living beings changed from the simplest cells into all the kind of beings we see nowaday, and that can be explained separatedly from Big-Bang.

Corvus of the Black Night
February 19th, 2009, 05:57 AM
I think that God is actually a part of all of us, like the energy that happens to form the first life. I think that He is more of a abstract idea rather than a figure, and that He is what makes the world (or rather, the universe) go round rather than be silent.

Maybe God is actually what made the soul (which by my definition is the energy of life, or rather energy that makes life possible), and that's how life began. That's probably why it's rather difficult to create even simple life by mixing chemicals together. Maybe the soul was created when the first bolt of lightning sparked the first bactirium to come to life. This soul developed as the species developed, helping create the wide spectrum of life we see today. I think it's a much better explaination that either just Evolution or just Creationism/Intellegent Design.

If it was true that the soul and the, well, best way to put it would be "Will of God", then that would give all life a rather beautiful mutual connection, moreso than even evolution, hmm? It gives you respect for your surroundings to think that every blade of grass, every insect, even every little microorganism under the microscope is its own life, its own soul. It makes you think of the world in a completely different way.

And no, I'm not a vegetarian. Even though animals have souls to me, I'll still eat them because I need to in order to survive. And they're yummy XD. However, I'll only try to eat animals that have been humanely treated, such as eating only cage-free eggs or beef that was raised in a farm rather than a factory.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
February 19th, 2009, 06:47 AM
Hmm...
What do you make of the theory of Irreducible Complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity)?

it still doesn't solve the problem that intelligent design relies on an omnipotent designer, while omnipotence is logically impossible

I agree, but, mathmatical impossibility? Please explain.

I'm not entirely sure, but txteclipse may be referring to the fact that something cannot come from nothing. However, this is a flawed argument as the big bang theory states that there was always this infinitely dense mass which became the universe, not that the universe just exploded into existence.


An unexamined life is not worth living.
--Socrates

but in an unexamined life, you can still eat chocolate, right?

txteclipse
February 19th, 2009, 07:48 AM
I'm not entirely sure, but txteclipse may be referring to the fact that something cannot come from nothing. However, this is a flawed argument as the big bang theory states that there was always this infinitely dense mass which became the universe, not that the universe just exploded into existence.
Nope. The explanation is actually right there in your post. An infinitely dense mass cannot become finitely dense, i.e. a singularity cannot become a universe. It's one of the basics of mathematics that an infinite number divided by any finite number is still infinity.

Tinhead Bruce
February 19th, 2009, 07:51 AM
Can you reason God into a mathematical equation though?

txteclipse
February 19th, 2009, 07:52 AM
Can you reason God into a mathematical equation though?
I don't need to. God is not defined by the physical plane, and therefore doesn't have to follow its rules.

Tinhead Bruce
February 19th, 2009, 08:09 AM
Neither does the big bang. It created the universe..... laws were not the same or relevant at that time.

Buoysel
February 19th, 2009, 09:27 AM
I don't think this should turn into a debate, this thread was created (i think) for us just to say what we believe in.

However since I was asked a question, I will answer it, but I am no way getting into a debate.

Like what holes?You take your pic, and I have a problem with it, however some of the bigger issues I find are the whole thing about us coming from monkeys, and the monkeys coming from a rock.

Neither does the big bang. It created the universe..... laws were not the same or relevant at that time.

So I believe in the beginning... God, and you believe in the beginning... dirt?

Mezase Master
February 19th, 2009, 09:38 AM
Neither.

I find it hard to believe that someone snapped their fingers and created life, but I also find it just as hard to believe that microscopic life magically appeared, then somehow became fish that eventually sprouted legs and started walking on land.

I honestly don't care either way. We're here now, and probably have better things to worry about, so I try not to spend too much time wondering why.Holy crap, this is exactly what I think. Thank you for typing that so I didn't have to.

It's really hard to figure out, because if it's evolution, you have to wonder where the species came from to begin with, and if it's intelligent design, you have to wonder where the "God" came from. If I had to choose, I'd go with evolution, but it's really not important to me, just like religion in general.

txteclipse
February 19th, 2009, 11:01 AM
Neither does the big bang. It created the universe..... laws were not the same or relevant at that time.
Going on that alone, any scientist would tell you that the big bang theory is therefore unscientific and not viable. If it can't be supported scientifically, then it is not a valid theory, according to scientific practice.

Tinhead Bruce
February 19th, 2009, 12:12 PM
Right, but there are other things to back it up. There aren't many valid things to back creationism and/or intelligent design up.

Buoysel
February 19th, 2009, 12:17 PM
Right, but there are other things to back it up. There aren't many valid things to back creationism and/or intelligent design up.

Question: Have you ever even taken the time to try and find some?

And were is some credible proof of evolution?

Just look at both sides before you make a decision; it's like crossing the street, you always want to look both ways.

Tinhead Bruce
February 19th, 2009, 12:25 PM
I look at both sides of everything worth consideration, including this.

Ziraider
February 19th, 2009, 12:53 PM
lmao dude we just got done learning about charles darwin weird.

Penguin13
February 19th, 2009, 01:48 PM
And were is some credible proof of evolution?

Hm.. How about finches? They're in the same family, but because of their varying environments, they evolved into the different genera we see today. Their beaks changed to suit the different abundances of different foods, like insects or plants.

Tell me that's not credible proof.

Infamous Amos
February 19th, 2009, 02:08 PM
it still doesn't solve the problem that intelligent design relies on an omnipotent designer, while omnipotence is logically impossible
This does not make the theory of Irreducible Complexity any less true or more true, does it? Or am I wrong.

Hm.. How about finches? They're in the same family, but because of their varying environments, they evolved into the different genera we see today. Their beaks changed to suit the different abundances of different foods, like insects or plants.

Tell me that's not credible proof.
This proves evolution, but does not prove evolution as the Origin of Species as Darwin suggests. And did they evolve into something totally diffrent? No, they were still finches, the only thing that changed was the size of their beaks.

Can you reason God into a mathematical equation though?

According to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, a formal system (such as a computer program or mathmatical equation in this case) can not prove all true statements.




but in an unexamined life, you can still eat chocolate, right?
Socrates would be ashamed >:(
No chocolate for you!

I don't think this should turn into a debate, this thread was created (i think) for us just to say what we believe in.
Baw...
That would take all the fun out of it for me :<

Penguin13
February 19th, 2009, 02:16 PM
This proves evolution, but does not prove evolution as the Origin of Species as Darwin suggests. And did they evolve into something totally diffrent? No, they were still finches, the only thing that changed was the size of their beaks.

He asked for proof of evolution, not the origin of species.
I can't give you proof of the origin of species because I am not a scientist, and couldn't present evidence in an empirical way to you, as well as the fact that I don't fully understand it.

Buoysel
February 19th, 2009, 03:01 PM
Hm.. How about finches? They're in the same family, but because of their varying environments, they evolved into the different genera we see today. Their beaks changed to suit the different abundances of different foods, like insects or plants.

Tell me that's not credible proof.

Hey genius, you still have fences; That didn't proof squat. Now please tell me how the finches came from dinos.

What you just stated is known as microevolution, and this is the exact same reason we got big dogs, and little dogs. We get different breeds of dogs, how does this explain how dogs or finches come from a soup?


Oh, and on the math thing, if you programed a computer, would have the right calculations to "think" about you?

Infamous Amos
February 19th, 2009, 03:16 PM
Hey genius, you still have fences; That didn't proof squat. Now please tell me how the finches came from dinos.

What you just stated is known as microevolution, and this is the exact same reason we got big dogs, and little dogs. We get different breeds of dogs, how does this explain how dogs or finches come from a soup?

No need to be rude about it, but yes, I agree with that 100%.



Oh, and on the math thing, if you programed a computer, would have the right calculations to "think" about you?
Not sure what you are trying to say. :<
Please reword.

An-chan
February 19th, 2009, 04:03 PM
Nope. The explanation is actually right there in your post. An infinitely dense mass cannot become finitely dense, i.e. a singularity cannot become a universe. It's one of the basics of mathematics that an infinite number divided by any finite number is still infinity.

Actually, bu the way, you shouldn't take the "infinitely dense" part so literally. We only call it "infinitely dense" because we have no actual undersanding of how dense it was. "Infinitely small" and "infinitely dense" are both expressions that don't quite mean what they seem to mean. Before Big Bang, the matter was in an extremely, extremely dense state.

Going on that alone, any scientist would tell you that the big bang theory is therefore unscientific and not viable. If it can't be supported scientifically, then it is not a valid theory, according to scientific practice.

Here I also have to disagree.

All scientists agree that we do not know what kind of laws were in action at that time. We can go as far back as three minutes after the inflation started, but before that, we absoltely have no idea what was going on. The universe was so hot and dense that we cannot recreate the situation in laboratories or mathematical formulas... We just have no idea how matter reacts in a state like that. Yet it's still a valid theory, because the results of the Big Bang can very clearly be prooved scientifically.

That kind of makes it all sound a bit suspicious, right?

However, there are a lot of credible evidence about the Big Bang. The fact that our universe is inflating, the fact that cosmic radiation and matter in space is scatterd unevenly, the fact that our universe keeps developing constantly. In a way, it's like evolution in a lot bigger scale: stars, systems and galaxies develop constantly, always recycling matter and creating heavier chemical elements.

Evolution is precisely why I find it so hard to believe ID theories. If we truly had an intelligent designer, why didn't it make everything perfect? Why does the world constantly develop in ways even the mankind has been able to observe? Why doesn't it stay the way it was?

Another important point is this entropy. The energy in our universe is constantly scattering. The amount of energy is always the same, of course, but because of entropy, it will one day be evenly scattered troughout the universe in a form that no-one can take advantage of. That's a simple, sad fact. Our universe cannot excist forever, because entropy keeps breaking matter apart and changing the energy into something that can't be of any use anymore.

Why would an intelligent designer do something like that? Why would someone - an intelligent someone, no less - create a world that is destined to die one day?

No doubt, one day the temperature of the whole universe will be below the absolute zero, because inevidently all movement stops one day (and because all movement has not stopped when temperature reaches the absolute zero - I learned this a while ago). This will take an immense amount of time, but it will happen.

That's why I can't believe there was an intelligent designer.

...And also because the massive evidence supporting evolution, of course. But maybe I'll only post one rant at a time to spare you guys.

Also, I don't mean to offend anyone who believes in ID. I'm stating why I believe what I believe and maybe hoping I can change your minds. So, don't be mad at me.

What you just stated is known as microevolution, and this is the exact same reason we got big dogs, and little dogs. We get different breeds of dogs, how does this explain how dogs or finches come from a soup?

...And microevolution leads to the bigger evolution. It just takes *a lot* more time. But, I quarantee you, if you'd sit and watch the dogs for a millenia, they would evolve into something that doesn't look like a dog anymore.

Besides, evolution is not species turning into one another. Evolution is species evolving into a more efficient species, sometimes becoming undistinguishable from what it started from. Microevolution is evolution. Please don't think that evolution means the thing when suddently a bird pops out of a dinosaur egg, because that's not it at all.

And about the "soup" thing...

The hard part of evolution is of course is the beginning of life, but the only thing hard about that is grasping the sheer simplicity of it.
Life first started from a molecule that could copy itself. From there, began evolution, and the little molecule bacame RNA. You can guess how it went from there, really. This has actually been partially proved already: a group of scientists recreated the conditions on Earth around the time life began, and exposed it to heat and UV-rays. And what do you know, amino acids were created! It's actually pretty interesting if you want to know more.

J
February 19th, 2009, 04:40 PM
We could go on and on and oooon about the Big Bang theory and the origins of the universe and blaaaah forever and not reach a conclusion.
Frankly, I don't really see a connection between the Big Bang and our evolution/designthing discussion (other than the fact that they both take place in the Universe).

Anyways, back on topic now: If you were to suppose that an omnipotent being "invented" the Universe, then where did this guy come from? Did someone else "invent" him as well?

"Oh, but this guy is god; he's too cool for logic!"

Now, this line of thought can lead to a spiral of brainbustingly pointless arguments, which will most likely turn this thread into quite an ugly scene. So, moving along now...

I don't need to. God is not defined by the physical plane, and therefore doesn't have to follow its rules.

Hm. That's odd. I could have sworn that a few seconds ago you were ranting about mathematics and how the Big Bang is theoretically impossible. Must be another case of "Too Cool For Logic"!

Uh, me? Darwinism all the way. :(

Virtual Chatot
February 19th, 2009, 04:47 PM
Sure, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and I believe that he did not use evolution in creation. I don't believe that you can use Science to try and prove that God created everything and not evolution. How can you explain that which is supernatural with that which is natural? You can't

:|

Amachi
February 19th, 2009, 04:51 PM
I believe the sun should never set upon an argument
I believe we place our happiness in other people's hands
I believe that junk food tastes so good because it's bad for you
I believe your parents did the best job they knew how to do
I believe that beauty magazines promote low self esteem
I believe I'm loved when I'm completely by myself alone

I believe in Karma what you give is what you get returned
I believe you can't appreciate real love until you've been burned
I believe the grass is no more greener on the other side
I believe you don't know what you've got until you say goodbye

I believe you can't control or choose your sexuality
I believe that trust is more important than monogamy
I believe your most attractive features are your heart and soul
I believe that family is worth more than money or gold

I believe the struggle for financial freedom is unfair
I believe the only ones who disagree are millionaires

I believe in Karma what you give is what you get returned
I believe you can't appreciate real love until you've been burned
I believe the grass is no more greener on the other side
I believe you don't know what you've got until you say goodbye

I believe forgiveness is the key to your unhappiness
I believe that wedded bliss negates the need to be undressed
I believe that God does not endorse TV evangelists
I believe in love surviving death into eternity

I believe in Karma what you give is what you get returned
I believe you can't appreciate real love until you've been burned
I believe the grass is no more greener on the other side
I believe you don't know what you've got until you say goodbye

Yeah this thread isn't going anywhere.

locked