Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

[Tinhead Bruce]

I look at both sides of everything worth consideration, including this.

 

[Ziraider]

lmao dude we just got done learning about charles darwin weird.

 

[Penguin13]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

:|

 

[doesn't matter]

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​