Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dingdongs

Creationism or Evolution?

Recommended Posts

Ad Rem
I'm a poof igloo

So, what's your stance on Islam. Or any other religion. Or my personal belief that humans exploded from a great cosmic urethra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist
Or my personal belief that humans exploded from a great cosmic urethra.

Epic win!!! icon14.gificon14.gificon14.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akavari

 

Nice debate you put forward there.

 

And if you want to mock me then well the Bibe does say to mock the fool with his own folly then well I'll take pleasure in it;

 

I was actually just chatting with Richard Dawkins himself yeah, he said that he is really disappointed in you for the fact that every weekend you enjoy to go out on the drag and the last time you had sex was with a one armed prostitute named Dave. He won't be talking to you in person since well he doesn't enjoy heavy male on male bondage (You know what I mean).

Now go choke on Darwin's cold, dead dick. Bye-bye.

Leeg1931 is such a hypocrite, don't even argue with him anymore. All he does is act like a child and insult people whenever someone presents a legitimate argument against him, then retreats back to his evangelist bullsh*t saying we will go to hell for our beliefs. He's obviously brainwashed beyond reason and can't be reasoned with. It makes me sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist

^ Agreed. He is totally B.S.'ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leeg1931

Well I seen thgis coming the day I put my input into this debate. If you are attempting to offend me by insulting me and calling me a proof igloo (By the way, I thought there was a quote button there, strange looks like yet another highly important thing has disapeared from the evolutionist's line of sight, seems to happen alot) then your insults aren't working, maybe you should give up being a sarcastic moron and go into satnd up!

Well I'm told to pray for you, because although you refuse to believe but Jesus does love you and maybe some day you'll love him. Most of you won't but I'll still pray. Good luck.

 

I'll definately jump in on that conservapedia site, how'd you know I was conservat... oh yeah.

 

I'll end this with a quote from Charles Darwin himself;

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

Edited by leeg1931

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist

Can't counter attack?

 

Plus, who name-called first, Mr. Intelligent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ad Rem

Look again, champ. It says "poof igloo". Now, how about we actually try out this debate thing, and you respond to my actual message, i.e. explain your stance on other religions, instead of, y'know, rambling about, well, something. You were talking about obsession with proof earlier, and having faith in something more. I'd like to know how other folks' differning beliefs come into play in this little battle of faiths of yours. A Muslim would be just as convinced Jesus is a mere prophet. What if my belief in evolution is not based on proof but faith? Yes, I have faith in evolution. Does this somehow make it more valid all of the sudden? I guess so.

 

By the by, there hasn't been any insults towards you from my part up til now, when I wonder out loud how you make it through a shower without accidentally setting yourself on fire. Even then, it's not an insult per se, just a general pondering.

Edited by Ad Rem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist

^ Ultra ownage!

 

Besides, faith doesn't answer our questions...confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueCheer

I think most religions are obsolete and extreme, all they do is cause problems and separate people with their insane beliefs. However, if I could convert the entire world under one religion, it would probably be Zen Buddhism. It emphasizes a healthy, honorable, independent lifestyle. Instead of worship/prayer, you practice meditation intensely every day and eventually achieve enlightenment that way. The meaning of life cannot be taught or found in a book, but by your own mind's deep contemplation smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist
I think most religions are obsolete and extreme, all they do is cause problems and separate people with their insane beliefs. However, if I could convert the entire world under one religion, it would probably be Zen Buddhism. It emphasizes a healthy, honorable, independent lifestyle. Instead of worship/prayer, you practice meditation intensely every day and eventually achieve enlightenment that way. The meaning of life cannot be taught or found in a book, but by your own mind's deep contemplation smile.gif

You surely have a big point there, dude. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnny_zoo

Been a while since the last post but I want to chime in here.

 

While I agree with leeg1931 that evolution is unproven I disagree with his persistent attempts at preaching. Not even Jesus tried to convert the vast majority of his day so what makes you think people on a gtaforum will listen to you?

 

 

I should point out that science is hardly truly objective in this debate. Yes the data is objective but the interpretation is subjective.

Atheist scientists usually present evolutionary theory to the public in the manner that they're presenting the data first and then the interpretation. But they are actually putting their own interpretation on it then presenting the data. They then talk about their theories as being true and of course the public assume it to be true, well because scientists said so and well they can't be wrong can they? Accurate data is not wrong but the interpretation is usually biased. I will explain how they do this.

 

The Cambrian explosion - one of the assumptions of evolution is that the further down in the earths geologic layers you go you should expect to find a fewer number of fossils (and intermediary fossils) and simpler life forms. Although the oppostite is observed, life forms are in genreal fairly simple but once the cambrian is reached a whole host of complex life forms are suddenly found.

 

Scientists say that these life forms gradualy evolved thoughout this layer and that the era lasted for a certain period of time. But how do they know? They use radiometric dating but I take their figures with a pinch of salt because even these dates vary wildly with different scientists. For example some place mans appearance on the earth 600,000 ago and some say 200,000 and they all use radiometric dating! Cambrian estimates have gaps as large as 20my! So dont always assume these gelogic "eras" are true.

 

The other interpretation is that this layer was laid down suddenly as a result of a global flood causing the rapid burial of millions of fossils simultaneously and not over millions of years. Scientists seem to forget that sedimentary layers are usually laid down within bodies of water. Of course scientists don't entertain this viewpoint because it goes against evolution and they are biased towards it. Why? I'll let you figure that out for yourself.

 

Its a fair conjecture that prior to the Cambrian rock layer these complex life forms existed right back to the early creation of the earth (the preCambrian layer extends back to early earth history) and then a worldwide flood occuring some time later killed off all life on earth at the time.

 

This is one of the main reasons I dont believe in evolution. Even Darwin himself admitted that the Cambrian discovery was one of the main evidences against evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

 

 

 

Macro-evolution - another reason is macro-evolution, it has not been observed and never will be because its impossible for one species to turn into a completely new species this goes against the law of genetics that says one species can only reproduce its own kind. But there can be micro-evolution within a species, which are simply mutations into different varieties, such as different types of roses. (Writing mostly from memory here let me know if Im wrong at all)

 

Also the DNA molecule contains the instruction code for creating a living organism, so how does a fish turn itself into a man? If this were to happen the code would need to be changed in order to build a 3-dimensional man what governs the change? How is the code altered to start producing a new species? What would the fish mate with assuming the female fish had evolved at the same time. My mind just cant entertain the idea of a cow turning into a whale, even over millions of years.

 

Anyway these are some of my ideas on why evolution is only a theory, I hope I explained myself properly.

 

Evolution doesnt seem to be true because while it tries to explain the origin of life it cannot answer where life came from in the first place. One of the fundamental laws of biogenesis is that life can ONLY come from life. Throughout the bible God refers to himself as the Eternal or the "self-existent one". So it seems logical to me to conclude that all life on earth came from God. And no one created him since he states he has always existed.

 

The theory also doesnt account for the question of intent and purpose which are theological questions. And this is where religion has to come in.

 

I believe the bible is compatible with science it just comes down to correct unbiased interpretation.

Edited by johnny_zoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs

Oh sh*t, the bible says god has always existed? That must be true then, the people who wrote the people would obvisouly have had no bias on the subject and done tremendous amounts of research before putting pen to paper.

 

Unlike those rotten biased "scientists" and their three-dimensional fish-men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnotherDave

 

Also the DNA molecule contains the instruction code for creating a living organism, so how does a fish turn itself into a man? If this were to happen the code would need to be changed in order to build a 3-dimensional man what governs the change? How is the code altered to start producing a new species? What would the fish mate with assuming the female fish had evolved at the same time. My mind just cant entertain the idea of a cow turning into a whale, even over millions of years.

No big speil here, but I've got to take issue with this paragraph. No scientist worth their salt has ever claimed that fish evolved into humans, that a cow could evolve into a whale, or even that humans evolved from monkeys. What they do say is that primordial life evolved into the life we have today.

 

The theory of evolution says that humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and other monkey-like creatures evolved from the same species, but it doesn't say that any of them evolved into one another. It's the same with all life.

 

Evolution happens through random genetic mutations, where the good mutations help the species survive and the bad ones eventually lead to death.

 

I realise that's a very brief summation and that I've glossed over a hell of a lot in this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claude Speed.
Evolution doesnt seem to be true because while it tries to explain the origin of life it cannot answer where life came from in the first place. One of the fundamental laws of biogenesis is that life can ONLY come from life. Throughout the bible God refers to himself as the Eternal or the "self-existent one". So it seems logical to me to conclude that all life on earth came from God. And no one created him since he states he has always existed.

 

The theory also doesnt account for the question of intent and purpose which are theological questions. And this is where religion has to come in.

 

I believe the bible is compatible with science it just comes down to correct unbiased interpretation.

Haha, how can anyone take you seriously when you fail so much at logic. You can't prove that the bible is true, and the idea of a god creating the universe is redundant, why couldn't the universe always exist, and if you believe that god created everything, who created him?

Science is not for you, if you make assumptions like these.

 

Nobody knows the purpose of life. Just because some crazy people wrote a book about it, it doesn't mean that they are right. Again, there is no proof for it.

 

Of course, if you interpret the sh*t out of the bible you can make it compatible with anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh

 

If this were to happen the code would need to be changed in order to build a 3-dimensional man what governs the change? How is the code altered to start producing a new species? What would the fish mate with assuming the female fish had evolved at the same time. My mind just cant entertain the idea of a cow turning into a whale, even over millions of years.

A fish doesn't just suddenly become a person through evolution, evolution is simply a change in characteristics of the body in response to a change in the world around us, our circumstances and the principles of survival of the fittest.

 

Genetic mutations occur all of the time, it's what makes us look different from our parents, however it is very rare that those mutations are beneficial, especially nowadays when every person's individual needs are catered for. But when those mutations actually benefit a group enough to enable them to survive in the place of others, the characteristic is passed on in their offspring. Eventually, through a long chain of such mutations the large changes which you mention take place.

 

Think of it as building a large construction out of the remains of a smaller construction, some bits are added and the rubbish is taken away, but it is all done over a large period of time because it is impossible to just chuck the ingredients up into the air and expert a skyscraper to emerge from the dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

If people want to rationalise religious belief by making it compatible with science, then I'm all for it, personally. Whilst I'm not a person of any belief (or even any spirituality) I understand that other people do hold these beliefs, and it is not my place to dictate who or what others believe in. When addressed literally, religious scripture is incompatible with science but all religions (save for certain elements of Islam which believe that the Koran is literally the word of Allah) have the capacity for a little flexibility to permit them to adapt to changes in the scientific, ethical or cultural landscape.

 

What I do object to is people trying to theocratise science to make it compatible with their religion. Misrepresenting the theory of evolution to discredit it, for instance (see above), or questioning the objectivity of science in comparison to religion based on relatively trivial differences between individuals in the scientific community is absurd and hypocritical. Even worse is are the attempts by some individuals to replace a lack of understanding in certain areas with a divine presence. If science doesn't currently understand it, it does not mean that it cannot be known, or is the work of a being beyond our realm- it's just a case of not yet knowing.

 

Personally, I feel that the percieved incompatibility between religion and science comes not from them saying fundamentally different things, but from the constant attempts of the organised religions to undermine scientific theory by associating inconclusiveness with a lack of understanding, or the twisting of scientific theory to fit religious scripture or interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blitz

I haven't really put it into consideration.

 

There is no proof in either theory, and for at least the next couple of years, I don't there will be any proof.

 

I think it's nicer to think in creationism because, well, it's always nice to have something you believe in.

 

I have nothing against atheists and completely understand their point of view, since they see no proof in god, they don't believe, simple. I'm pretty religious myself, but I'm not crazy or a creationist.

 

There has been a lot of questioning when it comes to the evolution theory, a lot of things have come into consideration and been debated over. I heard somewhere a 10 year old kid questioned it by the way apes walk and the ways human walk. You probably think, "Yeah, well that's part of the evolution!", but there's more to it.

 

I don't really believe about Adam and Eve and all, it's all way too cheesy for me, but I like the story and have a feel towards it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnny_zoo

 

No big speil here, but I've got to take issue with this paragraph. No scientist worth their salt has ever claimed that fish evolved into humans, that a cow could evolve into a whale, or even that humans evolved from monkeys. What they do say is that primordial life evolved into the life we have today.

 

The theory of evolution says that humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and other monkey-like creatures evolved from the same species, but it doesn't say that any of them evolved into one another. It's the same with all life.

OK maybe fish didnt evovle into man I exaggerated a bit. This is an interseting concept but how do you account for mans superior mind output compared to a monkeys? As far as we know all animals run on instinct except us humans, we have free will. Both a monkeys brain and a human brain are almost identical in physical comparison yet man has greater output. Is it possible there is a non-physical component in mans brain to account for this? But thats another debate.

 

 

 

Oh sh*t, the bible says god has always existed? That must be true then, the people who wrote the people would obvisouly have had no bias on the subject and done tremendous amounts of research before putting pen to paper.

 

Unlike those rotten biased "scientists" and their three-dimensional fish-men.

 

 

Haha, how can anyone take you seriously when you fail so much at logic. You can't prove that the bible is true, and the idea of a god creating the universe is redundant, why couldn't the universe always exist, and if you believe that god created everything, who created him?

Science is not for you, if you make assumptions like these.

 

Nobody knows the purpose of life. Just because some crazy people wrote a book about it, it doesn't mean that they are right. Again, there is no proof for it.

Maybe I shouldnt jump to the bible so quickly but I still think there is much evidence for the bible. You say I fail at logic and then go on to say the "god creating the universe" idea is redundant, that in itself is illogical. Since when do you get to make this idea redundant? The universe hasnt always existed therefore someone or something had to have brought it into existence. Whatever that was would that not in a sense be a form of "God"?

 

Care to explain also why you think evolution is true instead of just saying why I'm wrong?

 

Scientists use Darwinian theory to exclude the idea of God from their knowledge and thinking processes you say they are not biased but they are. They dont even allow a discussion about it as an alternative theory for the origin of life. That says to me they arent interested in finding the whole truth. What if there was a God then an implication may be that we humans might be morally obligated to obey his laws? It makes sense to me that if there are laws which govern the behaviour of planets then a law might exist which governs mans behaviour with one another and the bible is a book on morality.

 

 

Edited by johnny_zoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Can I just pick up on this bit?

 

 

Scientists use Darwinian theory to exclude the idea of God from their knowledge and thinking processes you say they are not biased but they are. They dont even allow a discussion about it as an alternative theory for the origin of life. That says to me they arent interested in finding the whole truth. What if there was a God then an implication may be that we humans might be morally obligated to obey his laws? It makes sense to me that if there are laws which govern the behaviour of planets then a law might exist which governs mans behaviour with one another and the bible is a book on morality.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that is completely untrue. Science does not actively seek to discount religion, that is not its purpose or it's intent. What science seeks to do is to better understand the world around us, and to provide empirical answers for the great questions which have confounded us for millenia.

 

The problem is that various religious groups over this time have felt that the increased understanding of the scientific community is erroding their importance in modern society. To some extent, it is true, but only because the major religions have completely and utterly missed the point. Religious belief is not meant to be a be-all, end-all answer to all the unanswered questions, and anyone who sees it as such is deluded to the point of near mental illness. Religion is meant to provide a moral and spiritual framework, a code of ethics and philosophies through which people can achieve more in their lives. The very idea that it is somehow fighting with science over the actual, empirical act of understanding is a laughable fallacy generally only supported by those who have completely missed the point of religion as a personal belief.

 

On the question of morality, does it not seem suspicious to you that athiests and agnostics are equally as "moral" or "ethical" as religious believers? What about differing moral codes from society to society? How about the seemingly barbaric and destructive elements that lie dormant in the human psyche, just waiting for the right trigger? Some of the greatest acts of destruction in human history have been perpetrated on the grounds of religious belief- now, I know that this religious justification is merely a hollow disguise for politically-motivated decisions in many cases, but the very existence of that justification is utterly contradictory if religion is meant to be a protective and guiding force.

 

No, modern religion is a scam. It completely forsakes the traditional, ethical and philosophical guidance that has been preached by the enlightened for decades, discarding it for a self-rightous and wholly inappropriate strict code of laws and legislation enforced by threats and guilt; an alternative government, but one where the will of the people is ignored and the only benefactors are those who have wriggled their way up the religions chain of command. The sooner people of belief realise that they can still have belief without the constant and unnessesary interfering of the traditional religious heirarchy, the sooner this planet will become a more hospitable place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnotherDave

 

This is an interseting concept but how do you account for mans superior mind output compared to a monkeys?

The same way any evolution is accounted for; natural selection and random genetic mutation. These mutations happen all the time in every species, but are often so small and reletively insignificant that they go unnoticed.

 

In humanity's evolution it was obviously advantageous to have intelligence, so that trait flourished. Very broadly speaking, early humans could use intellect to survive rather than the ability to run faster or fight harder than their predators or prey.

 

It's the combination of genetic mutations and natural selection that leads to the advancemenet of a species, with the weakest being picked off and the strongest going on to breed.

Edited by something_else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T.Rez

I Believe evolution to be true and an imperically tested theory which explains the origins of life. Creationism has been proven to be wrong and just plain illogical. I hate the notion that it is the strongest that survive; I feel its more those are who better suited to surviving in their habitat will do so. Is that strength? I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs
Scientists use Darwinian theory to exclude the idea of God from their knowledge and thinking processes you say they are not biased but they are. They dont even allow a discussion about it as an alternative theory for the origin of life. That says to me they arent interested in finding the whole truth.

Just to work with this little bit for the moment, you've got things wrong again. There is no cabal of scientists working to supress the alternative theory of creationsim. In fact there is no theory, no hypothesis to be repressed in the first place.

 

Let me be very clear on this. Creationism is not science. It is untestable, unfalsifiable and its practitioners work only by exploiting common misunderstandings of scientific and evolutionary theory.

 

You might think you're asking the hard questions by enquiring as to the continued existence of monkeys or talking about three-dimensional fish DNA but these are common mistakes and easily corrected through thirty seconds of googling or maybe a few minutes of rational thought. The continued existence of these untruths is testament to both the inadeqaucy of science teaching in primary and secondary schools and the creationists' lack of any interest in pursuing the truth instead of pushing a religious barrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claude Speed.
The universe hasnt always existed therefore someone or something had to have brought it into existence. Whatever that was would that not in a sense be a form of "God"?

 

Care to explain also why you think evolution is true instead of just saying why I'm wrong?

 

Scientists use Darwinian theory to exclude the idea of God from their knowledge and thinking processes you say they are not biased but they are. They dont even allow a discussion about it as an alternative theory for the origin of life. That says to me they arent interested in finding the whole truth. What if there was a God then an implication may be that we humans might be morally obligated to obey his laws? It makes sense to me that if there are laws which govern the behaviour of planets then a law might exist which governs mans behaviour with one another and the bible is a book on morality.

You don't know that the universe hasn't always existed. If you're thinking Big Bang, then bear in mind that was only a phase that the universe was going through. There is no indication that there is a god who watches over us (see natural disasters, diseases, innocent people dieing, etc), who cares so I'm gonna assume one does not exist.

 

I didn't say that I think evolution is true, not in that quoted post. I don't know much about it and I may not believe every word of it, but I think it provides a decent explanation with proof and the fact that so many scientists approve with it has to stand for something.

 

That sounds like you're one of those anti-science people. Scientists do not include god in the equation because the whole idea of it is stupid and primitive, no indication or proof of a god existing.

Oh, speaking of bible and morality, you should look up those passages about homosexuality, how homosexuals should be killed with rocks, that's some great moral advice. This whole f*ck heap of books contain great moral teachings, especially the books of the old testament. sarcasm.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnny_zoo

 

The simple fact of the matter is that is completely untrue. Science does not actively seek to discount religion, that is not its purpose or it's intent. What science seeks to do is to better understand the world around us, and to provide empirical answers for the great questions which have confounded us for millenia.

 

On the question of morality, does it not seem suspicious to you that athiests and agnostics are equally as "moral" or "ethical" as religious believers? What about differing moral codes from society to society? How about the seemingly barbaric and destructive elements that lie dormant in the human psyche, just waiting for the right trigger?

 

 

Let me be very clear on this. Creationism is not science. It is untestable, unfalsifiable and its practitioners work only by exploiting common misunderstandings of scientific and evolutionary theory.

 

I meant mostly evolutionary scientists in general for believing in a theory which has many holes in it. Why is is presented as fact when it just isn't? Again the interpretation of their data is misguided. In Amercian universities where many academic scientific teachers will, and have, lost their tenure immediately even if they publish an article on "Intelligent Design" (which is a proper theory with data and evidence) or even mention it in lectures. That right there is extreme, I hate to say it but it simply is true that if you're an "ID" proponent in higher instituitions you are blackballed by the atheistic scientific community if you try to disagree with their status quo.

 

I agree religion overall today is useless in all respects and has not advanced all that greatly the human condition. Human nature is a paradox like you say, but the bible does state specifically that it was designed this way deliberately. And also the nations of the earth are decievied to fulfill a greater purpose. I count many passages that prove this. Are they true? I think so anyway.

 

 

 

You don't know that the universe hasn't always existed. If you're thinking Big Bang, then bear in mind that was only a phase that the universe was going through. There is no indication that there is a god who watches over us (see natural disasters, diseases, innocent people dieing, etc), who cares so I'm gonna assume one does not exist.

We know it hasn't always existed because all radioactive elements in the universe have not yet decayed totally. Which is the proven case for elements such as uranium which decay over a period of thousands of years into the element lead. There is still uranium in abundance therefore proving there has been no past eternnity of matter. If there was then all would have decayed long ago meaning no uranium today.

 

 

For me the existence of some form of deity is easily proved just by observing the order of the universe and how it is precisely fine tuned to support life on earth. And the more science reveals about the universe in which we live the more it shows that it must have been thought out at some point before it came into being. I know scientists like to attribute our existence to cosmic luck but there are just far too many luck instances to conclude that its all chance. The more science reveals about the innerworkings of the universe the more it seems to me that an intelligent deity brought this about.

 

Is there a meaning to life then? Is there any life after death? These are the most basic questions we can ask and should have an answer to yet science is silent on this. Science, in a way, is held up as a kind of God to the public that can provide answers for all our problems and questions given of course they have enough knowledge.

 

But no I am not anti-science, I love science and have been interested in it since I was 8 and read books about the universe all the time. Its only on evolution where science and I differ.

Edited by johnny_zoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh

 

We know it hasn't always existed because all radioactive elements in the universe have not yet decayed totally. Which is the proven case for elements such as uranium which decay over a period of thousands of years into the element lead. There is still uranium in abundance therefore proving there has been no past eternnity of matter. If there was then all would have decayed long ago meaning no uranium today.

You're talking out of your arse. The only elements that were present after the big bang were Hydrogen and possibly a little Helium. All of the other elements which we know today are created through fusion by stars in different stages of their lives. Uranium, due to its high density, is only made in small quantities due to the fact that it is very difficult and requires extremes of heat and pressure. uch like other metals like Gold and Platinum, which are also made through teh fusion of Iron and other smaller elements.

 

The created elements are spread around the universe through supernovas. Therefore as long as there are stars being created, there will always be uranium being created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claude Speed.

I don't know how that's supposed to prove your point, but whatever. I don't see why Creationism and Evolution are compared. They are different things, one is a myth and the other a scientific theory and more or less an accepted fact in science.

Why couldn't the universe exist first in one form or another, why does it need this extra cause 'god'? How is adding him making things more logical? Just putting god at the top of the causal chain raises another question, who created god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

I meant mostly evolutionary scientists in general for believing in a theory which has many holes in it. Why is is presented as fact when it just isn't? Again the interpretation of their data is misguided. In Amercian universities where many academic scientific teachers will, and have, lost their tenure immediately even if they publish an article on "Intelligent Design" (which is a proper theory with data and evidence) or even mention it in lectures. That right there is extreme, I hate to say it but it simply is true that if you're an "ID" proponent in higher instituitions you are blackballed by the atheistic scientific community if you try to disagree with their status quo.

 

I agree religion overall today is useless in all respects and has not advanced all that greatly the human condition. Human nature is a paradox like you say, but the bible does state specifically that it was designed this way deliberately. And also the nations of the earth are decievied to fulfill a greater purpose. I count many passages that prove this. Are they true? I think so anyway.

What holes are you talking about? Are you talking about holes in logic, or holes in understanding? As there are plenty of the latter, but anyone has yet to find a reasonable one of the former. As for the assertation that evolution is presented as fact, it's not- it's an utter misconception that everyone thinks that evolution is fact. If it was, it would cease to become a theory. wink.gif

 

There's a perfectly legitimate reason that people in the scientific community are critiqued for publishing articles defending intelligent design, and that is that there is less empirical evidence supporting it as a theory than there is supporting the concept of evolution. True, both are just theories, but the fact of the matter is that intelligent design twists scientific understanding to substanciate religious belief, whereas evolution follows scientific understanding to a T. The criticism is primarily about the fact that only someone of religious belief could justifiably choose the concept of intelligent design over evolution; thus, in turn, permitting personal opinions on a subject to override their scientific impartiality.

 

Look at it this way- if an individual who has no understanding or knowledge of religion or science is explained the two theories and asked to choose which one has the most evidence supporting it, they would choose evolution. Though both are theories with a degree of validity surrounding them, it is impossible for scientist who is not of religious persuasion to argue the case for intelligent design over evolution- as it makes a significant leap from "there are areas of the evolutionary process we do not yet understand" to "a divine being is responsible for the areas of the evolutionary process we do not yet know or understand", and a leap that someone who does not themselves believe in a higher power would deem irrational given the lack of evidence.

 

Ergo, evolution is the more valid theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

I don't know how that's supposed to prove your point, but whatever. I don't see why Creationism and Evolution are compared. They are different things, one is a myth and the other a scientific theory and more or less an accepted fact in science.

Why couldn't the universe exist first in one form or another, why does it need this extra cause 'god'? How is adding him making things more logical? Just putting god at the top of the causal chain raises another question, who created god? 

Well scientists today find that everything is made up of energy. The laws of thermodynamics tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred. Energy is everlasting, and is also what builds up our entire universe from the quarks and such up, why couldn't god simply be all energy?

 

The idea of an intelligent designer makes sense to many because our universe is filled with patterns and laws, and as far as we all know patterns are designed and laws are written. Where would these laws originate? Why is even anything in existence at all?

 

Also how is evolution 'fact'? I mean haven't they yet to prove or show any evidence of a mutation that actually adds information? ..which isn't that one of the biggest things for evolution? Also the Miller Urey experiment for abiogenesis showed that we can create inorganic amino acids which are only found in non-living things, yet some people still try and use this experiment as Proof for abiogenesis...

 

Also quantum mechanics tells us how conscious observers, such as ourselves, are what actually help build this reality and that matter exists only as a wave of probability until something observes it then it collapses into the form of matter. Just the fact that outside of our skull, there is no color, there is no sound, only waves of energy that is flowing all around us and it is our senses which carry the information to our brain which interpret this electrical information and somehow display it as a beautifully colored image along with full surround sound inside our brains, which itself is enclosed in the skull where there is no light. Our brains are literally like computer processors which interpret information and turn it into what we experience everyday. How would evolution ever be capable of doing this?

 

I have nothing against science, as a matter of fact I love science, I can't really get enough of it. It's just I can't stand it when people say if you believe in an intelligent designer then you're ignorant and have no sense of science. Just looking at how the deeper you dwelve into an atom, the less there seems to be. It's almost as if we are all living in a sort of virtual simulation because the very matter that makes up our world seem to not actually exists at the smallest of scales. Also my question is, according to quantum mechanics and the measurement problem, how would anything be able to exist before life had arose in this universe? Without any conscious observers, the whole universe would exist as a state of probability until some sort of consciousness came to be. But how could life come to be if there was never any true order beforehand to lead up to the creation of life without a conscious creator observing over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

The idea of an intelligent designer makes sense to many because our universe is filled with patterns and laws, and as far as we all know patterns are designed and laws are written. Where would these laws originate? Why is even anything in existence at all?

Intelligent design theory, as I've said in my post, is not wholey irrelivent, there are some legitimate observations about the complexity of various life-forms and their composite parts. However, to jump from not understanding the progressions that have been made to assuming is it the word of an intelligent designer without any empirical, supporting evidence, isn't a rational step.

 

The "God created it" phrase is all well and good if you view human knowledge in isolation, as if our understanding is both fixed and shared, but in reality it that is not the case- you have to view understanding on an individual level rather than some kind of collective intelligence. For instance, if one is deprived of a piece of information that they consider critical to their understanding of life, they will produce and rationalise an explaination for it. It's very similar to children's attitude to understanding the world. If you say that a higher power is responsible for what is not currently known or understood, then you must by default apply the same logic to all instances in life. For example, we feel we understand the theory of gravity, but gravity shall remain a theory until it is empirically tested under every situation, which would take the entire length of existance and is therefore impossible. Therefore, by the same logic, God is responsible for gravity as although we believe we understand it, we can never fully know. To me, that seems utterly illogical; a get-out clause.

 

 

 

A good (but long-winded) analogy would be "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns", which is a concept commonly used (read "shamelessly cribbed from Donald Rumsfelt") in game theory to discuss the difficulty in predicting human behaviour. Say, you are playing a game of chess with another person. Now, the pieces they have placed on the board are "known knowns"- you can see their positioning in three dimentions. A game plan may be an "known unknown"- it is possible to figure out someone's game plan from their movements, or an understanding of the game, but one does not know for definite until it actually occurs. "Unknown unknowns" consist of the exact thoughst going through the other player's head- they are impossible to know- possible to predict, but impossible to know.

 

The idea is to accept the fact that, as things stand, you cannot get inside the head of the other player. Too much time spent trying to focus on the unknown unknowns results in one making mistakes, missing the "known knowns" and the signs of the "known unknowns". The same is true of intelligent design- by jumping the gun and trying to rationalise that which we do not yet have the capacity to know, what we are in effect doing is preventing ourselves from focusing correctly on what it is possible for us to know. Taking the opposite, more methodical approach- analysing the "known knowns" to enable us to better predict the "known unknowns", actually produces a better understanding of the overall picture.

 

Of course, it's an inexact science; ideas change when our understanding of the "knowns" changes, but addressing the issue the opposite way around just ends in stagnation- or the loss of the game.

Edited by sivispacem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

Gah, evolution IS fact, just like gravity IS fact. Now whoever can MODEL gravity or evolution perfectly, both facts of life (the latter quite literally), gets to take the trophy for the best theory.

 

/sigh seriously I wish evolution didn't breed such numbnuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.