It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by themooche

Originally posted by 00PS

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Byrd, been trying to explain Theory to them for years, they don't understand. Issac Asimov as I have quoted explained how creationists think, which is that they don't. They have someone tell them this is the truth, everything else is wrong, and if you hear different don't believe them.


that's not just with creationism, that's with all of religion.


blah blah blah. Religion bashers are no better than religious fundamentalists. You both have one thing in common - the uncompromising urge to insult people whose views conflict with your own. Is there no happy medium? Obviously not for you people, but I've found it and welcomed it long ago. Let's hear it for biased opinions and irrational, closed minded debate.


Actually I was just clarifying James' statement. And I think it needs to be clarified.

You see I am not a religion basher. I am a recovering religoholic. My father was the the pastor than assistant bishop of the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) Western Washington Synod.

I know all to well that in a religion their is question but no definitive answer on questions that arise in todays society that the bible didn't account for because of unforseen technologies and advances in science.

This is why I started the thread about Creationism Vs. Intellectual Design. So you can "blah, blah, blah" as you did or you can join the ver real, very dedicated discussion here of the two.

Thanks for your input, no thanks to rubbish.




posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I personally am a fan of intelligent design. I remember a preacher on tv giving a very interesting sermon on circular reasoning and the way fossils are dated that really pulled me away from any evolution type explanation.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 04:31 AM
link   
I am trying to figure how evolution is based on circular reasoning, if in fact that is what you implied. Big Bang - proliferation - life - today. Is time not linear? Another important element: Evolution is demonstratable, and Religion orbits the metaphysical in contrast. What is wrong with the dating? I think we have a good idea of how old the earth is, since we have observed the universe expanding non-stop and postulate that it will do this for x time, and then collapse upon itself. In this way, we take the speed at which the universe is expanding and its current size and determine how old the earth is. As for carbon dating, or whatever other technique is used, I don't know what the problem with it is.

I will have to check it out. Look forward to your reply.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Is there a Girl Kawasaki? Hehe...

I think there might be ID because of how different Humans are to the world. We are Alien in many ways. We live outside the laws of nature and I don't think that came about by just farming and the development of civilization.

That we are different from almost everything on the planet except the differences within the human race it compels me to ask the question, were we genetically engineered by an Alien race (gods?)?



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Just as Capernican and Sosigenes theories are studied and found to be lacking in totality, so I think Intelligent Design should be covered in an historical overview of scientific developement. Of course, I would insist that Aboriginal Dreamtime, Mayan, Hindi, Celtic, Greek, Shamanistic, etc. "theories" be taught and given the same weight as "Intelligent Design". With respect to Stan Lee..."Nuff Said".



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by instar
I fail to see how the two are thought mutually exclusive!

Why?

Intelligent Design states that there is evidence for an intelligent designer, that there are things that exist which are 'immpossible'. Evolution states that there can be no scientific information about god or anything supernatural. They are explicitly exclusive. God and Evolution are not exclusive, but ID states we can have scientific information about god and that god in necessary to have living things, evolution says we can not have scientific information about god and that we don't need supernatural assistance in order to bring things to be.


It just my opinion! what do you say sage?



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Altmis
I personally am a fan of intelligent design. I remember a preacher on tv giving a very interesting sermon on circular reasoning and the way fossils are dated

'them scientists date the strata on the fosserls, and date the fosserls on the strata, dos dang scientists!'
Was it that joker Kent Hovind?

The arguement is false.
Here is a good explanation of why. Go to quote 5.1. The larger article also shows how many creationist 'preachers' are downright unscrupulous
Here is a shorter explanation.

also notice from the above
The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.

Perhaps he was talking about the infamous 'Natural Selection is a Tautology' bit also.
Here is a paper on that subject by Doc Wilkins.
 


instar
what do you say

I say creationism is a throwback to the darkest portion of the dark ages, and that its intellectually dishonest, and that most of its supports like kent hovidn, ken ham, gish, et al, are immoral liars and criminals. As far as ID, if you even want to seperate it from creationism in general, I'd say that its more of the same or that its possibly an honest attempt to 'reconcile faith with nature', which is in itself uncessary and indicative of extreme lack of faith. As far as the two biologists who are at the 'top' of the ID movement itself, they don't seem to be doing a good job of 'scientifizing' ID. As for people like Phil Johnson, a laywer who's a 'big' ID advocate, he's a dishonest creep who's trying to undermine a legitimate system of scientific education and who is swindling those amoung the public who 'agree' with ID, as evidenced by his dishonest 'Wedge' Plan, wherein he and others use "ID" to get creationism on the table of local school boards, and then drop ID and start pushing for out and out creationism.

I also think that any consideration of the history of science and the accompanying philsophies or even a study of rational thought and the like should devote some attention to Creationism, however I do not think that its necessary at a high school level. I also think that Creationism as a philosophical 'system' is about as worthless as creationism as a scientific system, and that as a theological system its abhorent, faithless, and in the end ironically somewhat atheistic and destructive to real religion.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I also think that any consideration of the history of science and the accompanying philsophies or even a study of rational thought and the like should devote some attention to Creationism, however I do not think that its necessary at a high school level. I also think that Creationism as a philosophical 'system' is about as worthless as creationism as a scientific system, and that as a theological system its abhorent, faithless, and in the end ironically somewhat atheistic and destructive to real religion.


Are you saying God and philosophy should be kept seperate? I don't understand here.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by themooche
Are you saying God and philosophy should be kept seperate?

No, a consideration of god is certianly pertinent to philosophy. However creationism or ID as a philosophical system are garbage.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by themooche
Are you saying God and philosophy should be kept seperate?

No, a consideration of god is certianly pertinent to philosophy. However creationism or ID as a philosophical system are garbage.


They can't just be ruled out that easily. They certainly have their merits, which is why they're still very prominent today and the teachings of great minds Aquinas, Paley, Hume, Locke and the like are still taught in philosophy classes world wide. What more are the moral philosophical implications of Intelligent Design Vs Evolution, which are just as important and should not go ignored in any philosophical debate. You have to truly see both sides of the coin for all they're worth before making any brash judgements, and this is what I feel most people on this message board neglect to do.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Nygdan can rule them out that easy but he fails to provide us with an alternative concept which adds to doubts about to his real thoughts on the issue. He most lean one way or another on it.

Nygdan, is there a 3rd option?



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by themooche
They can't just be ruled out that easily.

Easily no, but upon consideration, yes.


and the teachings of great minds Aquinas, Paley, Hume, Locke and the like are still taught in philosophy classes world wide.

'intelligent design' should've stopped at paley. Indeed, the modern IDers haven't really done anything other than to extend paley to a molecular level and try to give it some legitimacy by, apparently, misconstruing shannon information theory.


What more are the moral philosophical implications of Intelligent Design Vs Evolution

Evolution has no moral implications. Nature is not a source of morality, its just nature. Attempts to justifiy or reject one moral system or another based on nature are generally failures. Nature is ambivalent wrt morality.



You have to truly see both sides of the coin for all they're worth before making any brash judgements,

I don't know about everyone else, but I have not made a brash judgement. I have considered creationism in its mutliple forms, and found it to not be a science in any respect, and to be wasteful as a metaphysical system.
 


00PS
rule them out that easy but he fails to provide us with an alternative concept

An alternative to what? Intelligent Design and Creationism? There is no need for an alternative wrt the science, simply choose science when it comes to science. On philosophical considerations, one needn't propose an alternative metaphysics to creationism in order to reject it.

is there a 3rd option?

Between evolution and creationism? No, none that I see. Reject creationism, teach science. There is no need for a comprimise or third option, because science is sufficient.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I swear, you ID/Creation people are sad, you take something written by people who considered medicine as satanism. What? You took this herb and was healed! SATAN! You people take something written by people who # themselves whenever the earth shakes and then sacrifice 10 virgins to keep god from being angry at them. You people take something written by people who thought the world was flat and center of the universe. And then condem everyone who uses science to hell.

WTF? Let's see, #ting pants every time there is a earthquake, or science......



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
I swear, you ID/Creation people are sad, you take something written by people who considered medicine as satanism. What? You took this herb and was healed! SATAN! You people take something written by people who # themselves whenever the earth shakes and then sacrifice 10 virgins to keep god from being angry at them. You people take something written by people who thought the world was flat and center of the universe. And then condem everyone who uses science to hell.

WTF? Let's see, #ting pants every time there is a earthquake, or science......


please, just stop making a fool out of yourself.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Only in the US is there a big debate on the matter.

The rest of the world established a long time ago that evolution is the method by which life on earth developed. Some say it is Gods plan, others just that it is pure chance.

To teach an unproved and frankly shoddy theory such as ID in schools is a tradgedy. Poor kids will be brought up ignorant because of the stupidity of the illiterate and gullible.

The only real question is why is the US so incapeable of accepting science on this matter? Why an acceptance of plate tectonics and nuclear theory but not evolution?



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
It's not America, it is the republicans/ignorants/christians. You don't see to many hindus going nuts whenever a school teaches reality.

And making a fool of myself? No, making a fool out of you. Cause I use reality and you use ignorance. You follow people who thought god hated them when a fire started, I use reality. Sad so many people believe in fairy tales.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
And making a fool of myself? No, making a fool out of you. Cause I use reality and you use ignorance. You follow people who thought god hated them when a fire started, I use reality. Sad so many people believe in fairy tales.


You are foolish in that all you do is insult other people. You haven't said one thing in a rational manner.

And for the record, I never said I believed in Intelligent Design. I believe in a god, but I don't believe in Intelligent Design the way it has been further defined in this thread. Nor do I worship everything the bible has to say. I have a fond interest in it, and would ultimately like to gain a good understanding of it (It is a pretty historic collection of words, afterall - Not just preaching about a make-believe people that live in the clouds, as you once put it) However, I do think Intelligent Design could be possible and is definitely worth learning about and considering. I state again, as far as I know, Darwin's Theory of natural selection seems very legit, and seems to account for what we call Evolution. Just like Hobbes believes in a God who created the Universe and the national laws that govern it and then let it take its own course and evolve from that. So now, with that said, how am I using ignorance in any way shape or form? I consider both sides of the coin fully before making any judgements. So, how am I ignorant? Please tell me.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I don't think anyone wants a lecture on creation. First it would take too long to get to the point and second no one wants to be held accountable for their ancestors judgement in the grandeur of all present. Unfortunatly there is little alternative when the bull hits the fan except to throw in the towel. Orthodox reason suggests external factors ("it's not my fault!"), though not everyone agrees. I am concerned with the issue of external factors the way you might be wary of a encounter of the third kind. If someone writes the doctrine, how are they personally liable?

I believe the church will hold it's own at CHURCH vs. STATE MMMLXXVIII



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel191159
 

Not if, as the Bible claims to be true, there was no death bloodshed or disease before the fall of Adam...God created man in His own image and said that it was good (with theistic evolution, man came about after millions of years of death and decay, and this does not go hand in hand with the bible, unless God looks upon death as being 'good'). It was not until after Adam's sin that any death occurred, according to the Bible.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by instar
I...evolution says we can not have scientific information about god and that we don't need supernatural assistance in order to bring things to be.


...evolution says we can not have scientific information about god and that we don't need supernatural assistance in order to bring things to be...


I'm a strong believer in Scientific Method.

Further...

I consider ID and Creation Science to be sheer and utter B. S.

However...

I'm not so sure the theory of evolution automatically precludes the possibility that we could or will ever discover Scientific Information about God.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join