Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Creationtelligentignerlution: Where is the Eviproof?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
There are many threads here focusing on "debates" between creationism and its opposite, between evolution and its primary competing theory, and between Young Earth creationists and, well, everyone else.


Organic origins, developments, and destinations are fascinating and important subjects, and we, exclusively, as humans, have the ability and the desire to investigate these topics and make judgements about them. Different people and groups of people are drawing divergent conclusions, and often, people find it difficult to agree about ANYTHING on the subjects.

I don't know what it is about these topics that draw the kind of zealotry and fanaticism that they do. Perhaps people fear the shame and embarassment that they imagine could result from having to reduce or reverse their position on such an important topic. I say to these people, that there is no shame in considering an opposing viewpoint at all, and indeed, it is wise to acknowledge our lack of wisdom.

Onwards.

We have four main topics in this forum:

1) Posts claiming a position and asking for proof against it
2) Posts attacking a position and asking for proof for it
3) News items about developments regarding the main forum topic
4) Actual discussions



We have more than enough threads that pitch zealot against zealot, where each side endlessly rehashes tried and tired arguements. I see very little growth in these threads - no one's mind is changed. No one questions, rather they declare.

THEN, every so often, a thread comes along where progress is made. The status quo is challenged. Minds are exercised. This is the stuff. The foundation of these kinds of threads is that the posters find common ground. Here is an example of some common ground that has been established in this arena, though not in this forum:


(Source)
The more we learn about living organisms, the more they look like products of design rather than products of chance and natural law. Ironically, many opponents of intelligent design concede this fact. Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, for example, says "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." [1]

Similarly, in a recent issue of the biology journal Cell, Bruce Alberts, a leading cell biologist and president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote:

We have always underestimated cells. … The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. … Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. [2]


The machanical qualities of cells are undeniable. Similarly,


(Source)
House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution—evolution on a small scale.


Microevolution is demonstrable.

I think these two points are easily conceded. What are you willing to concede or agree upon?

Zip




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The article is right if we are to consider the way organism behave then they are indeed design to do a particular job no only at a micro level but also on a macro level too.

Now the subject can be spread in a wide area including, any mutation, or anything related to gene and occurs natural selection.

These particular branch of science falls in the popular genetics so I am not an expert on any of it.


But it makes sense, species do adapt and in some instances do mutate and I also will add that at a micro level it does seem like they are design to do just that.

So as the same as evolution mean that we evolved them we are design to evolve.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The article is right if we are to consider the way organism behave then they are indeed design to do a particular job no only at a micro level but also on a macro level too.


That's interesting - on small and large scales, organic components and systems are designed to survive (and sustain themselves, replicate, reproduce, whatever). The big philosophical question is, "and what else?" As in, what is the secondary function of life, if there is one?

It took me a long time and a lot of reading and thinking to be able to personally semantically divorce intelligent design theory from theistic creationism, so I can understand how that can be difficult for evolution supporters. It's just too easy to attribute "intelligence" in "design" to the alleged workings of common theistic Godhead characters, so many evolution supporters are blind to some of the logical arguements supporting such things as protein machines and objects of irreducible complexity.

I'd like to hear some IDist considerations on the subject of the LUA/LUCA: the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Can we find some common ground on that issue? Do you perceive it and subsequent evolutionary mechanisms as a possible explanation for the progression of life?

Zip



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
You know zipdot is not hard to step aside from creation myth an believes, to understand the functions of organism in earth we all serve a purpose at a organic level.

But we humans are to self centered and unable to relegate ourselves as just one of the rest of the lesser species.

But it does make sense our bodies the bodies of any organism is design with a purpose and it's capable to adapt, evolved and even mutate given the right circumstances.

Because that is the way that is supposed to work, the article is right we are like design machines our bodies and everything that is part of our bodies are synchronized beautifully because is the only way it can work and survive.

Now linking this to a designer that created us I can only agree to a certain level but not more.

Remember the only species that question the meaning of life is us humans not other species in the world care about they just survive.

Perhaps we are just an experiment of nature.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by Zipdot

Creationtelligentignerlution: Where is the Eviproof?

There are many threads here focusing on "debates" between creationism and its opposite, between evolution and its primary competing theory, and between Young Earth creationists and, well, everyone else.



I think we need to start a grass roots campaign with the aim of getting Creationtelligentignerlution, the new biological theory of everything, taught in the public schools. Who's with me? Our main problem is going to be fitting that on a textbook once we slap an "ism" on the end...but we can get a team of Creationtelligentignerlutionologists on it immediately.




Organic origins, developments, and destinations are fascinating and important subjects, and we, exclusively, as humans, have the ability and the desire to investigate these topics and make judgements about them. Different people and groups of people are drawing divergent conclusions, and often, people find it difficult to agree about ANYTHING on the subjects.


There are actually alot of things we can agree on, but the "debate" often gets so heated nobody wants to make any concessions for fear that the other guy will pounce on it. Its gotten to the point where it's like watching Hannity and Colmes...and i don't know about ya'll but it actually hurts me physically to watch that show....so i don't... just like with a thread that starts creation/evolution is stupid. I'm not going to learn anything new and i doubt they'll listen, objectively, to anything i have to say so why bother. *shrug*





The machanical qualities of cells are undeniable. Similarly,

......

Microevolution is demonstrable.

I think these two points are easily conceded. What are you willing to concede or agree upon?

Zip


man and ape: common ancestry

In all honesty i should begin by saying i'm not there yet, but i am open to the idea..and i have not ruled it out as either a scientific or biblical possibilty. Now this is a HUGE deal when it comes to the creation -vs- evolution debate, so i'll try and show why i think it's not out of the realm of possibility.

While i do believe that there is a 'kind barrier' or that evolution is limited to the variability already built into an organism(ie it's not possible for me to evolve wings or a bird to evolve hands or a tomato a brain(bit of a stretch on that last one i know)). But.....i'm not so sure that you can't make the argument: man and ape are the same kind. I would have to agree that we are remarkably similar...especially in regard to Neanderthals. At the very least i think that the common ancestry of ape and man should be a seperate debate from that of universal common ancestry.

From a Biblical perspective this concession is alot tougher and i'll admit that it is the biggest stumbling block for me. I'll further admit that i do believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of GOD, but perhaps we're mis-interpreting/understanding what is said, and just as important, what is not said. I'll try and, briefly, break that down.

Genesis 1 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.....

In our(GOD's) image (the "our" thing is a whole different debate..irrelevant here imo) speaks of the spirit not the body...i think that all believers would agree with this. This body is not Rren (or Zip) it's merely the (temporary) vessel that GOD created for me(us). Although, i'd have to say, Sept. '75 God was having a good day.
[/blue steel]

So what does the Bible say about 'how' we were made?

Genesis 2 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Formed (from: Strong's) can be interpreted to mean b) to frame, pre-ordain, plan (fig. of divine) purpose of a situation), which doesn't neccessarily rule out a "pre-ordained" plan for man to evolve from an ape(-like ancestor)...maybe.

Now Gen. 2:7 shows that GOD creates man first then gives him the "breath of life" making man a living soul. I don't know how much of a stretch it would be to infer a gap in time between the two...maybe. Here's a link that 'chops' up Gen. 2:7 into the corresponding Strong's links. This example (of a possible compromise) has gotten long enough and i don't want to turn Zip's thread into this debate.

Ok that was really longer than i had intended....especially considering i didn't concede anything really.
But the common ancestry between man and ape is a big one. And i hope that i've shown that i'm willing to disuss it objectively, so long as i'm not asked or expected to throw out my Bible...'cause i won't do that.

more concessions

(neo)Darwinian evolution does not equal atheism- Many, many, many evolutionists are not atheists and in fact Darwin himself wasn't either. Yes, there is even such a thing as a Christian(who also believes the Bible is GOD's inerrant word) who is also a loyal Darwinianist(that can't be a word), they're just not naturalists(i think it's possible to seperate the two imo). Calling an evolutionist an atheist is a good way to pick a fight. But that's all that it's good for, and it's not really a reality based statement.

The Bible does not say how old the earth/universe is- You have to quite a bit of ciphering, interpreting and assuming to get at a number. And if you ask me all you end up with is an approximation of how old man is...and even that ain't 'dead nuts' accurate. There is a Biblical argument against YECism on top of the massive scientific argument(pick a field any field...literally). IMHO YECism is just as extreme a view as (strong) atheism...the "Hannity and Colmes" of the philosphical/scientific ideaology or world-view. Not putting anyone down who holds either belief, but i don't see a compromise...i certainly hope i'm wrong.

Zipdot is a cooler 'nick' than Rren- It just is. This was my first forum board and i didn't put any thought into it. Hmmm pick a name....i'll just use my initials, brilliant! I would like to now be known as "Trolling for Olives", or TfO if you're in a hurry. On second thought i should probably put some more thought into that.

Ok i'll stop rambling here. BUT a thread where Zip is saying "maybe there is something to this whole ID thing after all", could not be left to die. That'd be like RANT saying "ya Bush ain't so bad, it's a shame he can't run again"(ok maybe not that extreme). And any opportunity to discuss origins without fighting over it....i'm in
Way to set the tone mr. FSME...job well done.









[edit on 17-11-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 17-11-2005 by Rren]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I always known and I will said known that we have been linked to a creator, and the only link to that creator is and always be in the spiritual level like Rren said.

Without the body, now our bodies are like any other organism in earth we perform certain jobs withing our bodies composition but when it comes to the intellectual level is not doubt that we humans are a the only specie that is different.

That is as far as I go.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Perhaps we are just an experiment of nature.


Well, I think that there's a lot to be said for naturalism, and I think that people often underestimate the power of the natural universe.

Zip

EDIT:

Originally posted by mattison0922]
Yes, I concede this: IMO, ID DOES in fact rely on the presence of some ‘supernatural’ force.


[edit on 12/12/2005 by Zipdot]






top topics



 
0

log in

join