Why do intelligent designers have to oppose evolution?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
I thought intelligent design was the belief the evolution was a God-created process?

If that's not correct, is there a label for that line of thinking?




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
You may be surprised to find out that the human male chromosome has about 125,000 years left in it and then it will have become unviable (read "Adams Curse" by Sykes).

Mutations accumulate into the Y-chromosome because it doesn't recombine. However, this estimate of 125,000 years is made from ignorance. If the Y-chromosome ever deteriorates into a state where loss of function is but a step away, obviously natural selection will favor those sperm cells that manage to get the job done (i.e. the other don't ever even get a chance since they lead to miscarriage).



Heritable genetic damage is cumulative and destructive. The longer an organism has been around, the more damage is accumulated in its genome.

At some point, the viability of the species is compromised and the species goes extinct. We can observe this process happening.

This is but misinformation, but feel free to prove me wrong with references to scientific literature..
edit on 4-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC
I thought intelligent design was the belief the evolution was a God-created process?

If that's not correct, is there a label for that line of thinking?
Metaphysics? Quantum Mechanics? I guess that's what we have in terms of labels.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 




Our faith is not in people, but in God, perhaps?


See the problem is that God never came out and explained to everyone how he created the world. Sure there's the Bible, and other creation stories, but those are often simplistic and involve magical or supernatural acts that just don't line up with any of the evidence. So really the choice is being mis-characterized by those believers who think this is a "trust God" versus a "trust man" issue. All religious texts and indeed all texts known to man were written by, well, man. So it's really an issue of which men you trust more, unless God decides to host a Universal science class and show us how he actually did it.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 

Why God Never Received A PhD:

1. He had only one major publication.

2. It was in Hebrew.

3. It had no references.

4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal.

5. Some even doubt he wrote it by himself.

6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since
then?

7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.

8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.

9. He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human
subjects.

10. When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it by drowning his
subjects.

11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the
sample.

12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.

13. Some say he had his son teach the class.

14. He expelled his first two students for learning.

15. Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students failed
his tests.

16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.

17. No record of working well with colleagues.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by mainidh
 


I did not mention God. I mentioned consciousness. You can see yourself, and not your ego, right? When you do, you will see "God", and you will see that in everything.

A deity is something that's "supernatural", but the "supernatural" is only nature that's misunderstood or not truly known. So then "deity" becomes a creation of man, a word applied to something beyond man because man does not fully understand it, while nature is just there.


Exactly. People are starting with preconcieved definitions that limit their understanding of how BIG God is. They misunderstand when I say I am God. I have a good working understanding of consciousness. There is only one. You can be a plant and an ant at the same time if you know how.

It's so much more amazing than they're dead "god" who sits, somewhere? And watches us as we kill ourselves? No He is much more involved, and much more spread out...

Evolution is god remembering.

Come on guys lets turn into Homo luminous, this homo sapien stuff is old...


I use the term God because that which I speak of is the most high. It is life itself..


Originally posted by Titen-Sxull



See the problem is that God never came out and explained to everyone how he created the world. Sure there's the Bible, and other creation stories, but those are often simplistic and involve magical or supernatural acts that just don't line up with any of the evidence. So really the choice is being mis-characterized by those believers who think this is a "trust God" versus a "trust man" issue. All religious texts and indeed all texts known to man were written by, well, man. So it's really an issue of which men you trust more, unless God decides to host a Universal science class and show us how he actually did it.


This post is TRUE so True... One thing about it though. You can ask god how he did it. He is always there. I don't trust any humans on their own for objective truth. I only trust that part of me that is the observer that is not I (ego) but it is I God. Kingdom of heaven is within. I AM
edit on 4/4/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad
I have a good working understanding of consciousness.

Implying you're a neuroscientist?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 




He is always there


So is Allah, or Zeus, or Thor, or Krishna, if that those are the gods you are raised with than the imaginary projection of yourself you dub god will take on those forms. This is why there are so many millions of people who claim to hear the voice of God answering their prayers and questions yet they come away with different answers and end up at each other's throats.

If there is a god that wants to communicate with the human race on a species wide basis than there are ways that can be done, especially with technology as it is today... voices in people's heads tend to have more to do with mental instability or externalizing the ego and less to do with any actual gods.

Instead of waiting for answers one of the great things about science is we can go investigate and look for them, and what did we find when we looked at life? We found evolution. Now we figured out the basics of how life became so diverse, whether there's a god... or not.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

I am a Christian and I think God created evolution.



I'm not exactly a Christian Troubleshooter, although I believe this too. I gues this would make me an intelligent design believe, one who believes that we are created by a greater being, and that evolution is a fundamental part of that creation. I just don't understand why there is this idea that intelligent design as to be in direct conflict? I know many folks who believe in evolution, who debate for it day in and day out, and yet they are fairly religious, they are faithful.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I do believe in intelligent design but a little differently. I highly suggest reading the Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers from Itelligent Design . I believed in half of the things mentioned in this book before I even read it. Which made me realize I was right for questioning christianity .



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Uhh, I know quite a few people who are less certain, including myself. For good reason, too. By the way, correlation != causation, I hope you know. In other words, you're generalizing. Besides, you're falling victim to your own meme - assuming that Christians = Creationists, against evolution, ignorant, etc" - that's what you're doing. How is that a proper argument?

reply to post by rhinoceros
 

I was being generous when I said there was mountains of evidence FOR evolution. In truth, all Evolution is, is just one theory after another. Like with anything, more questions than answers are given when you tread down the path of Evolution.

For example, how is it that two single-celled organisms spontaneously, and in the same vicinity, mutated (over millions of years), with the perfect genetic makeup to reproduce with the other single-celled organism?

How does nature randomly know that folding tissue (ie, brain) creates more room for memory and increases higher thinking capabilities?

Why are the missing links, missing? Shouldn't there by BILLIONS of fossils, showing a seamless transition between the modern man, and our most ancient of ancestors? Instead we get one or two a year that still resemble modern humans, just with bigger skulls? Okay.

The answer to most of the questions against Evolution are all answered with "chance". How everything in our open system was so perfectly aligned, situations were so perfectly right, that life, all life, came to be - chance. Everything is chance. The difference between those who believe in Evolution (and by the way, I'm referring to both Macro- AND Micro- when I say Evolution, because MOST people, including Creationists, know that Micro- exists), and those who do not, is their belief in Chance or not, NOT because of some Scripture in the Bible - because there is none that say "don't believe in evolution".

reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


See the problem is that God never came out and explained to everyone how he created the world.

Actually He does. Read the book of Genesis. You'll notice when God is "creating" everything, it goes something like this, "And God said.."

That's it. He spoke it into existence. He's God, it's really not a problem for Him. HOWEVER, if that's what you would consider the "simplistic" part, then consider this - I've always believed that God explains the "why", Science explains the "how"; and you need BOTH, co-existing in perfect harmony, to fully understand our universe.

Of course, the day we find out "how" to make something, like God does, will probably never come - when I said 'Science explains the "how"' I was referring to "how something works", because we can understand, in good majority, of how things work. How reproduction works, how life has come to be, how we all came to be here (geographically speaking, where our ancestors, not distant, came from, and our roots, etc)..

HOWEVER, once you start asking "Why?", naturally, the Christian will say "God", and most evolutionists will say "Chance".



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
I was being generous when I said there was mountains of evidence FOR evolution. In truth, all Evolution is, is just one theory after another. Like with anything, more questions than answers are given when you tread down the path of Evolution.


Oh yeah, Just a theory.

I'm not even. It's been refuted a thousand times.



Originally posted by Lionhearte
For example, how is it that two single-celled organisms spontaneously, and in the same vicinity, mutated (over millions of years), with the perfect genetic makeup to reproduce with the other single-celled organism?


Sexual reproduction didn't replace Asexual reproduction. The ability to intermix DNA came along, Gradually building to better system, and it was so much more effective(Not only at having better DNA and more variation, but also virus and disease protection), that many species eventually lost the ability to do it by themselves as an unnecessary function.


Originally posted by Lionhearte
How does nature randomly know that folding tissue (ie, brain) creates more room for memory and increases higher thinking capabilities?


nature doesn't randomly know anything. However, when the most basic of a folding system came up randomly(While there's possibly a non-random reason that built up to it being effective anyways, instead) it was very effective. Nature didn't have to know it would work. It's just that when it did, it growed and developed.



Originally posted by Lionhearte
Why are the missing links, missing? Shouldn't there by BILLIONS of fossils, showing a seamless transition between the modern man, and our most ancient of ancestors? Instead we get one or two a year that still resemble modern humans, just with bigger skulls? Okay.






~
You're evidences against are all based off misunderstandings, and lack of knowledge. That's why none of these arguments have ever swayed the scientific community at all.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte


Why are the missing links, missing? Shouldn't there by BILLIONS of fossils, showing a seamless transition between the modern man, and our most ancient of ancestors? Instead we get one or two a year that still resemble modern humans, just with bigger skulls? Okay.

 


What would you say if you saw this "man with a bigger skull" at the grocery store?

And where does the bible or other religious text explain Homo Erectus

In my church as a kid, some actually said that old fossil records were "planted by the devil." My reply was, if skeletons are real, why would fossilized skeletons not be real?

My mom stopped sending me to Sunday School.




Shouldn't there by BILLIONS of fossils....


Not really, as they only come about in rare circumstances...


Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
*



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I think the whole debate about evolution/creationism/intelligent design is a total waste of time.

We are trying to find where infinity starts and put a number on it, what will it give us anyway? Nothing.

Evolution is a fact of life and doesn't take away anything from creationists.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie1
reply to post by Atzil321
 


How about the Law of Non-contradiction? How do you explain "something" from "nothing", which is true, unguided randomness? Or rather, in more blatant terms life or consciousness from non-life and non-consciousness? Magic? Some magic called emergence? The fairy tale of the "frog prince"? Please use order to explain randomness and do so in a way in which I am expected to believe is not a fairy tale, since obviously your explanation will make a whole lot of sense. As a matter of fact, how about demonstrating to me how something comes from nothing, and THEN showing me how it develops consciousness - go!

On second thought, after doing that, then demonstrate for me, please (I would like to see it), how the Law of Non-contradiction is still true, since you would have just proven the absurd can be true, and science relies on that very Law. Yes, use your orderly demonstration to show me how random virtual particles can magically become ordered and real and evolve without any order. Show me how no intelligence is involved in the demonstration, and therefore is not part of it. I await your orderly and intelligent response to the impossible.

You may, questionably, have every right to say that order does not imply intelligence, but you have no right to say that orderly demonstration can in any way, shape, or form, prove, or even imply random and non-intelligent order. Until you can prove measurement without intelligence, and most would agree measurement is a necessary part of order, then total non-intelligent randomness must and should be considered a fairy tale. How can anything be orderly without measurement, and what does physics prove concerning measurement and the role of the observer?

How can anything be considered to have order without being measured?

Place the limitation on man if you desire, but the fact remains that his system of logic and thought depends upon it; therefore, no man can go beyond it using any method of "truth" and not move into the absurd.


This thread seems highly opinionated with alot of ego even though the people going on about no ego are showing their true colours. For some reason nobody wants to reply to hillbillyhippie's post above. Probably because its the only reasonable comment on thread, and it hit the nail on the head regarding the OP, and everyone's comments.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Intelligent Design doesn't have to oppose evolution. I think Intelligent Design and Evolution are both true. I think Aliens created our species, and I think any living species evolves, regardless of who created it or how it was created.

I think a lot of people automatically equate Intelligent Design as a religious concept and that is just not true.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I've got my own little pet theory about intelligent design that has nothing to do with religion, but rather cognitive and perceptual constructs (visualized thoughts/imagination/perception/morphic fields) that "echo" backwards through time and influence tiny things in the past via psychokinesis to guide evolution.

All the explanatory convenience of intelligent design, but with no need for any big Grandpa in the Sky making decisions. And all it takes is an understanding of the non-linear nature of time.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by chr0naut
You may be surprised to find out that the human male chromosome has about 125,000 years left in it and then it will have become unviable (read "Adams Curse" by Sykes).

Mutations accumulate into the Y-chromosome because it doesn't recombine. However, this estimate of 125,000 years is made from ignorance. If the Y-chromosome ever deteriorates into a state where loss of function is but a step away, obviously natural selection will favor those sperm cells that manage to get the job done (i.e. the other don't ever even get a chance since they lead to miscarriage).



Heritable genetic damage is cumulative and destructive. The longer an organism has been around, the more damage is accumulated in its genome.

At some point, the viability of the species is compromised and the species goes extinct. We can observe this process happening.

This is but misinformation, but feel free to prove me wrong with references to scientific literature..
edit on 4-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


I believe that Professor Brian Sykes has a fairly outstanding scientific reputation in his field of genetics. Please review this Wikipedia link about him.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by chr0naut
Where are the devolutionary trends in controlled environments with no predation (removing natural selection)?

Predation is not the only form of natural selection, on the contrary competition also happens in intraspecies manner. This is why e.g. peafowl males have such gigantic tales. From interspecies aspect it's a big minus, e.g. individuals with larger tails are more easily caught by e.g. foxes. On the other hand, the females are more willing to reproduce with big tailed individuals, so there it brings about a competitive advantage (sexual selection is but a subtype of natural selection). What on Earth made you assume that natural selection didn't apply inside species?

edit on 4-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


I was not ignoring intraspecies pressures.

It would appear, however that you are ignoring de-evolutionary trends which should be the dominant mode of expression of genetic mutation, but where are they?

You are ignoring the elephant in the room.

... and just for completeness, I do not believe that evolution does not occur, but it is a mechanism of change. There appears to be other mechanisms for genetic change too (for which we do not have any adequate explanation).

To state that the theory of evolution explains every mystery of speciation is in itself unscientific, especially where we find instances where it simply doesn't work.


edit on 4/4/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/4/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 

Yes, but what is the exact quote? What does he say about the Y-chromosome? You can't expect me to read an entire book just because of some poster in the internet (that I assume is misinformed).





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join