Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:21 pm to GoldenDawg
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:21 pm to GoldenDawg
quote:
Wish to heck I understood that.
No you don't. Just trust me.
1
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:23 pm to LSU1NSEC
quote:
not according to quantum theory. apparently the building blocks of matter (quarks and gluons) pop in and out of existence all the time - which means the subatomic particles that make up the matter in your body are constantly popping in and out of existence according to theory (don't ask me - too weird) Anyway, i got no problem believing in God.
Particles don't pop in and out of existence as we understand that term. They don't go from nothing to something and then back to nothing. Rather their states of existence change from those for which we have detection methods to those for which we have none.
We know that dark matter exists, for example, but we don't currently have any method of detecting it directly. It may be that particles change from conventional matter to dark matter and back again.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:25 pm to LukeSidewalker
quote:
quote:
Wish to heck I understood that.
No you don't. Just trust me.
Okay. I trust you. And I no longer wish I understood that.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:28 pm to LukeSidewalker
quote:
If you really think about all the miracles of life. It's almost impossible not to believe in a higher power.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:32 pm to Loathor
quote:
the evidence just weighs to far in the favor of intelligent design
Such as?
I think one of the most compelling reasons of God/intelligent design is the level of emotions in humans, think about it, if nature was the only controlling factor emotions would be very low on desirable traits for survival, ideally being more like say a Vulcan such as Spock would be much better. All decisions based on pure logic or learned behavior that increases the chances for survival, all information processed and a decision made for the betterment of the species, you know kinda like ants taking care of the queen and her colony.
the evidence just weighs to far in the favor of intelligent design
Such as?
I think one of the most compelling reasons of God/intelligent design is the level of emotions in humans, think about it, if nature was the only controlling factor emotions would be very low on desirable traits for survival, ideally being more like say a Vulcan such as Spock would be much better. All decisions based on pure logic or learned behavior that increases the chances for survival, all information processed and a decision made for the betterment of the species, you know kinda like ants taking care of the queen and her colony.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:39 pm to MontyFranklyn
I believe in God as a higher power. Who he really is and how he came to be, I don't know.
The odds of our world and life being spontaneously created through chance are so huge, that it's damn near impossible without some form of intelligent design.
That said, I believe in microevolution. Macroevolution has very little proof to back the theory.
Honestly, I think the answers to our creation are a long time away from coming to fruition. I think it's so advanced that right now our minds cannot understand nor conceive it. We have a tendency to form solutions based on what we can see or what makes sense, in order to have an explanation for that which we do not understand.
At one time people were certain the Earth was flat, and those who claimed it round were treated as crazy. It is arrogant and narrow minded to label one person as wrong and you as right when in reality neither have a clue to the answer.
I'm a man of faith because I questioned God's legitimacy. IT is good to question things, it is right to question things. Blind faith based on nothing is dangerous and idiotic. This goes for both sides. I'm a man of faith because the questions I asked resulted in answers that solidified my faith.
This is directed at nobody in particular, but rather my view on the subject.
I actually question Jesus' legitimacy more than God's. My studying of the Old vs New Testament and it's inconsistencies in teaching is why.
Here is my reasoning...why do we, as Christians, think that we are the only ones allowed into Heaven. What about people who have never even heard the Christian message? It's not their fault. Why would Muslims, who believe in basically the same God but a different prophet (Muhammed rather than Jesus) be cast into hell?
Consider this... what would Men like Muhammed and Jesus have to gain as political figures if they used the presence of God and blind faith of the common man to their advantage to gather a large contingent of people to follow in their certain set of ideologies?
Not saying this is true, but any open minded person with questions can see that its possible a particular cult of personality in those times could have easily gathered support to further an ideological agenda.
There could be a God, and we could all still be wrong and following the wrong religions.
The odds of our world and life being spontaneously created through chance are so huge, that it's damn near impossible without some form of intelligent design.
That said, I believe in microevolution. Macroevolution has very little proof to back the theory.
Honestly, I think the answers to our creation are a long time away from coming to fruition. I think it's so advanced that right now our minds cannot understand nor conceive it. We have a tendency to form solutions based on what we can see or what makes sense, in order to have an explanation for that which we do not understand.
At one time people were certain the Earth was flat, and those who claimed it round were treated as crazy. It is arrogant and narrow minded to label one person as wrong and you as right when in reality neither have a clue to the answer.
I'm a man of faith because I questioned God's legitimacy. IT is good to question things, it is right to question things. Blind faith based on nothing is dangerous and idiotic. This goes for both sides. I'm a man of faith because the questions I asked resulted in answers that solidified my faith.
This is directed at nobody in particular, but rather my view on the subject.
I actually question Jesus' legitimacy more than God's. My studying of the Old vs New Testament and it's inconsistencies in teaching is why.
Here is my reasoning...why do we, as Christians, think that we are the only ones allowed into Heaven. What about people who have never even heard the Christian message? It's not their fault. Why would Muslims, who believe in basically the same God but a different prophet (Muhammed rather than Jesus) be cast into hell?
Consider this... what would Men like Muhammed and Jesus have to gain as political figures if they used the presence of God and blind faith of the common man to their advantage to gather a large contingent of people to follow in their certain set of ideologies?
Not saying this is true, but any open minded person with questions can see that its possible a particular cult of personality in those times could have easily gathered support to further an ideological agenda.
There could be a God, and we could all still be wrong and following the wrong religions.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:45 pm to Kentucker
Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
quote:
not according to quantum theory. apparently the building blocks of matter (quarks and gluons) pop in and out of existence all the time - which means the subatomic particles that make up the matter in your body are constantly popping in and out of existence according to theory (don't ask me - too weird) Anyway, i got no problem believing in God.
Particles don't pop in and out of existence as we understand that term. They don't go from nothing to something and then back to nothing. Rather their states of existence change from those for which we have detection methods to those for which we have none.
We know that dark matter exists, for example, but we don't currently have any method of detecting it directly. It may be that particles change from conventional matter to dark matter and back again.
When I was a young curious lad the smallest particles we were taught about were the electrons around the nucleus of a atom, then came quarks, nuetrinos, and boson particles, it seems this rabbit hole known as subatomic physics will continue infinitum!
quote:
not according to quantum theory. apparently the building blocks of matter (quarks and gluons) pop in and out of existence all the time - which means the subatomic particles that make up the matter in your body are constantly popping in and out of existence according to theory (don't ask me - too weird) Anyway, i got no problem believing in God.
Particles don't pop in and out of existence as we understand that term. They don't go from nothing to something and then back to nothing. Rather their states of existence change from those for which we have detection methods to those for which we have none.
We know that dark matter exists, for example, but we don't currently have any method of detecting it directly. It may be that particles change from conventional matter to dark matter and back again.
When I was a young curious lad the smallest particles we were taught about were the electrons around the nucleus of a atom, then came quarks, nuetrinos, and boson particles, it seems this rabbit hole known as subatomic physics will continue infinitum!
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:45 pm to deltaland
What if we were dropped off here by space creatures and they left a book behind(bible) just to blow our minds? And they watch us like the Truman Show.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:47 pm to LukeSidewalker
quote:
What if we were dropped off here by space creatures and they left a book behind(bible) just to blow our minds? And they watch us like the Truman Show.
So you believe in Intelligent Design.
Interdasting.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:50 pm to LukeSidewalker
If that happened it was more like, "Leave The Book, at least they'll have a chance"
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:50 pm to deltaland
quote:
That said, I believe in microevolution. Macroevolution has very little proof to back the theory.
There is no such thing as microevolution, or macroevolution either. There is only evolution.
quote:
Honestly, I think the answers to our creation are a long time away from coming to fruition.
We weren't created. "Nothing" and "something" are human constructs in attempts to understand our existence. It's a waste of time contemplating creation.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 7:54 pm to Kentucker
It was fricking Space Jockeys, when will you people get it?
We were wrong, we were so wrong.
We were wrong, we were so wrong.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 8:15 pm to LukeSidewalker
quote:
What if we were dropped off here by space creatures and they left a book behind(bible) just to blow our minds? And they watch us like the Truman Show.
Just as believable as god.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 8:17 pm to Kentucker
quote:
There is no such thing as microevolution, or macroevolution either.
What?
Micro is the fact that animals adapt to suit their environment over time..for example races of people living near the equator over time developed darker skin to protect from the sun.
Macro is the idea that humans came from monkeys.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 8:34 pm to DirtyDawg
quote:
18. I had a class my junior year on Atheism and the theory of evolution (Christian School), and the evidence just weighs to far in the favor of intelligent design. I know most people would say, "Oh you learned this at a Christian School", but the teacher who taught the class actually worked under people like Ravi Zacharias and etc, and he knew both sides of the argument and presented it in an unbiased way.
A class taught to a 16 year old, presented what evidence that evolution wasn't real? And what is your definition of evolution? That random mutations, and survival of the fittest aren't scientific truths?
Posted on 4/6/14 at 8:36 pm to deltaland
quote:
Macro is the idea that humans came from monkeys.
Humans evolved from something. Adam and Eve is a fairy tale.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 8:37 pm to Kentucker
quote:
There is no such thing as microevolution, or macroevolution either. There is only evolution.
Correct.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 8:37 pm to deltaland
Absolutely no where does the theory of evolution state that humans came from monkeys, apes, etc. That's probably the biggest misconception with evolution. It states instead that humans, apes, monkeys, all came originated from the same ancient species, not that monkeys turned into humans.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 8:37 pm to deltaland
quote:
Micro is the fact that animals adapt to suit their environment over time..for example races of people living near the equator over time developed darker skin to protect from the sun.
No. As the primate lineage that led to humans (and there's only one race, BTW) lost its protective coat of hair, those simians that had the most melanin in their skin survived best and had the healthiest offspring. So, when humans evolved to a hairless state, they had dark skin to protect against the sun's harmful rays but their bodies could still manufacture vitamin D using those same rays.
As humans migrated away from their source of evolution, into latitudes where the sun's rays were not as strong, the amount of melanin in their skin served as a hindrance to their ability to manufacture vitamin D. Now evolution favored those humans who had less melanin and their offspring had the advantage.
quote:
Macro is the idea that humans came from monkeys.
Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Humans, monkeys, lemurs, chimps, apes and all other primates evolved from a common ancestor.
There is only evolution.
Posted on 4/6/14 at 8:48 pm to deltaland
quote:
I believe in God as a higher power. Who he really is and how he came to be, I don't know.
Cool.
quote:
The odds of our world and life being spontaneously created through chance are so huge, that it's damn near impossible without some form of intelligent design.
Being spontaneously created isn't the point, the point is all life on earth evolved through random mutation and survival of the fittest, from its most basic elements.
quote:
That said, I believe in microevolution. Macroevolution has very little proof to back the theory.
That is absolutely stupid. There is no difference in the two. They are one in the same. The amount of proof for evolution(if you want to apply macro or micro label to it, I don't give a shite) is overwhelming. Just because you pretend that there is zero proof, doesn't make that the case.
quote:
Honestly, I think the answers to our creation are a long time away from coming to fruition. I think it's so advanced that right now our minds cannot understand nor conceive it. We have a tendency to form solutions based on what we can see or what makes sense, in order to have an explanation for that which we do not understand.
What does creation have to do with explaining random mutation and survival of the fittest? You don't need to know the source of gravity to understand that Newton's Laws aren't theories, they are the truth.
quote:
At one time people were certain the Earth was flat, and those who claimed it round were treated as crazy. It is arrogant and narrow minded to label one person as wrong and you as right when in reality neither have a clue to the answer.
One side is wrong, the other is right. If you have more knowledge than someone, you can label them ignorant because by that very relationship they are.
quote:
I'm a man of faith because I questioned God's legitimacy. IT is good to question things, it is right to question things. Blind faith based on nothing is dangerous and idiotic. This goes for both sides. I'm a man of faith because the questions I asked resulted in answers that solidified my faith.
Convenient scenario people often use to sound enlightened. This is a very generic sound bite.
quote:
I actually question Jesus' legitimacy more than God's. My studying of the Old vs New Testament and it's inconsistencies in teaching is why.
There are inconsistencies in the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and Tom Cruise's memoirs. They are all fairy tales.
quote:
Consider this... what would Men like Muhammed and Jesus have to gain as political figures if they used the presence of God and blind faith of the common man to their advantage to gather a large contingent of people to follow in their certain set of ideologies?
Many good people and many bad people have used religion to cater to their needs. L Ron Hubbard spent his dying days writing Scientology crap when he had more money than he knew what to do with, and his legions of followers didn't need more to keep giving it to him. Not everything has to have a convenient and morally clear motive. Some people are just fricking crazy. Maybe Jesus/Mohamed/Bhudda/Joseph Smith/Tom Cruise knew/know they are/were full of shite. Maybe not. That's not the point.
quote:
Not saying this is true, but any open minded person with questions can see that its possible a particular cult of personality in those times could have easily gathered support to further an ideological agenda.
It happens in modern times as well.
quote:
There could be a God, and we could all still be wrong and following the wrong religions.
Most likely the case.
Page 4 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News