Support NeoGAF

[DaMan121]

Where is the scientific evidence explaining why the material that set off the big bang was there in the first place, or why the universe is rapidly expanding outward which will eventually cause everything to die out? Life's purpose is to self perpetuate, so why does the universe contradict this basic truth?

When you get down to the core of the beginning of all things you always get to a point where the only explanation you can come up with is "it just is." That is exactly why many, myself included, will always believe that there is more to life than just scientific logic and theories.

And ID doesnt answer that either - nor does the bible - The earth is NOT 6000 years old, light couldnt have been created BEFORE the stars etc etc The problem with ID as a theory - it cant be tested, therefore it can NEVER be science.

 

[Gregory]

I think buddha created us. Not evolution and certainly not god. Buddha, yes. Or maybe aliens. Yes, I think aliens. Who were also created by buddha 7000 years ago. Maybe 8000.

 

[Jeffahn]

I'd like to know who exactly this allegedly 'intelligent' designer is so I can sue his his ass for potentially fatal and often painful design flaws. Damn near killed myslef choking on a peanut the other day.

...

 

[acidviper]

The problem is that there are limits to Evolution. You can't just evolve from nothing. There are processes that are just too complex to have been gained from constant trial and error; the scientific community knows this. The problem is that they have been working so hard to bring Darwin's shit to the forefront and the Bible Belt has been fighting it so hard, that they have become black and white. If you don't wholly support one or the other you are an shunned and the gen public gets more confused. Which leads to uninformed debates like this. Its pretty much ID with evolutionary effects. The Earth is billions of years old, but biblical references are not literal.

Why do people have trouble grasping that small chance doesn't mean impossible? I don't think any people arguing for evolution have any trouble saying that what has happened here on Earth is truely special and magnificent. If the oddsof it occuring were 1/1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, I think the universe is big enough to accomodate such 'impossible oddds' with ease.

Take a biochemistry course. You will find that the odds are higher than that. The odds of so many 1 in a trillion factors would astound you. Its a matter of how would the body know to make something in step 47, that would affect step 36 and step 88 and denies step 1, 3, 7, 54. You can't evolve through trial and error like that.

 

[Nerevar]

I love how the parent post contains a link to an article that points out that proponents of ID never actually put forth any coherent theory, they just try and poke holes in the "theory" of evolution, then claim that since evolution is unsatisfactory God must have done it. Then about 30 posts down we start seeing the proponents of ID pointing out how evolution isn't satisfactory to explain the origins of the universe ... therefore God must have done it. :lol

"God of the gaps" rears its head again.

 

[Jeffahn]

The problem is that there are limits to Evolution. You can't just evolve from nothing. There are processes that are just too complex to have been gained from constant trial and error; the scientific community knows this. The problem is that they have been working so hard to bring Darwin's shit to the forefront and the Bible Belt has been fighting it so hard, that they have become black and white. If you don't wholly support one or the other you are an shunned and the gen public gets more confused. Which leads to uninformed debates like this. Its pretty much ID with evolutionary effects. The Earth is billions of years old, but biblical references are not literal.


Take a biochemistry course. You will find that the odds are higher than that. The odds of so many 1 in a trillion factors would astound you. Its a matter of how would the body know to make something in step 47, that would affect step 36 and step 88 and denies step 1, 3, 7, 54. You can't evolve through trial and error like that.

Pick a number between 0 and 47 trillion.

Go it?

Now, did you know that the chances of you picking the number you did are 1 in 47 trillion?

Amazing, eh?

...

 

[xabre]

Take a biochemistry course. You will find that the odds are higher than that. The odds of so many 1 in a trillion factors would astound you.

The following is a good read for dealing with your so called 'astounding factors' -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Your attack on abiogenesis is classical creationist ‘pick and run’. You pick a (often done to death) hole in evolution and run away, providing no scientific alternative. That’s what ID is, a pick and run theory, too concerned with trying (a miserably failing every time) to find fault with evolution that it fails to present any scientifically valid alternative of its own.

So let’s change the tired and true ‘pick and run’ shit into something more substantial. If, as you claim, that life did not emerge from non-living matter as abiogenesis predicts (and not evolution which has nothing to do with it as I already made a point to mention that if you bothered to read the topic) then where exactly did life come from? What is your scientific explanation for the emergence of life, an explanation that satisfies the classical scientific criteria of being testable, falsifiable and predictable?

 

[DonasaurusRex]

well evolution alone should be taught , and this is coming from a christian guys. Evolution is a scientific theory and if thats what MOST biologists have as an answer for how life changed and originated than thats what should be taught in schools. Now the whole teaching the POSSIBILITY of gen 1:1 is NOT the responsibility of the state. The responsbility lies on the church to get people to believe through example and reinforce this through worship. People in the church today are asleep, they dont give a shit if the Lords work is being done they care if they can say they are right. You think they disagree with evolution , HA you should see different denominations!

Its a shame but i would wager most church folk wouldnt give a damn if most people went to hell as long as they could know they are right and everyone else is wrong and they are just the oh so special people. Why they think they could love God or any other thing unconditionally when they can turn their noses up and judge others like its nothing is beyond me. I welcome the view of many different philosophies for one because the very bible i believe in tells me i should come to my own conclusions about them. There will ALWAYS be a leap of faith in believing , religious belief or otherwise, theres just alot of things today that shake alot of peoples faith. For some reason they think that dominating opposing views is the way to restore it a, real pity, but very human.

 

[Carton]

If life is so beautiful and complex it "must" have a designer. And the designer is equally (if not much more) beautiful and complex as the design. Then surely he/she/it "must", too, have a designer, if we are to be consistent.

 

[SteveMeister]

Read this document (.pdf) If you still think evolution is "wrong" or "incomplete" or that scientists are bullheaded about it and won't consider that any part of it is anything but the absolute inviolate truth, or if you still think that intelligent design may in fact have some basis in reality, then YOU ARE A MORON. Or something like that.

 

[demon]

If life is so beautiful and complex it "must" have a designer. And the designer is equally (if not much more) beautiful and complex as the design. Then surely he/she/it "must", too, have a designer, if we are to be consistent.

Ahh, it must! Cuz, like, it's so beautiful and stuff!

 

[Gregory]

I'd like to know who exactly this allegedly 'intelligent' designer is so I can sue his his ass for potentially fatal and often painful design flaws. Damn near killed myslef choking on a peanut the other day.

...

That "flaw" is the reason why we are able to speak actually and apes are not. Because our air and food-pipes are so close together (I`m sure it`s called something else in proper english).

 

[Jeffahn]

That "flaw" is the reason why we are able to speak actually and apes are not.

Man is an ape.

Because our air and food-pipes are so close together (I`m sure it`s called something else in proper english).

Why then not create a seperate organ for speaking? Why design something that has the potential to kill you?

...

 

[acidviper]

The following is a good read for dealing with your so called 'astounding factors' -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Your attack on abiogenesis is classical creationist ‘pick and run’. You pick a (often done to death) hole in evolution and run away, providing no scientific alternative. That’s what ID is, a pick and run theory, too concerned with trying (a miserably failing every time) to find fault with evolution that it fails to present any scientifically valid alternative of its own.

I didn't mean abiogenesis, I was more concerned with complex biochemical processes like blood clotting and muscle cells - which do not have a lot of evolutionary documentation on the biochem level.

Like I said in my argument anything that is not pro-Evolution is considered pro-Creationist which makes it impossible to make another option. You have to realize that Evolution has its limitations. I think Evolution should be a theory and taught, but like all good theories it can be challeneged. If you think Darwin made untouchable predictions in the 1800's then you are part of the problem.

 

[lilraylewis]

Slightly off-topic, but my sister's reading material for her 10th grade english class are like 80% religious(all dealing with Christianity) and 20% other(Romeo and Juliet). She has to read the Genesis and the Story of Job from the Bible(AFAIR, I can't remember what else she is suppose to read from the bible). She has to write a report on what she read. It has been 7 years since I was in high school, but I have never read any religious material in any of my english class. If the teacher assigned reading from other religion, then I wouldn't have mind, but I think this is just wrong. We lived in Los Angeles btw, should I do something about it? If I should, then how?

My 10th grade English class focused mainly on British literature, so I assume that's the case with your sister's class as well. If so, then you really should have no problem with the teacher assigning her some books of the Bible, because the Bible--or the King James version of it anyway--is one of the most important and aesthetically beautiful works in all of English literature. Not only is it esthetically beautiful and thought provoking, but it's also influnced many of our best writers, from Shakespeare(well, the Tyndale translation probably influence him more that the KJ, but the two versions are very close) to Blake to Henry James.

As long as the teacher encourages the students to approach the work seculary, and not as religious fundamentalists, then you would be a fool to complain, for he/she is doing her students a great service by teaching the Bible, and not running away from it for political reasons like many other schools and teachers do.

And the teacher shouldn't have to teach other religous works alongside the bible: the class is English, not religion. Demanding that aesthetically and cognitively inferior works be taught alongside the bible sheerly for the sake of diversity is political correctness at its worst.

Sorry to derail the thread again.

 

[android]

I hate these threads. None of us will know the answers until we are dead and then only if there is a afterlife. It doesn't change my life in anyway whether evolution or creation is at the start of life on this planet. It seems to me like both sides in this fight get off on the battle thats exists between them and nothing more.

 

[Jeffahn]

I didn't mean abiogenesis, I was more concerned with complex biochemical processes like blood clotting and muscle cells - which do not have a lot of evolutionary documentation on the biochem level.

Please learn how to use Google.

Like I said in my argument anything that is not pro-Evolution is considered pro-Creationist which makes it impossible to make another option.

???

You have to realize that Evolution has its limitations.

What limitations?

I think Evolution should be a theory and taught, but like all good theories it can be challeneged. If you think Darwin made untouchable predictions in the 1800's then you are part of the problem.

ToE has been challenged consistenly by scientists for around 150 years and remains the only scientific theory explaining the development of life on Earth.

...

 

[Hitokage]

My 10th grade English class focused mainly on British literature, so I assume that's the case with your sister's class as well. If so, then you really should have no problem with the teacher assigning her some books of the Bible, because the Bible--or the King James version of it anyway--is one of the most important and aesthetically beautiful works in all of English literature. Not only is it esthetically beautiful and thought provoking, but it's also influnced many of our best writers, from Shakespeare(well, the Tyndale translation probably influence him more that the KJ, but the two versions are very close) to Blake to Henry James.

Except it's only an english translation of a nonenglish work. They teach that in world literature, not english literature. There are no english authors in the bible, at all. No Shakespeare, no Blake, no Chaucer. It deserves mention, but using 80% of class on it is an utter waste of time and school resources.

Like I said in my argument anything that is not pro-Evolution is considered pro-Creationist which makes it impossible to make another option. You have to realize that Evolution has its limitations. I think Evolution should be a theory and taught, but like all good theories it can be challeneged. If you think Darwin made untouchable predictions in the 1800's then you are part of the problem.

And if you honestly think that the theory of evolution hasn't been developed more than Darwin, then you're worse.

 

[Instigator]

I hate these threads. None of us will know the answers until we are dead and then only if there is a afterlife. It doesn't change my life in anyway whether evolution or creation is at the start of life on this planet. It seems to me like both sides in this fight get off on the battle thats exists between them and nothing more.

This has nothing to do with the meaning in life. It's about how the world works. There are direct benefits from that scientific knowledge.

Creationists long for the days leeches, bleeding and drilling holes into people's head was the cure of all ills and they were none of the wiser about the mysteries of nature.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Creationists long for the days leeches, bleeding and drilling holes into people's head was the cure of all ills and they were none of the wiser about the mysteries of nature.

HAHHA FUNDIES ARE STOOPID! LOOK AT ME. I CAN BE JIST AS SIMPLISTIC AND STEREOTYPE JIST LIKE THEM.

 

[Lardbutt]

Evolution is pretty overrated theory IMHO. Sure it may explain the abundance in variety of life, but doesnt' really explain how life was created in the first place.

Again I ask, if science already has a proven explantion for the origin of life, why can't they duplicate it in a laboratory?

 

[lilraylewis]

Except it's only an english translation of a nonenglish work. They teach that in world literature, not english literature. There are no english authors in the bible, at all. No Shakespeare, no Blake, no Chaucer. It deserves mention, but using 80% of class on it is an utter waste of time and school resources.

Well, you do make a good point I suppose: the cognitive value of the bible comes from its oriental writers, not from its English translaters. But to say that it's not taught in English lit classes is flat out wrong. It's been on the syllabus of every survey of British literature class I've ever taken, as have other translated works such as "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam." And although I suppose I must retract my argument that it belongs in an English class because of its cognitive power, I still hold that the aesthetic beauty created by its English translators is more than a good reason to include it in a British lit class.

 

[SteveMeister]

This has nothing to do with the meaning in life. It's about how the world works. There are direct benefits from that scientific knowledge.

Creationists long for the days leeches, bleeding and drilling holes into people's head was the cure of all ills and they were none of the wiser about the mysteries of nature.

Yep, if you question evolution (after 150+ years of experimentation, observation, and intense scrutiny) then you're questioning the entire basis of all of science. You might as well doubt the rest of science as well, and attribute everything directly to God.

 

[SteveMeister]

Evolution is pretty overrated theory IMHO. Sure it may explain the abundance in variety of life, but doesnt' really explain how life was created in the first place.

Again I ask, if science already has a proven explantion for the origin of life, why can't they duplicate it in a laboratory?

DOLT! Evolution does not even ATTEMPT to explain the origin of life. It attempts to explain the origin of SPECIES. Good lord, get a clue!

 

[android]

This has nothing to do with the meaning in life. It's about how the world works. There are direct benefits from that scientific knowledge.

Creationists long for the days leeches, bleeding and drilling holes into people's head was the cure of all ills and they were none of the wiser about the mysteries of nature.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

editbefore i go to work) You are taking the fundementalist viewpoint (earth in six days, planet 6000 years old, dinosaurs never existed) and applying that to everyone who believes in God. You ignore those who believe that God(s) created everything and then left it to it's own devices or that he/she/it is using evolution as a tool to create different species. You use the extreme right wing viewpoint to dismiss all believers in a higher power, just as they do the opposite to evolutionists in the religious community. It's all about the battle and nothing more.

 

[Lardbutt]

DOLT! Evolution does not even ATTEMPT to explain the origin of life. It attempts to explain the origin of SPECIES. Good lord, get a clue!

So why are people even calling it a war between ID and Evolution? Since they seem to be trying to explain different things. Shouldn't it really be ID vs abiogenesis or whatever?

 

[Drensch]

Evolution is pretty overrated theory IMHO. Sure it may explain the abundance in variety of life, but doesnt' really explain how life was created in the first place.

That's like asking why newton's laws fon't explain the origin of a taco. Newton's laws don't discuss the making of tacos, as evolution doesn't discuss the origin of life.

Again I ask, if science already has a proven explantion for the origin of life, why can't they duplicate it in a laboratory?

That's like claiming that since we know how the sun works, since we can't create it in a lab, the concepts behiond the sun are bs.

FYI Scientists have produced results similar to to what they believe happened when life began. I.e. various energy sources present during early earth periods have been applied to various chemical compounds present on earth during that period, producing amno acids.

 

[Lord Error]

A big, big issue here, is quite simply the Specialness of Man. I've gotten into some deep conversations with the religious before. The sticking point it comes down to for many, is that Man has to be Special. Some religious persons can go that God (or Whoever) used evolution as a *tool* to design and develop animals - essentially Will Wright's Spore, Divine Collector's Edition. But for other religious folk, there *must* be a special division between Man and all other creatures in order to maintain the human connection with divinity. Thus they simply do not like the picture science paints, it's that simple. It's... distasteful.

Try to bring the mentally disabled people when they mention how we (humans) must always be better. I think that genetic problems like that can make some human beings less inteligent than some animals, like apes for example, as such people can be unable to speak, not really understand what's going around them, etc. Put such people in wilderness and let them live there with noone to help them, would they be any different than animals? I'm curious what they think about that.

 

[SteveMeister]

So why are people even calling it a war between ID and Evolution? Since they seem to be trying to explain different things. Shouldn't it really be ID vs abiogenesis or whatever?

Good question!

The debate comes down to two things:
1. Evolution contradicts the Bible, and God forbid that should happen
2. Some people are offended at the thought that man -- whom the Bible says was "created in God's image" could have evolved from a lower life form.

So therefore, all science that contradicts what's in the Bible is null and void. It astounds me that in the 21st century, people can actually believe this stuff.

 

[masud]

So why are people even calling it a war between ID and Evolution? Since they seem to be trying to explain different things. Shouldn't it really be ID vs abiogenesis or whatever?

Evolution claims than man evolved from other species while ID claims that a God created man in his image. That's the real point of contention I don't understand how you guys got on this dumbass tangent.

 

[Instigator]

Thanks for proving my point for me.

And you will burn in hell for it.

Seriously, you are purposelly avoiding this issue because you think it is some kind of philosophical battle. It is not. Just like geology, it does trample on a literal interpretation of certain stories and myths of the Bible, but that does not mean you should just stick your head in the sand until you die. Have some guts and take a stand. You can always admit you don't know either way, there's no shame in that, but there's no need to avoid wanting to know more because you loathe the conflict it creates in some circles.

 

[masud]

Why don't these ID people just say God created man in his own image using evolution? That seems like a reasonable cop ou.. I mean belief.

 

[Instigator]

Why don't these ID people just say God created man in his own image using evolution? That seems like a reasonable cop ou.. I mean belief.

Some Chrisitian denominations say something as much, but ID seems to be something unique to the good old US of A.

I know for most Catholics, evolution is not a big deal.

 

[LegendofJoe]

That's like claiming that since we know how the sun works, since we can't create it in a lab, the concepts behiond the sun are bs.

A little OT here, but it is only a matter of time before scientists discover how to harness the power of contained nuclear fusion, and trust me it will change everything.

 

[Instigator]

A little OT here, but it is only a matter of time before scientists discover how to harness the power of contained nuclear fusion, and trust me it will change everything.

Yeah, but it has been promised for decades and it never seems to be within reach.

I'm not saying it will not happen, but you got to wonder if scientists will not stumble onto another energy source before the hurdles for controlled nuclear fusion are overcome.

 

[Lardbutt]

So therefore, all science that contradicts what's in the Bible is null and void. It astounds me that in the 21st century, people can actually believe this stuff.

Or it could be that some people aren't satisfied with the answers that science has provided them, or that they believe that life is something that science will never be able to fully explain.....I mean I really don't see how you can make a case that science has fully grasped the mysteries of life. To me it seems like it's still a pretty open question...maybe some people have simply ran out of patience waiting for science to give them all the answers...

 

[Lardbutt]

That's like claiming that since we know how the sun works, since we can't create it in a lab, the concepts behiond the sun are bs.

Yeah we know how to recreate it, it's called a hydrogen bomb.

And there's alot of labs around the world that are able to create fusion reactions.

 

[masud]

Or it could be that some people aren't satisfied with the answers that science has provided them, or that they believe that life is something that science will never be able to fully explain.....I mean I really don't see how you can make a case that science has fully grasped the mysteries of life. To me it seems like it's still a pretty open question...maybe some people have simply ran out of patience waiting for science to give them all the answers...

Did you accidentally post this in the wrong thread?

 

[Instigator]

Or it could be that some people aren't satisfied with the answers that science has provided them, or that they believe that life is something that science will never be able to fully explain.....I mean I really don't see how you can make a case that science has fully grasped the mysteries of life. To me it seems like it's still a pretty open question...maybe some people have simply ran out of patience waiting for science to give them all the answers...

No, that's not it.

Science doesn't boast to have all the answers, but then again, it limits its area of interest with the physical world and simply tries to explain how it works. It's a long and quite certainly neverending process.

For many people, a good lie is better than the plain truth. That's why they want to believe. Faith will not give them all the answers either, but it comforts them that there is something greater waiting for them. In effect, they choose to stop searching (for the truth), confident that they are in the right path if they just keep believing.

People in this thread have already touched on the vanity of some people, unable to accept that they are really animals and not the masterpiece of a divine plan.

 

[SteveMeister]

Or it could be that some people aren't satisfied with the answers that science has provided them, or that they believe that life is something that science will never be able to fully explain.....I mean I really don't see how you can make a case that science has fully grasped the mysteries of life. To me it seems like it's still a pretty open question...maybe some people have simply ran out of patience waiting for science to give them all the answers...

I'm not making that case. The supporters of creationism/ID are saying that science is just plain WRONG.

 

[Red Blaster]

:lol at the armchair debaters who think they can prove years of scientific research wrong.

 

[Ristamar]

I know for most Catholics, evolution is not a big deal.

True. Many people that believe in God don't take the bible so literally.

 

[LegendofJoe]

:lol at the armchair debaters who think they can prove years of scientific research wrong.

Not a single person in this thread has attempted to do this, maybe next time you should read more thoroughly before you decide to comment.

 

[Red Blaster]

Not a single person in this thread has attempted to do this, maybe next time you should read more thoroughly before you decide to comment.

:lol :lol

 

[Drensch]

Yeah we know how to recreate it, it's called a hydrogen bomb. And there's alot of labs around the world that are able to create fusion reactions.

The sun and a bomb are very different.

 

[Ristamar]

Also, "contained" would be the operative word. Not really applicable when discussing nuclear weapons.

 

[LegendofJoe]

:lol :lol

Laugh all you want, I still don't see any post in this thread that attempts to label science as being wrong.

 

[Triumph]

So why are people even calling it a war between ID and Evolution? Since they seem to be trying to explain different things. Shouldn't it really be ID vs abiogenesis or whatever?

Because some people(ID) are disingenuous and want their side to be treated like science, which it is not, which you would know if you had read the article in the original post.

Or it could be that some people aren't satisfied with the answers that science has provided them, or that they believe that life is something that science will never be able to fully explain.....I mean I really don't see how you can make a case that science has fully grasped the mysteries of life. To me it seems like it's still a pretty open question...maybe some people have simply ran out of patience waiting for science to give them all the answers...

That's great. Those people are entitled to their opinions, and even entitled to think that way. They are not entitled to try and present that as a scientific theory that should be taught on equal footing as evolution, because quite simply IT IS NOT.

Intelligent Design has no place in science. Period.

 

[fart]

ARHARGAHRGAHSGHAGSRHGASRHJASrAFASFKfdslkjfd;lkjfdsa;kjoioijhreoijljEAlkjfalewkvjoreijfoeajlaejfwalknvoeaijvaoeijteaongeaiurnjvoirejgoeaijutaeoivflkmvaoietuoeairjglkdzljsaljfslkjdfljafljaewjaoijevoijaegoijreljtearlkjflkjalkjfdslkjflkjadlkjfKSvnewaifoeangtrjerlkgndalglknglneroijgeaoijgoijeagoijeroijge

 

[Jeffahn]

ARHARGAHRGAHSGHAGSRHGASRHJASrAFASFKfdslkjfd;lkjfdsa;kjoioijhreoijljEAlkjfalewkvjoreijfoeajlaejfwalknvoeaijvaoeijteaongeaiurnjvoirejgoeaijutaeoivflkmvaoietuoeairjglkdzljsaljfslkjdfljafljaewjaoijevoijaegoijreljtearlkjflkjalkjfdslkjflkjadlkjfKSvnewaifoeangtrjerlkgndalglknglneroijgeaoijgoijeagoijeroijge

Finally, somebody has stated the theory behind intelligent design creationism!!!

...