Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 446,973 views
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
But you still have the cart before the horse, here.Swift
It's not amazing that conditions just happened to be set up perfectly for life as we know it. It's just that life as we know it has arisen to fit those conditions. This is what danoff has been repeatedly trying to get to with you.
You can't take life as we know it as an a priori and then point to the impossibility of the perfect conditions for that a priori arising by random chance. Life would be different based on different sequences or conditions, because life as we know it is NOT the only possible form life can take. It's a simple logical mistake and it's made by many Creationists - and it's frequently made on purpose as well, in order to lend a weight of pseudoscience to the myth.
If you tried to reverse-engineer life as we know it by random chance, you are correct, it would be impossible. But life as we know it is NOT the only possible form of life. If we were a million miles farther away from the sun - 1% - we might all have thick white fur to keep us warm and help us blend into our environment. There are an infinite number of variations that would have arisen to adapt life to some other set of conditions.
And on the subject of the Origin of the Universe: there is a fundamental difference between asking where matter came from and asking where God came from. The difference is this - even though contemporary science does not currently know where matter came from, we haven't stopped looking for the real answer we know must exist. Creationism, on the other hand, has simply decided "God did it, and since he's eternal, He didn't need any Creator himself".
Isn't that a clear and fundamental difference?
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,453
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Duke
If you believe in evolution, then yes, Swift, myself, and millions of others have the cart in front of the horse. If you believe in intelligent design, then this design that is so compatible for us was designed to be compatible for us because there was a design of what we would need, instead of a evolutionary reaction to the environment. Atheists don't believe in God so why would they stop looking after someone explains to them how God created everything? They are not going to stop looking because they don't want to accept the answer that was presented in front of them. It is a clear fundamental difference.
You take a persons belief system and tell them that they're wrong, you had better be able to backup your claims or you're wasting your breath. In light of that, there has been a lot of wasted breath in the thread on both sides of the debate.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Pako
Granted, creationists who do not believe in evolution will say that they do not have the cart before the horse.
But when poking holes in SOMEONE ELSE'S argument, you must take their ENTIRE argument into account.
You can't simply say "so you think it happened by accident and obviously the probabiliy is increadibly low." because it doesn't take into account the whole story of the person who's argument you're attacking.
- 2,208
Swift
It seems to work out so well because it simply can go no other way, can it? We keep coming back to this. Life that does not "work out so well" either never gets going in the first place, or goes extinct in very short order.
The "intelligence" in all this "design" is the intelligence of functionality. Stuff that doesn't work is eliminated. Only what works remains.
I'm a bit puzzled as to why you're struggling with a pretty straightfoward concept. How could nature "work" any other way? How could it "work" in "unworkable" ways?
- 3,802
Because that someone could be talking utter crap. Who's to say the Bible isn't just made up? I mean come on, some of that stuff is pretty far fetched, with no proof what so ever.
It's called backing up your arguement, which is what real scientists like to do.
Oh and I've met plenty of Christians who think Creationism is a lie. One I know said, and I quote him on this "the old testament is a load of crap, everyone knows this". Shows you don't have to be an atheist to believe in Evolution.
There's been over 105 pages of this. Take your pick. If one thing in the Bible can be proved wrong, who's to say it's not all a lie? The fact that the flood didn't happen proves this quite well me thinks. And please, don't try to use this argument on science, it simply doesn't work that way.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
But you're using that belief as proof of... that belief. You're basing your system on an incorrect assumption, then using that assumption to invalidate my system.Pako
Logic doesn't work that way. You can't insist things about evolution that evolution does not say, and then use that to invalidate evolution.
- 87,573
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Small_Fryz
Okay...
A bit of digging says we've catalogued 2,000,000 different species.
Further digging says that casual estimates show that we've catalogued between 4 and 20% of all species alive on Earth today. Let's be kind and say we've got 20% done, which means 10,000,000 species exist on Earth today.
99.9% of all species which ever existed are extinct. The Devonian Era extinction was a bit of a doozy. That means that approximately 10,000,000,000 (10 BILLION) species have walked upon the Earth in total.
Adam's 900 year lifespan - though from what I understand, this was only after he'd been tossed out of Eden for letting his bird listen to a talking snake, and not nice-Mr-Beardy-sky-man - would mean he'd have to name (and log - no duplicates) roughly 30,000 species each and every day, or one every 3 seconds. No breaks for fornication or sleep.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,453
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Ok, exhaleing and wasting some more of that breath (but happy to do it). 
The "unknown" in science here is the origin. Science has backwards engineered our existence and called it evolution and some people go as far to say that it isn't intelligent design. Proof of our origin would prove whether or not intelligent design is the basis for what we see in evolution. Since you cannot scientifically prove our origin, you cannot prove or disprove intelligent design. You have just as much scientific proof of our origins as the Bible does. So accept intelligent design as a possibility but you won't because it's against your belief system, which is the same reason why I won't accept that non-intelligent design is what happened.
PS,
I would call myself a "Christ Follower" if you must put a label on me based on what I believe.
The "unknown" in science here is the origin. Science has backwards engineered our existence and called it evolution and some people go as far to say that it isn't intelligent design. Proof of our origin would prove whether or not intelligent design is the basis for what we see in evolution. Since you cannot scientifically prove our origin, you cannot prove or disprove intelligent design. You have just as much scientific proof of our origins as the Bible does. So accept intelligent design as a possibility but you won't because it's against your belief system, which is the same reason why I won't accept that non-intelligent design is what happened.
PS,
I would call myself a "Christ Follower" if you must put a label on me based on what I believe.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Pako
You cannot disprove ANYTHING. You cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster. So I don't see why you even say this.
Pako
Which? The origin of the species or the origin of reality? The origin of the species has far more scientific evidence behind it than the bible does. In fact, I would say that the evidence behind man being the result of evolution is overwhelming. There is almost no chance whatsoever that man was directly "intelligently designed" by God. So this statement is simply false if you're talking about the species, so I assume you're talking about reality.
If you're talking about reality (space, time, the laws of physics etc.) then you're right, the bible has about as much scientific understanding of these things as we do (ie: we have no clue why F=ma). But that doesn't mean we can sit around and make up reasons... It means we have no clue. It means we don't know.
PS
(Banned)
- 2,883
PakoOk, exhaleing and wasting some more of that breath (but happy to do it).
The "unknown" in science here is the origin. Science has backwards engineered our existence and called it evolution and some people go as far to say that it isn't intelligent design. Proof of our origin would prove whether or not intelligent design is the basis for what we see in evolution. Since you cannot scientifically prove our origin, you cannot prove or disprove intelligent design. You have just as much scientific proof of our origins as the Bible does. So accept intelligent design as a possibility but you won't because it's against your belief system, which is the same reason why I won't accept that non-intelligent design is what happened.
PS,
I would call myself a "Christ Follower" if you must put a label on me based on what I believe.
Is that just like a general believer?
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Famine
Adam never commited the sin of Fornication. Eve was his wife.
Ok, so by OUR measurements it seems impossible. But it happened. The flood seemed impossible. But it happened. Jesus Christ rising from the dead was impossible but it happened. God is not bound by our time or knowledge.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,453
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
PS
I call myself a Christ follower because I try to follow the teachings of Christ to best of my understanding and ability. I have seen legalised organizations/churches put too much emphasis on "their" rules that they sometimes forget what Christ was trying to teach. I grew up in a Nazarene denomination and continue to go to a Nazarene church today where I regularly attend. Do I call myself a Nazarene? No, because a organized denomination can change "their" rules where as Christ's message never changes. That's why I call myself a Christ follower.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Pako
Pako... seriously... it isn't possible to disprove ANYTHING... no seriously... that's the truth.
I cannot disprove ANYTHING Pako. Nothing. Certainly not God.
I could just as easily say "Don't tell me it isn't the flying spaghetti monster when you can't prove to me otherwise."
You cannot disprove ANYTHING. Not even the flying spaghetti monster.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Pako
If what you mean by "disprove" is, "show to be unlikely" then I will tell you that we have already disproved ID. If you mean "prove to be false" like you quoted above, then I will tell you again that we cannot disprove anything.
There is no means of disproving anything.
