Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[whatthe_fuzz]

doesn't make any sense, but I'll go with it

how does it not? a pile of bricks is the equivalent of disorder whereas the house is order designed by something greater than a pile of bricks. the house doesnt just happen

[_ASSASSIN_]

no we think that they are. it is impossible to tell.do

think of it this way, out of those thousands + more being discovered everyday, how is it not a possibility that there is life outside us

[_ASSASSIN_]

how does it not? a pile of bricks is the equivalent of disorder whereas the house is order designed by something greater than a pile of bricks. the house doesnt just happen

but order does come from disorder, order comes because of a root

laws were established to stop things

if the things weren't there, we didn't need the laws

[whatthe_fuzz]

think of it this way, out of those thousands + more being discovered everyday, how is it not a possibility that there is life outside us

 

so you went from arguing that without a doubt there is a planet capable of sustaining life to the argument that there are so many options that there MUST be life outside of us...

 

which one is it. 

 

 

if i have a bag of 100 marbles doesnt mean that one of them is definitely red.

[wpirobotbuilder]

The argument about intelligent design versus evolution isn't of much value:

 

Intelligent design is centered around the belief in some sort of Creator (usually the central deity/deities in religion), but those systems are based around faith. You cannot prove that a Creator doesn't exist, because faith isn't based on logical proof or material evidence.

 

We can certainly put forward evolution as a viable theory, because there is plenty of evidence in support of it, and its principles are being applied to areas such as agriculture.

[Dave :)]

this thomas aquinas guy really gets no where with his arguments, just watch the numerous videos on youtube de-bunking every theory of his

 

To be able to have an educated discussion - you really need to understand BOTH sides of the coin. "This Saint Thmos Aquinas guy" was perhaps one of the most influential people to grace Philosophy and Theology. His theories and understanding go so much deeper than you first believe, and i think it isn't fair to say he gets nowhere basing your understanding on watching youtube videos..

[_ASSASSIN_]

so you went from arguing that without a doubt there is a planet capable of sustaining life to the argument that there are so many options that there MUST be life outside of us...

 

which one is it. 

 

 

if i have a bag of 100 marbles doesnt mean that one of them is definitely red.

well no shit, but that's not a reasonable argument/analogy, considering the universe is nearly infinite 

[whatthe_fuzz]

but order does come from disorder, order comes because of a root

laws were established to stop things

if the things weren't there, we didn't need the laws

 

this doesnt make sense....

 

laws are a moral standpoint and have no use in this argument. 

 

show me one PROVABLE example of order coming from disorder. in the physical not philosophical, hypothetical, theoretical world 

[Volbet]

no we actually do not have any fossils depicting a crossover species. maybe similar species but no true middle.

second I would argue saying that the genome is similar to an artists multiple paintings. for example look at picasso. yes everyone of his paintings were unique and different but they all were similar. kinda his flair added.

Indermidiat fossils do not exsist. You will never find a "Crocoduck" as Kirk Camaron said. But that is because evollution does not work like that. evolution is small steps over large amounts of time. I would link you to www.talkorigins.org, but their website is currently down. They have peer studied papers on 12 different fossilised skulls of humanoid primates that predates modern day Homo Sapiens and show us the evolution from the common ansestor we share with the other big primates. And they have papers that show more then 12 different cases of speciasion observed in the modern day

 

Again, this explains nothing. Just because you can assert something, it doesn't mean it is equal to other explernations  The first step for you is to prove this cosmic intelligence's exsistense, and then you can begin to assert that It created every thing. I could say: "My 3 year old daughter created the universe" and thet would be equally as valid.

 

 

but that is based off of human reason. we view things with a beginning and an end however these are human based rationales and logic. the designer is not based off of these limits so thats were this foreign idea of ever existing comes into play.

 

no we think that they are. it is impossible to tell.

Now you are just moving into epistemological nihilism where there is no return. We have to assert a basis of knowladge or else we can't go anywhere. And the knowladge can only be based on human reasoning, because we don't know anything else. 

 

Further more. If this being is beyond logic and human understanding, what reasons do we have to believe that such a being exsists. If we can't possibly understand this being, we can't assert it.

[_ASSASSIN_]

To be able to have an educated discussion - you really need to understand BOTH sides of the coin. "This Saint Thmos Aquinas guy" was perhaps one of the most influential people to grace Philosophy and Theology. His theories and understanding go so much deeper than you first believe, and i think it isn't fair to say he gets nowhere basing your understanding on watching youtube videos..

[whatthe_fuzz]

The argument about intelligent design versus evolution isn't of much value:

 

Intelligent design is centered around the belief in some sort of Creator (usually the central deity/deities in religion), but those systems are based around faith. You cannot prove that a Creator doesn't exist, because faith isn't based on logical proof or material evidence.

 

We can certainly put forward evolution as a viable theory, because there is plenty of evidence in support of it, and its principles are being applied to areas such as agriculture.

 

However, they cannot be directly be compared.

 

 

ahh but macroevolution lacks proof. it states that two species are similar thus they came from the same ancestor. show me one crossover species. there are supposedly MILLIONS due to the wide species gap we have today. 

[mr moose]

for those who think that religions are opposed to evolution read this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

 

the only religious people on earth who support a young earth or oppose evolution or think ID has any relevance are the minority, a very loud crowd but a minority all the same. 

 

 

For those who don't know what a scientific theory is, those who keep posting the general definition please read this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

I don't usually like wikipedia but this time it has the easiest explanation.  

[Volbet]

I wasn't debating that. He suggested that all Religions believed that they are correct in what ever understanding they have, and that science is wrong. That simply isn't true. Some Fundamentalist Christians are certainly portrayed like that - and it may be true for them; however, to then stereotype Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews etc into that same "umbrella" is, in my view, extremely naive.

I am actually truely sorry for asserting that. I was just about to add a disclaimer, when you first answered. I am an atheist and therefor I am not in a position to claim anything on the behalf any religion.

[whatthe_fuzz]

well no shit, but that's not a reasonable argument/analogy, considering the universe is nearly infinite 

 

 

it is however. we definitely have a finite number of potential planets....even though there are potentially infinitely equivalent planetary bodies 

[Dave :)]

 

Like i said  - you can't base your understanding on a couple Youtube videos.

[_ASSASSIN_]

this doesnt make sense....

 

laws are a moral standpoint and have no use in this argument. 

 

show me one PROVABLE example of order coming from disorder. in the physical not philosophical, hypothetical, theoretical world 

sure thing

 

there are a plentiful amount of deer, wolves take advantage of that, controlling their population, they become greedy because they are accustomed to the amount of deers they used to have, and now their own population is dying out, because there are less deers, therefore more deers have been able to breed, increasing the population of the deers, goes on forever pretty much

[_ASSASSIN_]

Like i said  - you can't base your understanding on a couple Youtube videos.

just watch it

[Volbet]

To be able to have an educated discussion - you really need to understand BOTH sides of the coin. "This Saint Thmos Aquinas guy" was perhaps one of the most influential people to grace Philosophy and Theology. His theories and understanding go so much deeper than you first believe, and i think it isn't fair to say he gets nowhere basing your understanding on watching youtube videos..

I have read nearlly everything Aquinas have ever written, and yes, he is one of the most influential phlosophers of all time. That said, he was also a product of his time. Aquinas asserts alot of his stuff from a posistion of pure faith. At his time religion was an explanation. And even he noted the logical fallacies he was commiting in several of his works

[whatthe_fuzz]

Indermidiat fossils do not exsist. You will never find a "Crocoduck" as Kirk Camaron said. But that is because evollution does not work like that. evolution is small steps over large amounts of time. I would link you to www.talkorigins.org, but their website is currently down. They have peer studied papers on 12 different fossilised skulls of humanoid primates that predates modern day Homo Sapiens and show us the evolution from the common ansestor we share with the other big primates. And they have papers that show more then 12 different cases of speciasion observed in the modern day

 

Again, this explains nothing. Just because you can assert something, it doesn't mean it is equal to other explernations  The first step for you is to prove this cosmic intelligence's exsistense, and then you can begin to assert that It created every thing. I could say: "My 3 year old daughter created the universe" and thet would be equally as valid.

 

 

 

Now you are just moving into epistemological nihilism where there is no return. We have to assert a basis of knowladge or else we can't go anywhere. And the knowladge can only be based on human reasoning, because we don't know anything else. 

 

Further more. If this being is beyond logic and human understanding, what reasons do we have to believe that such a being exsists. If we can't possibly understand this being, we can't assert it.

 

intermediate fossils MUST exist? even though it is a gradual change it gets to a point were the adaptations are so much more different than the original creature that the middle ground should be observable. i.e. horse to giraffe.

 

and yes the idea of human comprehension being invalid to understand a non human idea is philosophically impossible to comprehend 

[whatthe_fuzz]

sure thing

 

there are a plentiful amount of deer, wolves take advantage of that, controlling their population, they become greedy because they are accustomed to the amount of deers they used to have, and now their own population is dying out, because there are less deers, therefore more deers have been able to breed, increasing the population of the deers, goes on forever pretty much

 

this isnt order out of disorder? this is simple feeding patterns? a simple fact of nature. show me something that was created out of disorder. 

[_ASSASSIN_]

this isnt order out of disorder? this is simple feeding patterns? a simple fact of nature. show me something that was created out of disorder. 

people are flustered to wonder how they came into existence

the only logical thing at the time was a higher being

 

[mr moose]

Why do people keep insinuating the horse to giraffe thing?????  They are two completely separate creatures, the only similarity is that they have four legs.  You'd be just as accurate to insinuate the cat evolved from a rat because they both have four legs.

[whatthe_fuzz]

people are flustered to wonder how they came into existence

the only logical thing at the time was a higher being

you just changed topics?

[Volbet]

intermediate fossils MUST exist? even though it is a gradual change it gets to a point were the adaptations are so much more different than the original creature that the middle ground should be observable. i.e. horse to giraffe.

 

There exsist an abundance of fossils, but they would never be called intermediate. You can find fossils were the neck is slowly growing over a large period of time. But look this up in a real book. I can recommed this: Brownlee, A. (1963). "Evolution of the Giraffe," Nature vol. 200, p. 1022.

[whatthe_fuzz]

Why do people keep insinuating the horse to giraffe thing????? They are two completely separate creatures, the only similarity is that they have four legs. You'd be just as accurate to insinuate the cat evolved from a rat because they both have four legs.

according to evolution the giraffe came from the horse