Creationism vs. Evolution

[another day]

Well, then are you saying the universe is a result of some conscious act?

The universe is not the result of complete random chance nor is it the result of a concious act. It is based on forces, laws, balanced formulas that trigger and spawn a runaway train of constantly changing and evolving life. Your problem is you cannot get your head around the fact that those kind of things can exist without OUR KIND OF INTELLIGENCE to create them. But the universe created thinking minds to survive in it's realms and understand THE UNIVERSE, not the other way around.

[Nemiroff]

If the designer isn't god, then what are the differences between the two?

Both came before the universe, both created the universe, both are beyond our conception and understanding, both must be extremely powerful seeing as they created all there is.

The only thing I can tell is the difference is that god is much more detailed and religion specific, while the creator is a more general description with all the general properties of a god, but nothing to tie it to a specific religion so we can't accuse it of being Christian, for example.

Please don't repeat that you never said religion, I didn't say it was religious, just said it reminds me of a religious god, if you don't agree then by all means tell me what differentiates the creator from god.

Btw, just because he doesn't necessarily make you pray to him doesn't mean he can't demand prayer, and a god doesn't necessarily need to demand prayer either.

The same goes for laws, stories, prophecies, sacrificies, and miracles. No god necessarily must do any of these things, and at its most basic definition, the one thing all gods share, is creation.

Any form of super human design entails god, unless your creator is a bunch of super smart aliens came and actually built the universe. Either way its far fetched.

[Nemiroff]

Current scientific theory states that there are a multitude of universes out there, popping in and out of existence constantly. Why is so hard to believe that, by pure chance, 1 out of countless billions, couldn't achieve stability. And out of the countless stars in the sky (all of which are from only our tiny galaxy) and all the countless other galaxies, ATLEAST 1 would happen to be the right distance from the sun to sustain an atmosphere and liquid water?

The odds for each particular universe, and each particular star and planet are slim, but collectively, they are almost certainty.

On the other hand, ID states that the universe looks like it may be designed, so from that one observation they guess that it had to be designed, which is completely possibly true, but just as possibly false, its a guess, an idea, and it needs more then that to become science.

The multiverse theory (although impossible to see first hand, was deducted out of mathematics, and probably suprised the guy who found it. The designer cannot be seen first hand, but has no mathematical proof and was just some guy thinking, a priori, with no proof, just ideas.

A priori is great for philosophy, but not science.

[Nemiroff]

Current scientific theory states that there are a multitude of universes out there, popping in and out of existence constantly. Why is so hard to believe that, by pure chance, 1 out of countless billions, couldn't achieve stability. And out of the countless stars in the sky (all of which are from only our tiny galaxy) and all the countless other galaxies, ATLEAST 1 would happen to be the right distance from the sun to sustain an atmosphere and liquid water?

The odds for each particular universe, and each particular star and planet are slim, but collectively, they are almost certainty.

On the other hand, ID states that the universe looks like it may be designed, so from that one observation they guess that it had to be designed, which is completely possibly true, but just as possibly false, its a guess, an idea, and it needs more then that to become science.

The multiverse theory (although impossible to see first hand, was deducted out of mathematics, and probably suprised the guy who found it. The designer cannot be seen first hand, but has no mathematical proof and was just some guy thinking, a priori, with no proof, just ideas.

A priori is great for philosophy, but not science.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready That is simply false. Evolution shows how single cell life evolved into multi-cell life, and how we fit into that picture.

Evolution makes no attempt to define where or how life began, only how it adapts to physical conditions. ID says that life was created, thus, ID establishes a source for the origins of life.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready We see life evolve everyday if conditions are right. Ever seen mold?

Yeah, I have. So what?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready ID makes NO effort to prove any aspect of its ridiculous argument on where life began, while the theory of natural selection shows everything but.

The idea of ID doesn't require proof, it merely states that the creation of life is a possibility. Natural selection isn't meant, and is totally inadequate, to use for a discussion of how life began.

[rez]

Quote by: Zeebadee Evolution makes no attempt to define where or how life began, only how it adapts to physical conditions. ID says that life was created, thus, ID establishes a source for the origins of life.

And Abiogenesis states that life started from organic molecules that self-organized. ID suggests that the universe was designed, but never supplies a purpose for that design. So, what good is a hypothesis if it doesn't actually explain anything Zee?

And by the way, which is more of a real possibility -- abiogenesis or ID?

The idea of ID doesn't require proof

Then how does one even come up with the prediction in the first place? What kind of IDiot would make a prediction and not have a good reason for it being true?

I know that when I make conclusions I base them on reasons. For instance, I will predict it will rain outside because the clouds are dark.

I predict that the universe was designed by a designer because.........

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rez And Abiogenesis states that life started from organic molecules that self-organized. ID suggests that the universe was designed, but never supplies a purpose for that design. So, what good is a hypothesis if it doesn't actually explain anything Zee?

Well, I guess it's merely an hypothesis that's waiting for some form of test to be developed to provide evidence of it's viability. Is this instance somehow different from other hypotheses??

Quote by: rez And by the way, which is more of a real possibility -- abiogenesis or ID?

When I look at the theories that life began by "organic molecules that self-organized" in a universe that originated in a process described as a "big bang", I think that ID is a much more feasible explanation. When I see a car, I don't think of it as a product of "molecules that self-organized", do you??

Quote by: rez Then how does one even come up with the prediction in the first place? What kind of IDiot would make a prediction and not have a good reason for it being true?

And what kind of moron would make the claim that a "prediction" had been made when, in fact, it's merely an idea that has been presented.

Quote by: rez I know that when I make conclusions I base them on reasons. For instance, I will predict it will rain outside because the clouds are dark.

Well, I certainly hope you have the sense to come inside when the rain starts.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Well, I guess it's merely an hypothesis that's waiting for some form of test to be developed to provide evidence of it's viability.

When do you think that this "test" is going to be developed? ID has been around for more than 15 years without any progress - no predictions, no tests, no evidence. In the mean time we have sequenced the genomes of both humans and chimps and found definitive evidence that they share a common ancestor, since predictions (based on an hypothesis) have been shown to be true. Would you like to hear about it?

Is this instance somehow different from other hypotheses??

It is different because there are no predictions, there are no tests, and no evidence has been found. Moreover, no prediction is possible.

When I look at the theories that life began by "organic molecules that self-organized" in a universe that originated in a process described as a "big bang", I think that ID is a much more feasible explanation.

What does the big bang have to do with abiogenesis?

When I see a car, I don't think of it as a product of "molecules that self-organized", do you??

Of course not. I am fully aware that cars are made by humans. Why would I imagine that they popped into existance from nothing by the action of some magical being?

And what kind of moron would make the claim that a "prediction" had been made when, in fact, it's merely an idea that has been presented.

One that doesn't like the consequences of the prediction and thus, denies that it is a prediction.

[rez]

Quote by: Zeebadee Well, I guess it's merely an hypothesis that's waiting for some form of test to be developed to provide evidence of it's viability.

Well since ID is a hypothesis that predicts the universe was designed by a designer, I would think one could atleast find the designer. Since everything in the universe is designed, then where does one find the purpose for the design? What is the purpose of bacteria, aids, cancer, hurricanes, volcanoes, down syndrome etcc....

Is this instance somehow different from other hypotheses??

Intelligent Design is a sneaky way of getting creationism taught in school. The difference between ID and all the other creation stories is that Intelligent Design does not mention who exactly the designer is or was or what purpose the designer has.

When I look at the theories that life began by "organic molecules that self-organized" in a universe that originated in a process described as a "big bang"

haha and yet you live in a universe that has cells with a genetic code to instruct which cell does what. You live in a universe where a single cell can reproduce into many cells that perform specific individual tasks and actually become a thinking conscience being. You also live in a universe that is billions of years old that is more complex then you can ever imagine.

I think that ID is a much more feasible explanation. When I see a car, I don't think of it as a product of "molecules that self-organized", do you??

Zee, automobiles have a known purpose and a known designer. Comparing it to something that does not have a known purpose or known designer is rather silly A molecule is nothing like a car.

And what kind of moron would make the claim that a "prediction" had been made when, in fact, it's merely an idea that has been presented.

Sure its an idea. But shouldn't we be talking about the ideas that provide fruitful results? Why should anybody give an idea that explains nothing any credence? What information has Intelligent designer provided that was not known before?

There are plenty of other real possibilities and explanations out there that actually have provided results and information previously unknown. Let's discuss the ideas that seem to been fruitful rather then the ideas that are just a hope and a wish...

[Nemiroff]

If you all agree that its just an idea, a hypothesis that as of yet cannot be proven? Why do I'd supporters demand it be taught in school?

[wanderer89]

I dont beleive in the creation theory. Evolution is a more probable cause, as there is evidence of evolution happening all around us. There is no clear evidence to back up creationism and I dont really beleive in God so yeah. Evolution for me.

[ZNFYRH]

wanderer

Now take "Creation" to mean the creation of the universe itself... is it comparable to evolution?

[Jack]

If you all agree that its just an idea, a hypothesis that as of yet cannot be proven? Why do I'd supporters demand it be taught in school?

The "ID" that's being discussed isn't the same ID that its proponents have tried to push into science class. That ID is the one supported by Behe and crew and its aims are outlined in the Wedge document. That's the mainstream ID that most people are thinking of when the subject is brought up. It's a clumsy attempt to get religion, specifically Christianity, into science classrooms to counter actual science.

[Nemiroff]

so whats the difference? between the ID being discussed here, and the one being brought into our schools?

[Jack]

Read back and you'll see that Zeebadee espouses a rather unorthodox version of ID, not the ID most of us think about when the topic is raised.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo When do you think that this "test" is going to be developed? ID has been around for more than 15 years without any progress - no predictions, no tests, no evidence.

Actually, there is a simple test that could shed light on a possible creator: Find the edge of the universe and look outside. Now, implementing that test is currently a problem.

Quote by: gallo In the mean time we have sequenced the genomes of both humans and chimps and found definitive evidence that they share a common ancestor, since predictions (based on an hypothesis) have been shown to be true. Would you like to hear about it?

I have heard about it. What does a common ancestor have to do with ID?

[ZNFYRH]

Zeebadee

Why find the outside?

Just look back in time to when the universe started.

Then look back farther.

[rez]

Quote by: Zeebadee Actually, there is a simple test that could shed light on a possible creator: Find the edge of the universe and look outside. Now, implementing that test is currently a problem.

Perhaps there is no outside.

[Nemiroff]

Just like walking to the edge of the earth and then keep walking, what if its spherical? You get to the "edge" keep going, and wind up where you started.


Also isherwood, can you reiterate what the difference is, or at least site the page where its on, cause the thread is wayyy too long.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Nemiroff Just like walking to the edge of the earth and then keep walking, what if its spherical? You get to the "edge" keep going, and wind up where you started. .

The universe, as with the earth, may indeed be spherical, but we are on the inside, not walking around on the surface.