Intelligent Design Thoery

Message boards : Politics : Intelligent Design Thoery
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 21 · Next

AuthorMessage
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1227027 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 5:14:17 UTC - in response to Message 1227000.  

Our thumbs didn't "just become, by chance, opposable".


Correct

There was a need to evolve that way for our species, and so it did through evolution.


Incorrect. Evolution is unguided. There was no need that evolution responded to, there were changes, when these changes helped, they became widespread, when they didn't, they disappeared. Our ancestors without opposable thumbs were the best that random mutation could produce at that time, when opposable thumbs evolved, the inheritors benefited sufficiently from them that their genes became widespread. Suggesting that there was a "need" for opposable thumbs is looking at evolution in reverse


Well then, there you go. I was looking at it slightly in reverse and therefore expressing myself confusingly. I stand corrected.

No you were correct[to a point]and just because you was told wrong you accepted a wrong. LOL! I have already given you a link to how impossible this so called "random mutation" is. Just because someone told you incorrectly that my link was false does not mean my link was false. Read or reread the link I provided you.


My criticism of the article was valid, it is flawed in that it presents a straw man argument (e.g. humans evolving from chimpanzees, one protein evolving from another). The correction on what Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism believes about evolution remains valid, if you believe I am in error on this, please provide your reasons.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1227027 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1227028 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 5:14:52 UTC - in response to Message 1227025.  

Id agree with you that there is observable and not observable. We appear to disagree on what is fact and fiction. What you have given me is unproven theory. We have no idea what is on the other side of the microwave background noise.

We can't know what is in elsewhere, but that doesn't mean elsewhere hasn't been proven or that something exists in it. Gravity from elsewhere is perturbing distant galaxy clusters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow


Once again, unproven theory.
"You are a master of the words you don't say
and a slave to the ones you do." ~ Unknown


Theories are not proven, they are disproven.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1227028 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1227030 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 5:19:12 UTC
Last modified: 4 May 2012, 5:28:11 UTC

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.


If P is Designer and Q is Designer then you have denied the antecedent. A long shot but nevertheless true. If there is a Designer then everything we see is of Him.

If God is Love then Grace, Faith, Mercy, all follow from His Love.

The above is not a long shot, it's the truth as 95% of the people do believe in some form.

What is a fallacy argument?

All arguments have the same structure, A=B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. I then apply a logical principle, therefore to arrive at a conclusion (B). An example of a logical principle is that of equivalence. For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C. A logical fallacy is a false or incorrect logical idea. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is thought, not valid. It is important to notice that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true and correct. If the premises,conclusions, A or B, are not true, then the argument is also not true.

Remember...

"It is important to notice that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true and correct."

Don't think with a closed mind. Of course if you come here with a predetermined mind you will find fault with the logic presented. Most people believe in a God but they never have thought just what that God has done in the real world or in you. In the thoughts of Intelligent Design the Maker/Designer set into motion all that we see. Young Creation people think that was done within 6,000 years. I personally think it has taken over 14 billion years. No matter the time span we can see with the math provided and the logic therein that the system has been Designed.

Chance cannot be a factor. The odds as Intelligent Design show are far longer then the life of the Universe no matter if 6,000 or over 14 billion years. The odds for chance within even ourselves being a happenstance are longer taking into account the length of our DNA. The complexity of the Universe and ourselves [list of variables] can denote nothing but a Design by Intellagence.

The variables in math are the problem with the non-beliver. If one chance happening can just fit into another chance happening that fits into another and another and another to make up what we see the odds just grow longer and preclude the very meaning of chance itself. There is no logic in this kind of thinking. At some point they have got to say..."The miracle starts here!", but they cannot say such a thing becouse that would let the Light of day in on science and that would be a denial of the logic they hold so dear, called chance. Chance is the rally call and there is no room for God in the science of chance. Yet, the very act of calling out chance as the reason for what we see as I have said, calls into play a never ending long line of variables that fit perfectly into each other and denotes Intelligance, not chance.

The ad hominem argument is not used in Intelligent Design and has not been used by myself in this thread. I have called out the facts and given reason for them facts. The ad hominem argument has indeed been used here but not by me, and that is also not be chance, it is by design for you the reader. So, I beg you not to come here with a predetermined mind, you will find fault with the logic presented. Come with an open mind and use that mind no matter where it leads you. However, if it leads you to someplace without logic and facts then you had better look down a different road.

As soon as Copernicus told us that the Earth was just a planet just like the other points of light in the night sky people have had speculating ever since. Drakes equation has been added onto many, many more variables, over 120 in count due to a better understanding of what is needed for intelligent life. The argument of Enrico Fermi only adds to the book called "The Privileged Planet". Enrico Fermi asked a room full of friends..."So? Where is everybody?", as the math given to you about the chance of life being elsewhere tells us..."There might not be anyone else", might really be the answer. Of the billions of stars in our Galaxy, 100 billion is indeed itself a WAG so there must be 1 billion planets with life. But the refined math of Drake, of what we do know to date, tells us that life is indeed a very rare thing.

I'll hand you the counter argument for you to consider too.

1) They are here
a) they were here and left things for us to find out about them. Just look.
b) we are them, we are the aliens we look for
c) we life in a zoo the greater intelligence keeps us dumb and deaf

Problems...We have never seen life from another planet, there is no evidence, at all. If we are the aliens where are the first copies and did they themselves not need a Creator? How can we test the idea that we live in a zoo and it only takes one person with lose lips to sink the alien ship so to speak.

2 They Exist But Have Not Yet Communicated
a) They Have Not Had Time To Reach Us
b)They Are Signaling, But We Do Not Know How To Listen
c)Berserkers, ET is keeping low.

Problems...Galaxy has been around for billions of years, even if one ET civilization formed a few million years before us they would have heard our radio and T.V. by now either by themselves or by interstellar probes. They may use methods we have not learned yet, but if there are many civilizations someone would use EM [radio/T.V.] methods. Why haven't the berserkers come after us and why haven't we seen the war of the berserkers v E.T. with high tech weapons in space? This would have been picked up by now.

There are more variables to add to Fermi's paradox, but I'll stop here.

In general, solutions to Fermi's paradox come down to either 1) life is difficult to start and evolve (either hard for the process or hard to find the right conditions) or 2) advanced civilizations destroy themselves on short timescales. In other words, this is an important problem to solve in the hope that it is 1 and not 2.

If one had read the book "The Privileged Planet" one would understand that life is indeed a rare thing. And the more variables added to Drakes Equation only ups the odds for Design and lowers the odds for chance. If chance was the reasons then chance would have happened more then once in each galaxy we see.
ID: 1227030 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1227037 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 5:36:36 UTC
Last modified: 4 May 2012, 5:37:48 UTC

What is a unproven theory?

It's called a Hypothesis.
ID: 1227037 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1227103 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 8:56:51 UTC

If God is Love then Grace, Faith, Mercy, all follow from His Love.

The above is not a long shot, it's the truth as 95% of the people do believe in some form.

Where do you get these idea's from?

If God is Love... not very much of that in the bible or reality.

95% of which people? Only about half the world's population claim to follow the three main religions. So even if you mean all these people that is less than 50%.

And from my experience a lot of people might say or act like they follow a religion, but only do it because it is expected of them and might be a benefit. About 40 years ago when I was in the UK Army I was told I would improve my chances of promotion if I was a) married, b) went to church.
I did neither, and 18 months later left the Army and applied for a NATO job, got it and was effectively 6 ranks higher

You only need to look at your own country. It has been observed that the chances of been voted president are nil if you are declare to be in one of these groups, atheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, antireligion, skepticism, freethought, antitheism, apatheism, non-belief, secular humanism, or deism.
In fact there is a good chance an Islamist could be voted in, even though a common held belief is that the USA is at war with Islam.
ID: 1227103 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1227112 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 10:06:35 UTC
Last modified: 4 May 2012, 10:39:10 UTC

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.


This of course is "modus ponens" a valid form of argument. The premises however must be absolutely true in order for a conclusion to be valid.

Another valid argument form is modus tollendo tollens

If P then Q
not Q
-------
therefore not P

If you don't think that these are valid arguments then construct a truth table for each one and you will get your tautology. Another reason to believe that these are "True" is that computers (based on logic) work.

These two valid argument forms are related to the notion of "proof by contradiction". The if, then truth statements are often referred to as "The Broken Promise" which is especially relevant here in this discussion

If God exists then she is merciful, and compassionate
There is a lack of compassion and mercy in the world
-----------------------------------------------
Therefore God does not exist.

Or you could say that she does not intervene in the affairs of the world or maybe that she is not all merciful and compassionate--if so then why pray and beseech her for favors.

This follows, since the contrapositive of a valid argument is also valid and modus tollens is the contrapositive of modus ponens.

This is in essence "proof by denying" so see if the traits that you ascribe to your deity are evident in the world.

Logic underlies all of mathematics and is the basis for a Zermelo/Fraenkel set theory.

The fact that so many people believe in an anthropomorphic deity is testimony to their poor understanding of mathematics which speaks to their lack of ability when it comes to critical thinking.


There you have it, no God whatsoever, unless you deny that my premises are true. That is why i asked if people could describe the traits that their God must possess if she exists. So far no response so i ask again what are the capabilities of your god and how does she intervene in our lives. If you follow this line of reasoning you will find that your god actually possesses no discernible traits at all and therefore most likely does not exist.

When you are young and gullible you take a lot of solace in belief of such a deity; but at some time the mind must mature and critical thinking sets in and you are left with a very improbable proposition.

Another instructional rant by Daddio

ID: 1227112 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1227132 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 11:58:06 UTC - in response to Message 1227000.  

Our thumbs didn't "just become, by chance, opposable".


Correct

There was a need to evolve that way for our species, and so it did through evolution.


Incorrect. Evolution is unguided. There was no need that evolution responded to, there were changes, when these changes helped, they became widespread, when they didn't, they disappeared. Our ancestors without opposable thumbs were the best that random mutation could produce at that time, when opposable thumbs evolved, the inheritors benefited sufficiently from them that their genes became widespread. Suggesting that there was a "need" for opposable thumbs is looking at evolution in reverse


Well then, there you go. I was looking at it slightly in reverse and therefore expressing myself confusingly. I stand corrected.

No you were correct[to a point]and just because you was told wrong you accepted a wrong. LOL! I have already given you a link to how impossible this so called "random mutation" is. Just because someone told you incorrectly that my link was false does not mean my link was false. Read or reread the link I provided you.


No, I was not correct, and Bobby correctly called me out on it and PM'd me with some good reading to brush up on the subject.

At least Bobby's suggestion uses science to explain Darwinism. Your link was an Op-Ed piece that no biologist believes, and was filled with so many false premises that I can't believe anyone would actually believe such rubbish.
ID: 1227132 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1227140 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 12:16:49 UTC
Last modified: 4 May 2012, 12:17:19 UTC

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Is not necessarily true.

American researchers Elmer McCollum and Marguerite Davis in 1913 discovered a substance in cod liver oil which later was called "vitamin A".

British doctor Edward Mellanby noticed dogs that were fed cod liver oil did not develop rickets and concluded vitamin A could prevent the disease.

In 1921, Elmer McCollum tested modified cod liver oil in which the vitamin A had been destroyed. The modified oil cured the sick dogs, so McCollum concluded the factor in cod liver oil which cured rickets was distinct from vitamin A.

He called it vitamin D because it was the fourth vitamin to be named.

From Wiki on Vitamin D
ID: 1227140 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1227143 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 12:20:31 UTC - in response to Message 1227037.  

What is a unproven theory?

It's called a Hypothesis.


No. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested with evidence and not yet found to be false. Theories in science are, by definition, falsifiable. If a thing is falsifiable, it follows that it is not proven.

hypothesis

  • a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
  • a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
  • the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
  • a mere assumption or guess.



theory


  • a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
  • a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
  • Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
  • the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
  • a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.


I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1227143 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1227148 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 12:48:44 UTC
Last modified: 4 May 2012, 12:54:00 UTC

Ah, what ping-pong politics!

Great thread by the way, though the title of it could have been fixed up.

Since there are so many knowledgeful people in here, could I ask what is really meant when we are speaking about "intelligence" (namely SETI)?

I am just asking for a definition or clarification of the term as it is being used here.
ID: 1227148 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1227149 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 13:00:44 UTC - in response to Message 1227148.  

Ah, what ping-pong politics!

Great thread by the way, though the title of it could have been fixed up.

Since there are so many knowledgeful people in here, could I ask what is really meant when we are speaking about "intelligence" (namely SETI)?

I am just asking for a definition or clarification of the term as it is being used here.

We, here at Seti@home, are looking to see if there are ET's that have evolved sufficiently to have discovered Radio, and in that context are intelligent.
ID: 1227149 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1227172 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 14:09:17 UTC
Last modified: 4 May 2012, 14:13:38 UTC

Let us not forget our marvelous brain which is a gift from either God or someone else.

It is divided into three major parts - left part, right part and the "little brain" which is located close to the neck - in between the left and the right parts and which in fact is a numerical calculator, keeping a tab on your balance when you are standing, walking, or running.

Is the brain a product which can be deduced or derived just from Darwins evolutinonary laws or principles alone?

We think of the evolution of life as having taken 500 million years in order to get to the point where it is today.

Like the existence of trilobites (not in my dictionary) and amo(e)ba in the Earth's distant past.

This is biological evolution by means of natural selection here on Earth.

When Jesus Christ was alive on Earth, some 2000 years ago, he was known to be a saviour/redeemer, because he was able to relieve ill people from their pain and suffering by means of his hands and soul alone and getting them well and healthy again.

Is this (religious) belief which makes many of us almost daily churchgoers? Or is it just blasphemy?
ID: 1227172 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1227177 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 14:35:19 UTC - in response to Message 1227172.  

Let us not forget our marvelous brain which is a gift from either God or someone else.


I think that's what we're debating here. There doesn't seem to be any reason to assume we received any gifts from anyone.

Is the brain a product which can be deduced or derived just from Darwins evolutinonary laws or principles alone?


Why, yes, actually.

When Jesus Christ was alive on Earth, some 2000 years ago, he was known to be a saviour/redeemer, because he was able to relieve ill people from their pain and suffering by means of his hands and soul alone and getting them well and healthy again.


During the time of Jesus, there were several claims of saviors running around healing the sick and raising the dead. People have always defined their existence through misery, and stories of salvation have always found their way into people's minds as a form of hope. Eventually, these stories start getting attributed to people that never actually did anything.

There is not a single, directly observed account of Jesus ever having done any of the miracles attributed to him. Most of the stories didn't even make it into writing until some 800 years later. Most people who claimed to have witnessed the "miracles" of Jesus weren't even alive during Jesus' lifespan.

Is this (religious) belief which makes many of us almost daily churchgoers? Or is it just blasphemy?


It is a religion belief which keeps people going back for hope, because there's a lot of people out there that fail to find it within themselves as they should.
ID: 1227177 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1227225 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 16:21:50 UTC - in response to Message 1227177.  
Last modified: 4 May 2012, 16:23:33 UTC

Hi, .

Apparently your name is missing, sir, but if I get you either right or wrong - why have you not used the opportunity trying de-bunking this project and the possible results which may have come out of the processing of the numbers which has been obtained?

Is this something that you wish not to be doing?

Anyway, friday today. Either I can have fun tonight or I can be utterly serious.

@ Chris - I guess you mean the contents of this thread?

Sorry! I am better at doing other things.
ID: 1227225 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1227227 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 16:27:49 UTC - in response to Message 1227225.  
Last modified: 4 May 2012, 16:30:23 UTC

Hi, .

Apparently your name is missing, sir, but if I get you either right or wrong - why have you not used the opportunity trying de-bunking this project and the possible results which may have come out of the processing of the numbers which have been obtained?

Is this something that you wish not to be doing?

Anyway, friday today. Either I can have fun tonight or I can be utterly serious.

Musicplayer,

Have fun. Im going bassin after lunch. :-)

I have noted here that it is better to just state your argument and not address anyone up front. It is up to you. They do in a way ask questions, it's mostly demands, and they avoid any direct questions poised to them.

I have been asked about eyes. I answered much later. I was asked about Drake. I answered much later. But, not directly to the person.

I'll answer some more at some point this weekend.

Im very pleased to meet you.

Oh, I call him Blank Man. I call him other names under my breath but you call him what ever you wish. ;-]
ID: 1227227 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1227228 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 16:29:01 UTC - in response to Message 1227225.  

Apparently your name is missing, sir, but if I get you either right or wrong - why have you not used the opportunity trying de-bunking this project and the possible results which may have come out of the processing of the numbers which has been obtained?

Is this something that you wish not to be doing?


Why would I want to debunk this project? By debunking the mythos of religion I'm also debeunking the mythos of this project? I don't understand the correlation.
ID: 1227228 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1227230 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 16:38:58 UTC - in response to Message 1227227.  

Im very pleased to meet you.


You may not like me, ID, but I'll forewarn you to be weary of the company you keep.

Oh, I call him Blank Man. I call him other names under my breath but you call him what ever you wish. ;-]


So long as you don't call me late to dinner, I'm OK with it.
ID: 1227230 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1227232 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 16:45:51 UTC - in response to Message 1227228.  
Last modified: 4 May 2012, 16:51:18 UTC

Look back at Gary Charpentier's earlier post in this thread where he mentions DNA (which is an abbreviation).

In addition to this project I am also attached to PrimeGrid where the main purpose is trying to find prime numbers.

Numbers are the phundamental basis for everything, including both Seti@home as well as PrimeGrid tasks, DNA,
Fibonacci numbers, the functionality and complexities of our brain and the laws (or the opposite - chaos) which governs the Universe as we know it.

In my own language, DNA is really "Deoksyribonukleinsyre" or in translated form may read as Deoksyribonucleidacid/Deoxyribonucleusacid.

Atoms form molecules, molecules in some instances becomes proteins, which again makes up DNA.

DNA is just four different amino acids, in short form ATCG.

Therefore I assume these amino acids are proteins as well.

Charles Darwin sought to determine whether nature was either built upon pure chaos or whether some kind of divine intelligence or creator was behind. The same can be questioned when it comes to the Universe as a whole and our own existence.
ID: 1227232 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1227234 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 16:54:25 UTC - in response to Message 1227227.  

I happen to know Blankman better than I know you.
ID: 1227234 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1227261 - Posted: 4 May 2012, 17:55:49 UTC - in response to Message 1227232.  

Numbers are the phundamental basis for everything, including both Seti@home as well as PrimeGrid tasks, DNA,
Fibonacci numbers, the functionality and complexities of our brain and the laws (or the opposite - chaos) which governs the Universe as we know it.


Numbers are man's invention. The Universe doesn't care that we use a base 10 decimal system that has its roots in Arabia. We use these numbers to try to make meaning out of the chaos of the universe, but we start to have problems when we see "design" or patterns in our own invention (numbers) and try to attribute that to a Higher Power (God or god-like being).

Charles Darwin sought to determine whether nature was either built upon pure chaos or whether some kind of divine intelligence or creator was behind. The same can be questioned when it comes to the Universe as a whole and our own existence.


Charles started an interesting thought process, and many others have continued to build upon his observations (and correct some of his assumptions).

Unfortunately for believers, Charles' observations fly in the face of Creationism, leaving many faithful to either hate Charles' claims as being false, or to try to insist, as ID and Guy do, that Darwinism is compatible with their views on creationism, renamed "intelligent design". Basically it re-packages Darwin's observations as faith and asserts a Grand Designer without any reason to come to that conclusion.
ID: 1227261 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 21 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Intelligent Design Thoery


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.