You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Relating Evolution and Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from vhehn:
you bible thumpers are a funny bunch. you must think if you repeat the same lie often enough it will be believed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU
Innocent until proven guilty.
There is no proof there isn't a god so it can't be a lie, yet. It can only be faith that it isn't a lie. However strong the faith in it not being a lie really does not matter.
Quote from peilthetraveler:
yeah? where do these scientists get their evidence that it was 6 million years ago? Did they check the humans drivers license when they found him in the shale and it said 'born jan 27, 6,000,000 b.c.'? No...they use an unreliable method called radioactive dating.
A guy a few years back, went to go have some volcano rocks dated to see how old they were. He knew for a fact before that the rocks were formed some 50 years ago. Know what the dating said? It was formed as early as 120,000 years ago to as high as 1.2 million years ago. So much for that method, huh?
Also...how do you think these fully formed fossils come into existance...you think the people/animals just die and there is a full skeleton. Weather, elements, other animals would scatter these bones so fast. No...they got formed because there was a global flood, all these animals/humans drowned and their bodies like on the floor below and were covered with mud. the waters receded, the mud got hard and dry and probably within 100 years (maybe less) theres your fossil.
There are also no transitional animals in the fossil record. NOWHERE! If evolution occurred over millions of years, there should be tons of forms where one species mutated into another species. If we came from apes, there should be tons of transistional forms. But there are not.
You do not know what you are talking about. You do not even know enough to know that you don't know.
There are transitional fossils.
There is no evidence of a global flood.
The evidence that the earth is extremely old preceded the discovery of radioactive dating methods, which are demonstrably accurate.
You must be reading Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, or some other discredited creationist (actually, in scientific terms, they've all been discredited). Clearly, you do not know much about the science of geology.
I don't want to pick on you or anyone else, since a fair and honest look at the evidence would destroy your faith. I'll end this and let you off the hook, since I really do not want to destroy anyone's faith. But, to be frank, you do not know what you are talking about.
Quote from vhehn:
it really does not take a very deep thinker to understand that a story about a talking snake tricking a woman into eating a forbidden apple and causing men to be kicked out of the garden is nothing more than a primitive fable. you cant see it?
Nope. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Speaking of deep thinking, let's consider what I think you're trying to convey, which is: there is no God or, you personally don't believe in God. If that is what you think or believe, then tell me were did the original concept of God come from?
Quote from acronym:
If humankind, are made in "gods" image, as is stated , then its should be obvious "god" is the biblical "devil", or satan, such is the torment, suffering and bullshit this faith has afflicted on humankind.
Correct. Or, rather, the biblical gOd is the proverbial "devil". As such, the devil has a "right hand" and a "left hand" that does not know what the right hand is doing. It has "consciousness" and also "subconscious"- ness. There is also a "good" face and an "evil" face, such that the "devil" is two-faced and fork-tongued...speaking sweet and bitter words out of both sides of its mouth...both "blessing" and cursing. The good news is that it may be dispossed of it's place in the mind of Christ any time truth is preferred to delusion.
Christ!
Quote from NeoRio1:
There is such a thing as a conservative who knows it is impossible to actually know there is a god or not.
Don't you know why believing in a god is called faith?
Here is why knowing GoD takes faith...for those swallowed up by faith-based phenomena. "The universe" is a faith-based phenomena...is maintained by faith...and is exited by faith. "The universe" is the proverbial "belly of the whale" of which Jesus spoke. Escape requires going back out the labyrinth the way one came into the labyrinth. What comes by faith goes by faith.
To understand faith, understand first that desire precedes the phenomenon of faith, which is unnatural to the One who knows. The universe is the evidence of a desire to "know" more than knowledge itself. What is beyond knowledge cannot be "known", but only believed. Knowledge is an attribute of reality. When what is believed is made to seem "real", it is thought to be known or knowable. But anything "known" about "the universe" is ultimately uncertain...believed...percieved...based on probabilities, not certainties...based on appearances, not truth.
To "know thySelf" is to know thySelf as the totality of certain knowledge itself. This means that "the universe" is evidence of a desire to know not thySelf. Knowing not, you "know not" what you do. In the realm of know not, you can not know anything until you desire to know everything.
Before the desire to know not...or, "know" beyond knowledge, there was no evidence of anything other than the totality of Self, which is everything, equal to GoD. That desire has virtually obliterated certain knowledge of Self, hence, of GoD. There is no evidence of thy Self in "the universe" which is set up to deny thy Self. To that extent, the endeavor to deny thy Self has been successful. If you wait for evidence of Self to change your desire that there be no evidence of Self, then you will wait virtually forever. The way back to "know thy Self" must begin with desire, regardless the apparent lack of evidence.
Your desire for "the universe" will keep you in it, uncertain of anything at all...not knowing anything. In this way, desire is king, and you always get what you desire...what you "want". I repeat, "the universe" is the expression of a desire to not know anything, to be uncertain, to deny any evidence whatsoever that you are who you are: the totality of everything real. "The universe" is evidence of a desire to "know" what is impossible to know. So it is a desire to not know anything. Get it? What is called "knowledge" in such a world, is actually just an accumulation of learning. It is not true knowledge.
Knowing is a pre-faith reality. A couple of its attributes are:
A. Total [complete, whole, unlearned]
B. Certain, without doubt
The world of intelligent design is what is beyond knowledge...therefore beyond "you". What is beyond knowledge is the unknown, the land of learning and adapting. Evolution is an expression of learning/adapting beyond knowledge. It is evidence of thought...thinking about what is beyond you...what is nOt you.
The world is a single self-concept expressed as many self-concepts. It is a concept of what you are not.
The question then will boil down to this:
What do you want?
You will be fooled by your desire, or released by your desire accordingly. Faith will follow your desire and cause the realms of the unknown to yeild evidence that you are on the true path back to "know thy Self".
Again, what do you want?
To be thy Self, or not to be? That is the question.
Christ!
no jem, I don't do that. You are less coherent than "a wack job atheist".Quote from jem:
On this issue you are an emotional wreck. Conception is not proof.
Go ahead prove there is no Creator.
Your faith in an atheism approaches that of a zealout - your science is weak -seek the truth.
When I tell you that science proves there is a Creator (without any proof) - then you call put me in the same whack job category as atheists.
..that's the same as saying .... Hitler was not the problem, just people's definition and their tactics at enforcing his will.Quote from FeenixRizin:
god is not the problem ... people's definition and their tactics at enforcing that definition is the problem.
my god exists. and he won't be sending you to hell. (yes, mine is male... hope that doesn't offend the many feminists who frequent ET)
In other words, a cop out.
No, I'm not being sarcastic. Look at an extremist view like peilthetraveler and others,. They know there is a god.Quote from NeoRio1:
People don't know there is a god. They just think they know just like athiests think they know their isn't a god.
Are you being sarcastic when you say of course people know there is a god?
Who are you to say they think they know ? (no offense just making the point).
Nevertheless, both the atheist and theist starting with clean slates and only very little information, both are entitled to form their own opinions but not their own facts.
In order to establish fact, there is a clearly defined and well understood practical method that's worked over eons.
Fact is , god has no more validity by comparison than Thor or more seasonally, Santa Clause.
To want proof as a fact that god doesn't exist, is akin to wanting proof Goldilocks doesn't exist or the little magical fairy people don't exist.
To want proof that they do exist before accepting them as fact , or accepting on faith were it to have any integrity, is I suggest, far more appropriate a way to ascertain what is and isn't likely to be ably claimed as known fact.
God, Goldilocks and the Little Fairy Folk don't muster any substantial information beyond fantasy which validates a possibility they exist. So to ask for proof they don't exist as a fact over that , has less cogency than even they do themselves.
......and when you do look - scientifically -, Evolution is found to be the designer you crave for. There is no further need to infinite regress a designer upon a designer , as your version of Creationism would have everyone do, if only it could.Quote from Teleologist:
Several posters are equating Intelligent Design with creationism, Biblical literalism, and an anti-evolution position. I started this thread to point out that evolution and intelligent design can co-exist; they are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can design with and through evolution. Things can be designed to evolve, evolution can be designed, evolution can be used by design. This perspective doesn't prevent one from employing an experimental, inductive approach to the world. It is merely an alternative perspective for exploring and interpreting scientific data. It has nothing to do with proving the existence of God.