Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Good job on the long thread.




At the rate this discussion is going, we will see the Creator before the last post.

Evolution doesn't paint society in any way. It's simply a description of how life changes over time.

I disagree.

I think it influenced eugenics.

I think it has influenced the corporate culture.

I also think it has greatly influenced entertainment. Everything is an elimination, for crying out loud, people can't even lose weight on a show without getting voted off. Hey and did you see 2012? Possibly the worst movie ever made, and the plot had an evolutionary undertone.

Survival of the fittest baby!!

Is history a program of events?

Things in life just make sense, that's enough proof to show that intelligent design is real. Besides that there are things that don't, but that's just because it's beyond us to understand it, we just don't understand it... yet. But if you knew the cause you would see how it made sense.

This is caveman logic. Have fifteen thousand years of civilization taught us nothing?

Read Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton.

Rubbish book by a failed biologist. Why don't you read some books by real scientists?

Darwin wasn't the first one to propose evolutionary theory anyway.

Not news. Not even to Darwin.

Hence without parent by spontaneous birth
Rise the first specks of animated earth;
From Nature's womb the plant or insect swims,
And buds or breathes, with microscopic limbs.

ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;

These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.

Erasmus Darwin

reply to post by Xtrozero

But once again "the right conditions" seems to not happen very much otherwise we would have much more life completely unrelated...

if there were other sparks they didn’t make it.

So when I talk about different life forms I’m talking about life forms that come from different life sparks that create different independent paths. We do not see new life forming anywhere from inorganic material…

So...just what are the right conditions...

One of the right conditions is 'not having any previously developed life forms around that will eat you.'

I already answered this question in my previous reply to you. Have you somehow discovered the location of the now-missing 'ignore' button?

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Evolution doesn't paint society in any way. It's simply a description of how life changes over time.

I disagree.

I disagree, too. It isn't the influence of the theory of evolution that shapes societies, though. It's evolution itself.

Human culture is a product of biological evolution. How could it not be? Dwelling together in families and larger social groups, by turns loving and killing, competing and cooperating, taking care of our children, exchanging goods and favours, establishing and overturning hierarchies of authority, advertising our sexual fitness through physical beauty or social achievement--these are the elements of culture, and they are part of our legacy as social primates.

If modern society seems a little too tough and competitive to you at times, how would you like to have lived in mediaeval Japan when the ronin were on the rampage, or in Europe during the Dark Ages, when it was every man for himself and people mourned that God and His angels were asleep? Did people need a theory of evolution to excuse and justify their behaviour in those days? Did ambitious Imperial Romans have a Darwin to urge them on to assassination and civil war?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I've tried multiple times to put forth the vast mountains of evidence that support evolution, only to be ignored or to have these explanations waved away.

I've tried asking creationists what their specific problem is with evolution, only to not get many direct answers and to have my explanations of the problems again get waved away.

Well, evolution is a positive position, it requires proof, which I've tried to provide. Creationism/ID is also a positive position, so it also requires proof.

So, where is it?

Lately, I've not seen a single person put forth an argument for the creationist perspective, I've only seen attacks on the evolutionary theory, as if disproving the evolutionary theory would immediately put the creationist/ID theory into the place of truthfulness. This is not true. You need to provide your own proof.

IMHO - Of course this debate is silly... And you'll only get - this and that, agree or disagree responses with some pseudo-intellectualism thrown in. And usually it comes to an Atheist/Christian debate. Personally i view both sides as lacking evidence and proof. Both sides rely on the books, work and words of others, which is merely faith based (this is why there still remains an argument). Faith based on what or how things appear to the one believing. Also, it doesn't matter much anyway which is correct, it's like arguing; Did you come here by bus or train.
PS. Just as a pondering point... Did you exist before 1988? Were you created or did you evolve?

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Good job on the long thread.

Thank you. And the mods only really had to step in once.

I disagree.

I think it influenced eugenics.

How does natural selection influence eugenics?

Eugenics is the idea that you can breed better people. Evolution has nothing to do with 'better' or 'worse' unless they're in relation to the environmental situation they're in.

I think it has influenced the corporate culture.

Again, how? How does the change in life over time via natural selection influence corporate culture?

I also think it has greatly influenced entertainment. Everything is an elimination, for crying out loud, people can't even lose weight on a show without getting voted off.

Hey and did you see 2012? Possibly the worst movie ever made, and the plot had an evolutionary undertone.

What's the evolutionary undertone of an unscientific piece of garbage film?

And no, not at all the worst film ever made. Not that it's a good film, but it could have been so, so, so, so much worse. Not to make too much of a point of it, but look up "The Room", you will get a great laugh out of it...no, it's not a comedy.

Survival of the fittest baby!!|

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the richest, smartest, or any other est.
Just the fittest.
It has to do only with biological reproduction.

edit on 10/11/10 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)

reply to post by trika3000

Originally posted by trika3000
And usually it comes to an Atheist/Christian debate.

Except that I've repeatedly stated that evolutionary theory and every other theory have nothing to do with religion. They agree, they don't disagree. They are neutral.

Personally i view both sides as lacking evidence and proof.

If you're referring to evolution:
Why is there a lack of proof?

If you're referring to atheism:
Please discuss in another thread.

Both sides rely on the books, work and words of others, which is merely faith based (this is why there still remains an argument).

I'm going to reply as if you're talking about evolution, as we're not in this thread to talk about general acceptance or denial of a deity.

Evolution relies on the work of others...because I'm not going to go through 150 years worth of scientific inquiry. The whole point of science is to do experiments so that others can learn through your work.

Evolution is not faith based. The entirety of scientific exploration of evolution can be examined and dissected and proven...well, except for the stuff that was thrown out, because it was thrown out for a reason.

Religious texts, on the other hand, are patently disprovable when it comes to science. Sure, their overall religious message is something that should be tackled in a different way, but the scientific ideas...like creation...are patently untrue.

Faith based on what or how things appear to the one believing. Also, it doesn't matter much anyway which is correct, it's like arguing; Did you come here by bus or train.

No, it really does matter. The entirety of immunology is based on evolutionary theory. Evolution helps us come up with new vaccines (unless you are a vaccine denialist, which is a topic for another thread as well), new antibiotics, etc. It's infinitely useful in biological science.

And here's the thing, science isn't really concerned about whether or not it matters, it cares about what is true and what is not. Science is the study of nature for the sake of learning more.

PS. Just as a pondering point... Did you exist before 1988? Were you created or did you evolve?

Individuals don't evolve. Species evolve.

I wasn't created, I formed. I formed from a sperm and an ovum. And you can trace my lineage all the way back to the first organism. Just like the rest of the species on this planet.
Considering I was born i

proof of sorts is in the book 'the physics of immortality" is your mind open enough to accept this proof? you shall see when met with it.

reply to post by ewokdisco


Is this another book that completely misrepresents what quantum physics actually states in order to push an agenda? Based on from what I've seen of Tipler's other books I'm going to go with yes.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


When pondering this question, you have to realize you are asking for the impossible, for without time travel we will never truly know. but one thing is for sure "We are who we are." and there is no changing that. Religious individuals believe it was Gd, atheists think its evolution, Buddhists think it's continual reincarnation, etc. etc. etc.
For my personal satisfaction, I have come to the conclusion, with the self interpretation of intervention of the alien high-bread insemination and DNA manipulation, analogies.
There is a missing link, as you well know, but coming to a absolute tangible and evidential conclusion is moot for the conversation. It won't happen and it will only urk you into the state of you being right no matter the real truth.
If you have actually contacted all of these so called scientists/Evolutionists and they don't answer or reply back to you, it is obvious "No one truly knows" to make credible arguments from one possible scenario to another.
I would leave sleeping dogs lie. You will drive your self bonkers with all the possibilities. Or you can find something that is close to what you think it could be and be happy with that , but without openly discussing how smart and right you or whoever it is, are. You don't have the answer here and now, and you will never know the truths of our existence until something is either discovered or absolute deductions can be proven.
Hope you can find what you are looking for, I just wouldn't expect a "One Conclusive answer to your queries." IMHO..

Edit for this insert: There was mention of Egyptian and ancient civilization rhetorical ideals, thought I would add this to be more enlightening to you all, this all has been discussed before, just under different title situations...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

xcalibur, youre mind is too closed when you ignore the words/work of a qualified physicist. wait a while maybe.

Originally posted by Allred5923
When pondering this question, you have to realize you are asking for the impossible, for without time travel we will never truly know.

...um...no. I'm sorry, but science is perfectly about to understand events after they happen. Or do you walk into your house to find your electronics and jewelery stolen and think "Eh, we'll never know what happened"

Sure, time travel would make the job easier, but it's not impossible without it.

but one thing is for sure "We are who we are." and there is no changing that.

Um...and it is what it is...and red is red...and up is up...and more tautologies.

Religious individuals believe it was Gd, atheists think its evolution, Buddhists think it's continual reincarnation, etc. etc. etc.

...no, most religious individuals actually believe in both a deity and evolution.
Atheists simply accept evolution because it's the only scientific theory.

And Buddhists don't think reincarnation is an explanation for the natural world, they think the natural world is an illusion.

For my personal satisfaction, I have come to the conclusion, with the self interpretation of intervention of the alien high-bread insemination and DNA manipulation, analogies.

...um...that's not an actual explanation. It's a call to regress.
How did these beings come into being?

There is a missing link, as you well know, but coming to a absolute tangible and evidential conclusion is moot for the conversation.

Which missing link?

The concept is outmoded and outdated, we're beyond the thoughts of 'missing links' as they are a byproduct of early evolutionary theory.

We have an immense catalog of fossils on record, more than enough to construct a phylogenetic tree.

The proofs of evolution are found in:

Phylogeny
Genetics
Phylogenetics
Anthropology
Zoology
Paleontology
etc.

It won't happen and it will only urk you into the state of you being right no matter the real truth.

No, this isn't a matter of my state of mind. It's a matter of evidence based science vs random and wild speculation.

Science has evidence.

If you have actually contacted all of these so called scientists/Evolutionists and they don't answer or reply back to you, it is obvious "No one truly knows" to make credible arguments from one possible scenario to another.

...so called scientists? Wow. Stop using computers, because the 'so called scientists/evolutionists' don't want to reply back to every single person about every single question. The fact is that they've got better things to do with their life. They're also the ones responsible for computers. That's why I told you to stop using them.

Scientists don't do personal replies. If you want to understand their work, look at their work. They publish it for everyone, particularly their colleagues, to see.

We know certain things. We're not 100% sure of the specifics of certain theories, but the general frameworks are solid.

Life changes over time. We've observed speciation.

...you know what, I'm going to stop. You're making such wide blanket statements that I'll work my fingers down to the bone trying to refute the entirety of what you're calling into question.

Simple fact: Computers work.
Science is the only reason they work.
Hooray science.

I would leave sleeping dogs lie.

I'm sorry, but that's not how science operates.

You will drive your self bonkers with all the possibilities.

With biological science there aren't too many possibilities. There's one: Evolution.
Why? It's the only one with evidence.

Or you can find something that is close to what you think it could be and be happy with that , but without openly discussing how smart and right you or whoever it is, are.

We have proof of evolution
PERIOD

You don't have the answer here and now, and you will never know the truths of our existence until something is either discovered or absolute deductions can be proven.

...we've discovered evolution. We've observed it. We have 100% irrefutable evidence of evolution.
As for absolute deductions, they only exist in mathematics and formal logic. You don't get them in science.

Hope you can find what you are looking for, I just wouldn't expect a "One Conclusive answer to your queries." IMHO..

...I just want 1/10th of the amount of evidence for evolutionary biology to be found for ID/Creationism. I don't see 1 shred of it here.

Edit for this insert: There was mention of Egyptian and ancient civilization rhetorical ideals, thought I would add this to be more enlightening to you all, this all has been discussed before, just under different title situations...

...The Egyptians...frankly...have nothing to do with this thread.

reply to post by ewokdisco


Physicist?

Hmm...my father is one of those. Let me call him up and ask him if he believes in any deity.

My father: No

...I guess it's settled. Physics proves it because a single physicist said so...


OH! Wait a minute! That's not how it works at all.

Please cite the source you're referring to and provide the proof for creationism...oh wait, the book actually doesn't support creationism.

I've heard of this book before, it doesn't talk about creationism, it talks about how humans, through evolution and science, can become like deities if we have access to an infinite amount of processing power and storage, effectively creating our own universe.

dont be a typical angry atheist. the book 'the physics of immortality" written by A PHYSICIST [for those whose atheist unbringings need science based proof to comfort them] says it proves a God and immortality, hence the world was CREATED by an intelligent being. case closed i would suggest to you. and chill,keep it open minded....and nice..

Originally posted by ewokdisco
dont be a typical angry atheist.

I'm not being angry. And that is a hurtful and bigoted stereotype of atheists. There is no evidence to show that atheists are any more or less angry than anyone else.

the book 'the physics of immortality" written by A PHYSICIST [for those whose atheist unbringings need science based proof to comfort them]

I was brought up as a Roman Catholic, as was my father, who is also A PHYSICIST (he later deconverted about a year or two after I did).

says it proves a God and immortality,

Ok, and I'll ask my father, A PHYSICIST (and I'm not making this up, he seriously is a physicist), to say that I'm the President of Asia.
But that doesn't mean it's true.

The title of this thread ends with PROVE IT, not "Please, mention a source that supposedly proves it without providing any arguments from that source"

You need to show us where the book supposedly proves these arguments.

hence the world was CREATED by an intelligent being.

...yes, but where does it prove it? How does it prove it? What are the evidences and the proofs?

case closed i would suggest to you. and chill,keep it open minded....and nice..

I'm not being angry, I just find it frankly ridiculous that you actually expect us to accept that you simply stating that a book simply states that it is true is enough evidence for the case to be closed.

And my mind is quite open, I did ask people to try to prove creationism/ID, didn't I?

So, case not closed, please show your source and its work.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Wouldn't it be easier to read one of the hundreds of thousands of threads already begun on this topic?

You are blowing any case for intelligent design.
Re: Evolution, I don't think anyone in their right mind is arguing evolution.

What's the point?
Getting it all off our chests again?
Bloviating upon a topic we imagine we are expert in.
Look how smart I am!
Look how gullible and foolish you are.
While neither side knows all that much,
the smartest among them admit it.

Yadda yadda...

You could be out jogging.
Or praying.
At least making some kind of positive, forward motion, healthy difference in your life, whatever floats your boat. You could be floating a boat..!
Beats spouting rhetoric on life after death.
Which is what it all boils down to.

After we're dead, what happens then?
Nobody gives a ats rass if there's a god.
Do we rot or do we not?

Is it live or is it memorex?

They are a big enough company...hell, it might be.
They might just have a patent on our souls.

Pass that...

Originally posted by ewokdisco
dont be a typical angry atheist. the book 'the physics of immortality" written by A PHYSICIST [for those whose atheist unbringings need science based proof to comfort them] says it proves a God and immortality, hence the world was CREATED by an intelligent being. case closed i would suggest to you. and chill,keep it open minded....and nice..

Clearly, you didn't even bother reading the book and just took some "summary" from some creationist website

I doubt you're gonna read it, so here's a short summary:

The line of argument is that the evolution of intelligent species will enable scientific progress to grow exponentially, eventually enabling control over the universe even on the largest possible scale. Tipler predicts that this process will culminate with an all-powerful intelligence whose computing speed and information storage will grow exponentially at a rate exceeding that of a proposed collapse of the universe, thus providing infinite "experiential time" which will be used to run computer simulations of all intelligent life that has ever lived in the history of our universe.

So basically, he's saying life will eventually rise to what we would now consider "god status" through science...and NOT that a god(s) already exist, or that they/it created us.

Source

Your posts highlights an important problem: Many creationists don't do their own research it seems, they get their info from opinionated people instead without ever checking the sources.

reply to post by rusethorcain

I think madnessinmysoul is making a positive difference to his own life, and perhaps to some others' as well. People need to talk and think about these things: to test their beliefs, to make explicit their opinions--often for the first time, even to themselves.

It may all be old hat to you, but it isn't--judging by the responses--to some of the others participating on this thread. There's something meaningful going on here--a struggle for the upper hand in shaping the world, no less.

So let's talk. Conversation is mostly human preening behaviour anyway. And just look around you--look where it's got us. Civilization is something human beings talked into existence.

This thread didn't get to twenty-seven pages just because people felt like 'bloviating'.

(And what a lovely word, by the way. Sort of visual onomatopoeia.)

"yes,yes,yes" was the answers the author gave in an interview i read. amongst the questions were 'is there a God"?

but,really, it is too close to Happy and Merry Yuletide to get so angry about this,guys.