• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution vs Intelligent design/creationism

Truly Enlightened

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
We only know a little about our own 4 dimensional Universe. We can't leave it, or visit any other dimension or any other Universe. We will eventually lose this Earth, the sun, the galaxies, and the entire universe. Energy will be so spread out over the Universe, that there won't be enough to do any work, let alone create life. There will never ever be another us again, and there is nothing we can do about it. My advice is to stop postulating and start procreating. Life is far too short to waste time accommodating useless speculations. Maybe we should be addressing how to cope with a world population of over 12 Billion people. When the majority of this many people become hungry and thirsty, or need medical attention, well, I'm just glad that I won't be around to see the outcome. Enjoy the life you have, because your existence will never happen again. Don
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
stevevw said:
I think the words "strong evidence that points in that direction" is telling. It is a bit like Richard Dawkins words, "life has the appearence of design" but it is not". This seems to be the crux of the matter. Life has some pretty amazing qualities and evolution has to come up with some pretty amazing explanations to account for it. Neo-Dawinism has been credited with the ability to account for life especially natural selection which has been attributed with powerful creative abilities because more and more we are seeing incredible capabilities in life so evolution has to match that. The problem is people can come up with simple examples which as you say "point to something greater" but cannot support that greater ability with any detail or scientific verification. Natural selection happens but it does not happen as much or as great as has been made out.

In recent times new discoveries and understanding are showing how life emerged and changes is much more complex than made out by the Neo-Darwinian theory. There are other influences that may have been involved which are said to be more responsible in changing life. Neo-Dawiniam takes a very blinkered view of life. Other areas such as developmental biology, epigentics, social sciences and genomics give insight into how life can change. Living things can work together and with the environment to share genetic info. Creatures can change their environments which and change ecosystems. Insights from developmental evolution show that life has common control genes and these may have been around from the beginning to account for the evolution of new genes that can be switched on and off to produce new features. Living things are connected to their environments and can activate the needed changes to help them adapt rather than have to always be subjected to undirected adaptations to help them survive.
Click to expand...

The theory merely reflects the age it was conceived in, a pre-quantum Victorian model of reality, where a handful of superficial, minimalist & even 'immutable' laws were all that were required to explain all the wonders of reality.

It's a very intuitive comfortable belief, always very tough to progress beyond, as were static universes and classical physics. But for evolution, the ideological aspect is infinitely greater. as we see here- any challenge to Darwinism is rejected explicitly as resembling an argument for God- (just like static universes, but even more so) i.e. a rationale based on a passionate preference for a particular conclusion, not the evidence itself.

On the observable, measurable, scientific part- adaptation, of course it happens, & it's difficult to think of any designed product that does not include a capacity for adaptation, it's integral to function- but these are design features, not a design mechanism.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
DavidFirth said:
The data produced is usually skewed according to and along with the testers' bias, especially when the testers have already made up their mind and decided to give it zero credence.
Click to expand...
You really need to look more deeply into the scientific method and experimentation. The process was designed to remove bias.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
DavidFirth said:
Again, look who is giving us their conclusions, not a believer in the bunch and I'm definitely not surprised by their biased decision.

"The data produced is usually skewed according to and along with the testers' bias, especially when the testers have already made up their mind and decided to give it zero credence."
- Holds up yet again. Thanks for showing it to be true.
Click to expand...
Um okay. So if a believer carried out the experiment, that data would also be biased in the direction they wanted, yes?

So there is no data anywhere that can be trusted, in your opinion?


Please do some reading on double blind studies and the scientific method. You seem lost.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
DavidFirth said:
Nah. You're more biased than they are, probably. Neither you or them would ever entertain the possibility that God might answer a single prayer.
I won't even hear of the possibility that He does not. So your biased "test" means less than nothing to me.

The real Christian has already had many of his/her prayers answered so we know for a fact that He does answer prayer. We don't need any of your secular tests to prove anything to us, we already know the truth.
Click to expand...
They're biased and their opinions should be discounted, as per your assertions and line of logic.
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
SkepticThinker said:
You really need to look more deeply into the scientific method and experimentation. The process was designed to remove bias.
Click to expand...
Science Proves the Healing Power of Prayer

^ there, now it's undeniable- the debate is over, except for 'science deniers' of course!

Science Proves the Healing Power of Prayer

"The proof of the power of prayer is overwhelming, says researcher and writer Tom Knox, a one-time atheist who became a regular worshipper after doing in-depth study of the medical benefits of faith.

“What I discovered astonished me,” admits Knox. “Over the past 30 years a growing and largely unnoticed body of scientific work shows religious belief is medically, socially, and psychologically beneficial.”"
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Guy Threepwood said:
Science Proves the Healing Power of Prayer

^ there, now it's undeniable- the debate is over, except for 'science deniers' of course!

Science Proves the Healing Power of Prayer

"The proof of the power of prayer is overwhelming, says researcher and writer Tom Knox, a one-time atheist who became a regular worshipper after doing in-depth study of the medical benefits of faith.

“What I discovered astonished me,” admits Knox. “Over the past 30 years a growing and largely unnoticed body of scientific work shows religious belief is medically, socially, and psychologically beneficial.”"
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't know what your Newsmax article has to do with what I said. :shrug:
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
SkepticThinker said:
They're biased and their opinions should be discounted, as per your assertions and line of logic.
Click to expand...

No, we don't need tests because we've had our prayers answered. We know it happens, regardless of what you and your buddies think. So test away, I don't care, I already know.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
DavidFirth said:
No, we don't need tests because we've had our prayers answered. We know it happens, regardless of what you and your buddies think. So test away, I don't care, I already know.
Click to expand...
Ah, so your reasoning only works when it reinforces what you want to believe. Got it.

What were you saying about science and bias again? o_O
 
Truly Enlightened

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
DavidFirth said:
I know enough to know not to trust unbelievers. That's all I need to know. Have a good day.
Click to expand...

You are an example of one of the dangers inherent in all Religious Beliefs. Exclusivity! It promotes separatism and distrust. Racism, Radicalism, and Religious Fanaticism were all born out of differences in the ideologies of the majority. If the majority of people believe in anything, then the rest should also believe in it too. Just ask any devout baseball or football enthusiast? Remember your belief is only a mental construct. It will only and always exist within the mind, no matter how many ways you convince yourself that it also exist in reality. Even science admits that NOTHING is 100% certain, nothing is 100% provable, and that nothing is 100% exact. There are exceptions to everything in science. But for Religious Believers, it is the exact opposite. They believe that only through complete and blind servitude to any Religiosity, that they will live again after they are dead. Of course if they don't commit to this life of servitude, they will still live again after death, but will be eternally damned. Does any rational person have a problem with the logic of this scenario? Changing the nature of reality also, does not elevate religious belief to the level of reality. It will always be only a subjective mental construct, when viewed from any objective perspective.

I just wonder how many churches would fail, if they had to pay taxes, or represented the image of Jesus to look more like the people of his time and region. Don
 
Last edited:
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
George-ananda said:
I'll argue for evolution+intelligent design.
Click to expand...
You can argue for intelligent design part, and I am not ruling it out altogether, but (of course, there are always a “but” ;))...but, ID has always being “unfalsifiable”, “unscientific”, “unverifiable”, have no evidences, and also no proofs.
 
George-ananda

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
gnostic said:
You can argue for intelligent design part, and I am not ruling it out altogether, but (of course, there are always a “but” ;))...but, ID has always being “unfalsifiable”, “unscientific”, “unverifiable”, have no evidences, and also no proofs.
Click to expand...
I was not talking about the ID as in the Christian movement. I believe there are realms beyond the physical and nature spirits/entities that involve themselves with the progress of the physical plane. Ultimately, I believe everything is designed by consciousness.

Science can only be agnostic to what I am saying at this time. I am not a follower of scientism and also consider other wisdom traditions in forming my personal views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top