Hey creationists: 2 newly-discovered species 500 million years old

Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by Nick the Pilot, Sep 4, 2014.

  1. Lamson

    Lamson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0


    Again, who knows the motives of the creator.... presuming the human idea of motives should even apply to a creator. The lack of divine intervention toward anyone's idea of a perfect world does not negate the evidence for intelligent design. Some pretty intelligent people design some pretty crappy technology. Why should we demand more when discussing theological cosmology?

     
  2. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ummm. Because God is supposedly not a fallible human. By definition the Western God is perfect, all knowing, all seeing, and all the other all stuff. If this is to be believed then it does seem to me that we should expect he is beyond crappy creation.

    Actually though you have the point backwards. An imperfect creation does not mitigate against a divine being. The flaws in creation seem to flow, in the example of humans, from designs that would have suited us better when we were more primitive life forms. And do not suit us as well now that we have evolved. The implication is that evolution is at work.

    Now one could posit that God created evolution as the avenue for the way his creation would develop. That is a logical assumption, and a lot of people believe this. That there was a divine creator and that it used the biological processes we see thru evolution to end up with modern humans.

    My problem is with the people who flatly deny evolution occurred. That humans with all these characteristics of early creatures, which no longer suit us very well now, but that we still have anyway is intentional crappy design by the creator. Because, according to these folks, God created us as we are today; we didn't evolve from anything else. So again, the question becomes why invent humans with organs and traits that would have suited other creatures better and humans not so much?

    The typical response, to suggest we cannot understand why God did it this way because it is beyond our understanding seems like a cop out to me.
     
  3. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,738
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Only that a lot of views are monist, deist, pantheist or panentheist, which presumes a Creator quite different to that of the Abrahamic Traditions.

    I made the distinction for clarity's sake.

    No, the point I was making is that any argument for Intelligent Design can be dismissed as sentimentalism. There is no proof of ID, after all.

    Personally, I believe in a Creator, and in creation as a theophany ... so yes I believe in 'Intelligent Design' but not in the sense proposed by US think tanks and the like, who see everything, every cause, every effect, as evidence of a Creator at work.

    It's more an insight into something, than a proof of anything.

    Is that how you see it? I don't.

    For the same reason that creationists argue that Dinosaur bones only 'look' millions of years old to fool us into thinking the world is older than it is?

    I don't subscribe to anthropomorphic determinations of the Deity.

    I don't see the Cosmos as a one-off event, but rather a dynamic continuum.

    Did you ever expect to?

    I don't God is a 'personal God', rather I think of God as something I can relate to personally.

    OK. But a lack of evidence is not proof of anything.

    Well that is how some choose to see it. I do, but others don't.

    I think Intelligent Design as a 'proof' of a creator rests on too many intangibles and too much opinion and sentiment. There are far better proofs that are far simpler.

    Well one has to start somewhere.

    Because we haven't actually proved Intelligent Design.
     
  4. Lamson

    Lamson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree if that is not obvious
     
  5. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    How dose junk that we don't understand point to an intent?
     
  6. Lamson

    Lamson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can't defend my premise other than to say I can't think of anything else in nature that has 90% if its entirety with no apparant purpose, ergo "junk". My gut tells me "junk" DNA is the unused bag of tricks that makes evolution possible. I agree this doesn't make it so... and no I cannot offer any proofs. Time will tell when DNA is better understood. It is a brand new field of knowledge.
     
  7. Lamson

    Lamson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas,
    I would like to respond to each of your points, but haven't been able to figure out how to use the parsed quotes feature. In a nutshell, my view of intelligent design has nothing to do with think tanks, etc.. I am not well read enough to even know what you are talking about when you mention the opinions of various ID schools of thought. My own view of ID is simplistic, nature and all in it screams for the existence of design. I find the idea that what we have in nature has evolved through blind happenstance and chaotic accidents unlikely in the extreme. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.... it must be... intelligent design.

    I believe that intelligence designed existence. I do not know whether intelligence then left the design to replicate and mutate on its own vs applying divine intervention every little step of the way. My personal view is pretty much what you stated.
     
  8. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    So it's not plausible that it's old DNA not used any more?

    You said elsewhere that the Creator was, perhaps, 'tinkering'. Wouldn't the fact that all this future DNA, the future plans, argue against that idea?
     
  9. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Lamson, I am a Theosophist, and I’d like to give you some answers from a Theosophical perspective. You asked,
     
    "What is the correct label for someone like me who believes that the universe and our world with all it's marvelous design could not have arisen chaotically from chance. What do you call someone like me who believes that evolution does occur, but that it is according to intelligent plan."
     
    --> I believe GK has already given you the answer, which is called intelligent design. But we need to go deeper into what intelligent design is and is not.
     
    First, let’s take the use of the word Creation. Creationists break down into two groups, those who think the world is only 6,000 years old, and those who think God caused Creation to happen but that Creation has taken billions of years to happen. Let’s ignore the first group out of hand and talk about the second group.
     
    Many Theosophists (myself included) shun the use of the word Creation, even when it refers to a Creation which has taken billions of years to occur. The word Creation refers to certain actions (and other actions) by a God who intentionally manipulates and/or temporarily suspends natural law and the laws of physics in order to achieve certain changes. The idea here, if God hadn’t intervened and usurped natural law and the laws of physics, the changes would have never happened. Theosophy does not see that this is how the universe came about. In this way, Theosophists prefer to say that the universe Evolved rather than to say it was Created. How does this sound so far?
     
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,738
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Hi Lamson –
    Yes, I think we're actually on much the same page.
     
  11. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,738
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Which group is this?

    (I hope you're not suggesting this is the Abrahamic view, or the Hindu, or the Daoist, or the Buddhist, for that matter ... )
     
  12. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,024
    Likes Received:
    2,053
    Which group?
     
  13. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yep. Nick is speaking from the group started in the late 1800s by Blavatsky called The Theosophical Society. Nick has made it fairly plain that when he speaks of theosophy, it is from the TS that he is quoting. Pretty sure I am correct about this. Nick will certainly set me straight if I am not!
     
  14. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    Lamson, that was my understanding of what you were saying as well. That's why I pointed out in an earlier post that you need to be aware that your definition of ID is not the publicly held definition right now because of the conservative think tank The Discovery Institute. They have distorted the original philosophical and religious views completely as part of their agenda to discredit evolution etc.

    You and Thomas are coming from an earlier branch of philosophical thinking I would call Old School ID, or maybe Classical ID.
     
  15. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    On the subject of 'junk' DNA. It really depends on whether it is junk or unused potential. And we do not know the answer to that yet. If it turns out to be left over DNA that once served some purpose in an earlier species, but has become redundant in humans, that would suggest an evolutionary process happening. As you suggested, why would humans be created by ID if 90% of their DNA is useless.

    On the other hand if it can be proven that our junk is actually the fertile ground for potential growth of the species going forward, that does not necessarily suggest an intelligent designer is involved. It could be one reasonable assumption though.
     
  16. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    22,024
    Likes Received:
    2,053
    I don't believe in a personal, involved, creator G!d... I believe in G!d as principle...nothing supernatural...simply natural....we've yet to figure out gravity, or the TOE, making our math/phyisics work at the quantum and infinite levels, we've got holes in our understanding of nature and the universe and forever we've made up gods to fill those gaps in our knowledge.

    I do believe G!d is that universal law that holds us altogether, that binds us as one...
     
  17. Lamson

    Lamson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't quite know where you are coming from here. I don't really argue "future plans" if that is what you are getting at. The fact that an invention is designed with all the possible bells and whistles does not imply that there is a predestination requirement for their use. A car might be bought and the owner never roll the windows down. If that is not where you were coming from, let me know .... I enjoy your views.

    Oh and by the way, yes it is possible that the junk DNA is entirely residue from past evolution (ie junk in the true sense). The idea that some of it might represent future potential is just an idea and could be absolutely false.
     
  18. Lamson

    Lamson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2014
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wil,
    I don't disagree with anything you said.... except maybe the supernatural part. I leave open the possibility that supernatural is simply the natural that we do not yet understand the physics of.

    As you said, there are so many things we don't understand. Proven reality has been a moving target than continually changes as we develop the math. Who knows what the future holds.
     
  19. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,738
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    And yet you designate yourself 'Christian', which is, by definition, a belief in a personal, involved, creator, supernatural God. I don't see how you can square the two, without saying everyone else is wrong?

    But a 'principle' is nothing more than a general law or truth of something. Principles don't exist in isolation, as self-contained entities?

    I believe in the Uncreate as the Cause and Principle of the created, not as a creation of creation. The Uncreate is what the Abrahamic Traditions declare in their dogmas and doctrines. So does Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism ...

    A humanist believes in nature as its own principle, without a need of God.

    If you believe in nature, that creation just is, without the need of a supernatural act, everything can be explained by empirical principle, then what need is there of a God?

    Ah. This is 'material monism'. The Great traditions don't see 'God' (or whatever) as a 'thing' or a 'phenomena' like others 'things' or 'phenomena'.

    It, whatever It is, is in a category of its own, and therefore outside of the axioms of nature.

    That we can explain why waters freezes or boils does not mean that we will, therefore, eventually explain God. You're thinking of god as the object of empirical determination.

    Wil, I do believe you delight in making the most outrageous statements! :D That's a secularist version of 'The God of the Gaps' argument! It's been soundly rejected by theologians as teleological fallacy, and secularists as nonsense!

    Well after everything you've just said, such a God is just a poetic way of describing nature, isn't it? Of imposing a humanist meaning and value upon it?
     
  20. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,738
    Likes Received:
    2,119
    Oh, my mistake.

    The way I read it, I thought Nick was presenting two groups that he doesn't ascribe to – I rather thought his 'second group' was an 'aunt sally', something invented to put up and so he could knock it down.

    Either way he missed the third group, by far the more mainstream.
     

Share This Page