Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution or .... what?

intrepidlover

intrepidlover

Melchizedek
Messages
126
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Killara, Sydney, Australia
No doubt this has been done to death already but as a new member moving from a rabidly fundamentalist forum, I would like to hear some ideas.

It is my understanding that Evolution is most noted for its gaps. It remains very much a theory and the time scale is very suspect as a fossil of a living organism can only be created in some instantaneous kind of way. Not being a geophysicist I don't know the right term, but obviously any living organism would decay rapidly -- and hence lose its shape or form -- unless it was "frozen" instantaneously.

"Intelligent design" I guess means that God initiated and supervised the evolutionary process.

As for Creationism, well I just can't get my mind to picture the millions or billions of life forms suddenly coming into existence.

None of this bothers me but it leaves me without even a half-baked hypothesis as to how all living creatures and plants came into existence.

And if humans did in fact evolve from monkeys (primates) then how come we have a distinctive kind of human in Australia for example?

I am not expecting answers -- just thoughts.
 
Namaste Intrepidlover, Search evolution here and you'll get a lot of reading and then come back and see what is going on here...

I am completely and totally in the camp of 'or....what.'

I don't see any of the other three as valid.

And we have another race? another type of human?
 
Intelligent design is just a way of trying to distort evolutionary theory to prove the existence of God. Why can't fundamentalist get over it? There is no way to prove the existence of God.
 
intrepidlover said:
None of this bothers me but it leaves me without even a half-baked hypothesis as to how all living creatures and plants came into existence.
Click to expand...
Just try living without a hypothosis, and stop seeing that as a bad thing. We're never going to know, not until we die and maybe not even then. Even if we do have all our answers answered the chances are that we will not care too much, we'll be too concerned with our eternities in heaven or hell.
 
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]The following paragraph and a diagram are from the following site.

[/FONT]http://thinkunity.com/page6.html
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]

The oneness of everything in pure consciousness manifest itself into many in matter and then returns back again to the unity of pure consciousness to complete the cycle of evolution. The scientists and the Christian mystics are both correct in their statements about evolution, but differ only in the way they talk about their different stages. Instead of being opponents in trying to popularize their different hypothesis, they complement each other, each faction making a contribution to the whole.[/FONT]
 
sorry, but in this day and age I cannot see how anyone can agree with this creationism/intelligent design gumpf...

as we all know...

originally, what we think of as the continents was one huge land mass.. over time, the earths plates shifted and at the same time animals were evolving, and is the reason why there appear to be different types of humans and animal. An artic fox is no different from a british woodland fox, a british woodland fox is no different from a desert fox. Okay, they have different shaped ears, they have different coloured fur, they have different styles of nose, but they are all foxes. And its no different in our species either. The different races are such because we have evolved and adapted to deal better with the conditions we experience, weather, foodstuffs, predators, etc. This is not some scientific lie to turn ppl away from God. It's just the way it is. And it makes a lot more sense than some old guy sitting on a cloud deciding what he'll make next does. If there was nothing on the earth, and no animals or humans in heaven, where did he get his inspiration from? National Geographic? The Discovery channel?

Suggesting god made everything quite deliberately is actually far worse for God than evolution is. Because, if God willfully created all life, then did God create viruses like AIDS and TB and leprosy, and if he does, why does he bother? Was he bored of drowning ppl and burning them and decided bacteria would do the job better? Does he deliberately create cripples? What about genetic defects? Are they deliberate too? And, if he creates allthis, does he also deliberately create other things too, like poverty, and want?

The idea that God created the world in seven days and or/ planned ahead and put fossils in the earth for men to later find is ridiculous. We are not five year old children. All this reminds me of the Flat Earth society. Some ppl will hang onto this stupid nonsensical idea til they die, regardless of how often u prove otherwise. If you want to fool urselves, that's great, but please, don't try and teach my kids this rubbish in school.
 
It takes more faith to see that scientific evolution is part of the universal plan than a seven day plan. Evolution is so amazing, but at the same time that scientist are recognizing that everything is connected in the Uni---verse, one vibration as physicist would describe it, people who are against creationism are not open to this concept just because of a fundamentalist philosophy. I feel the diagram I posted before addresses this issue.
 
no, you don't believe everything on faith. Skepticism (the fundaments of the scientific method) means NOT taking ANYTHING on faith, but looking with your own eyes, making notes and forming ideas around the evidence by joining the dots. Sure there's gaps, but that's only because science is learning, and if there weren't any gaps we'd have nothing to learn and science wouldn't exist. You fill them with further evidence, not unprovable-either-way ideas, or you just leave them as gaps.

Evolution is a FACT. It happens every day, has been observed in the lab and is a useable system for designing complex circuitry and robots. You don't need faith to believe that.

Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin, and Fibonnacci and the golden ratio, or are ignoring the research done by Disney's lot into the formula behind concepts such as "cute". Massive advances in the science behind love and beauty are being made all the time, in mathematics, biochemistry and by market researchers.
 
you only get something as stupid as creationism/intelligent design if you start with something as stupid as reading the ma'aseh bereishit (creation account from the Torah) in a literal sense. i mean, think about it. how can it have been "evening and morning, the first day" without a sun and moon? that ought to be a clue at least that we are not talking about a conventional 24 hours here.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Blizzardry said:
no, you don't believe everything on faith. Skepticism (the fundaments of the scientific method) means NOT taking ANYTHING on faith, but looking with your own eyes, making notes and forming ideas around the evidence by joining the dots. Sure there's gaps, but that's only because science is learning, and if there weren't any gaps we'd have nothing to learn and science wouldn't exist. You fill them with further evidence, not unprovable-either-way ideas, or you just leave them as gaps.

Evolution is a FACT. It happens every day, has been observed in the lab and is a useable system for designing complex circuitry and robots. You don't need faith to believe that.

Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin, and Fibonnacci and the golden ratio, or are ignoring the research done by Disney's lot into the formula behind concepts such as "cute". Massive advances in the science behind love and beauty are being made all the time, in mathematics, biochemistry and by market researchers.
Click to expand...


Welcome to CR Blizzardry........


love - c -
 
bananabrain said:
you only get something as stupid as creationism/intelligent design if you start with something as stupid as reading the ma'aseh bereishit (creation account from the Torah) in a literal sense. i mean, think about it. how can it have been "evening and morning, the first day" without a sun and moon? that ought to be a clue at least that we are not talking about a conventional 24 hours here.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...
Namaste bb,

oh please to expand on that!

Coming from the faith that started it all, this discussion is powerful. Can you please describe what the seven days of creation the very first words of the Torah mean to a Jew? These are the very words that have made people crazy for years. People who refuse to read and compare Genisis1 v. Genesis2 creation...people who refuse to look at how these books were put together. I for one have some awareness...not near enough and would love for you to relate a bit of this!
 
intrepidlover said:
It is my understanding that Evolution is most noted for its gaps.
Click to expand...
OK. Our understanding is different. That evolution occurs is undeniable but whether this evolution accounts for the range of life present on Earth is a hypothesis backed by evidence. What that means is that there is data out there which can be apprehended by each of us and verified separately, inter-subjectively if you like. I would highly recommend you have a look into the evidence. There are gaps in our knowledge, no doubt. There would be no need for science if we had all knowledge at hand already.

intrepidlover said:
It remains very much a theory and the time scale is very suspect as a fossil of a living organism can only be created in some instantaneous kind of way. Not being a geophysicist I don't know the right term, but obviously any living organism would decay rapidly -- and hence lose its shape or form -- unless it was "frozen" instantaneously.
Click to expand...
If you want to be able to talk about this from a position of knowledge you really must do the research. Evolution (as Descent with Modification as an expression) is correctly identified as a theory. This is not the same term as the layman use. 'Theory' has a very technical use, which in part describes the interaction of supportive hypotheses (which in turn themselves can never be conclusively verified).

As for your 'hypothesis' regarding deacy, I'm not sure how you came to it. Could you explain?

intrepidlover said:
None of this bothers me but it leaves me without even a half-baked hypothesis as to how all living creatures and plants came into existence.
Click to expand...
Good luck on your search. I'm confident a fair and thorough analysis of evolutionary biology will provide you with some good ideas.

intrepidlover said:
And if humans did in fact evolve from monkeys (primates) then how come we have a distinctive kind of human in Australia for example?
Click to expand...
We didn't, and we don't.

Cheers.
 
Kindest Regards, Blizzardry, and welcome to CR!

Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin, and Fibonnacci and the golden ratio, or are ignoring the research done by Disney's lot into the formula behind concepts such as "cute". Massive advances in the science behind love and beauty are being made all the time, in mathematics, biochemistry and by market researchers.
Click to expand...
Actually, I am familiar with a lot of this stuff. Ever hear of John B. Watson? B.F. Skinner? It evades the reality...love is not a series of neuro-chemical reactions. If it were, then after 5 years of feeding chocolate to my nurses one would think I would have gotten lucky! If love is a simple chemical process, then love potions should be everywhere. A lot safer than roofies!

Seratonin is a marker, it is not love. Love is a faithful dog greeting you at the door all excited because s/he is genuinely happy to see you, whether you have been gone 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days. Love is the emotion evoked in all but the most hard hearted souls by the wide eyed innocence of a barf ball, snot shooting feces factory we call an infant.

And beauty....is in the eye of the beholder. ;)
 
bananabrain said:
you only get something as stupid as creationism/intelligent design if you start with something as stupid as reading the ma'aseh bereishit (creation account from the Torah) in a literal sense. i mean, think about it. how can it have been "evening and morning, the first day" without a sun and moon? that ought to be a clue at least that we are not talking about a conventional 24 hours here.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...

Does "Chookim" fit into that?
 
Blizzardry said:
no, you don't believe everything on faith. Skepticism (the fundaments of the scientific method) means NOT taking ANYTHING on faith, but looking with your own eyes, making notes and forming ideas around the evidence by joining the dots. Sure there's gaps, but that's only because science is learning, and if there weren't any gaps we'd have nothing to learn and science wouldn't exist. You fill them with further evidence, not unprovable-either-way ideas, or you just leave them as gaps.

Evolution is a FACT. It happens every day, has been observed in the lab and is a useable system for designing complex circuitry and robots. You don't need faith to believe that.

Anybody who thinks you can't prove love or beauty has never heard of endorphins, serotonin, and Fibonnacci and the golden ratio, or are ignoring the research done by Disney's lot into the formula behind concepts such as "cute". Massive advances in the science behind love and beauty are being made all the time, in mathematics, biochemistry and by market researchers.
Click to expand...
What you are calling "love and beauty," I would call "lust."
 
intrepidlover said:
And if humans did in fact evolve from monkeys (primates)
Click to expand...

Hi,

I think it's more accurate to say that humans share common ancestry with the great apes (gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzee), rather than monkeys. Such notions obviously pose problems for certain religions.

"As Stephen Jay Gould explained that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. A theory is an attempt to identify and describe relationships between phenomena or things, and generates falsifiable predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments and empirical observation. Speculative or conjectural explanations tend to be called hypotheses, and well tested explanations, theories. Fact tends to mean a datum, an observation, i.e., a fact is obtained by a fairly direct observation. However, a fact does not mean absolute certainty; in science, fact can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A theory is obtained by inference from a body of facts. A related concept is a scientific law. It is common to encounter reference to the "law of natural selection" or the "laws of evolution." For example, see the article on physical law. Fact and theory denote the epistemological status of knowledge: how the knowledge was obtained, what sort of knowledge it is."

 
I love Lucy.

Not that I don't believe in an intelligent Creator.

I just think that the Creator is a lot more intelligent than we are.

My not very scientific 2c. ;)

InPeace,
InLove
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top