Intelligent Design VS Evolution/Big Bang

65	29053

offline

HahiHa

8,256 posts

Regent

Posted October 5, '14 9:01am UTC

It was suggested in the move "Intelligence Expelled" that we were not created by some random course of events, but rather by a being with a higher status than that of ourselves. Call this being whatever you like: God, Aliens, etc.

Even movies about science often get the real science wrong, so you can imagine that movies about intelligent design are even worse at representing it.

If you really think about it isn't it easier to believe that we were intentional, rather than a complete coincidence?

It may seem easier at first. But just because it is easier to imagine something doesn't make it automatically real.

The thing is, we have plenty of evidence to backup our evolution; and once you know the basic principles, it gets easy to imagine how we came to this. Personally, I find it easier to explain what I see in nature by evolution rather than by an intelligent design. Maybe the sarcastic term "unintelligent design" rings a bell to you? This is exactly what I'm speaking about.

Lastly, you must realize that evolution is not 100% random. There are some random processes, but also many processes that follow a set of rules and constraints. And in a similar environment, you will often see similar adaptations (see convergence).

[quote]It was suggested in the move "Intelligence Expelled" that we were not created by some random course of events, but rather by a being with a higher status than that of ourselves. Call this being whatever you like: God, Aliens, etc.[/quote]\r\nEven movies about science often get the real science wrong, so you can imagine that movies about intelligent design are even worse at representing it. \r\n\r\n[quote]If you really think about it isn't it easier to believe that we were intentional, rather than a complete coincidence?[/quote]\r\nIt may seem easier at first. But just because it is easier to imagine something doesn't make it automatically real. \r\n\r\nThe thing is, we have plenty of evidence to backup our evolution; and once you know the basic principles, it gets easy to imagine how we came to this. Personally, I find it easier to explain what I see in nature by evolution rather than by an intelligent design. Maybe the sarcastic term "unintelligent design" rings a bell to you? This is exactly what I'm speaking about. \r\n\r\nLastly, you must realize that evolution is not 100% random. There are some random processes, but also many processes that follow a set of rules and constraints. And in a similar environment, you will often see similar adaptations (see [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution]convergence[/url]).

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted October 5, '14 5:42pm UTC

I personally do not believe that we all came from a "big bang" or an amoeba floating around in some primordial soup.

Neither do I. Luckily, that isn't relevant to the theory of evolution and it isn't what abiogenesis states.

If you really think about it isn't it easier to believe that we were intentional, rather than a complete coincidence?

The problem with this is you are trying to explain a complex situation by imagining an infinitely more complex, intelligent, powerful, supernatural being created everything. It's taking an unknown and making up something even more fantastical. If it's so hard for you to think about extremely simple life forming in the right conditions among veritable trillions of chances, how do you justify the even more unexplained, ever more complicated perfect being existing without a cause? Logical extrapolation would say that an infinitely more powerful and complex being would have needed to create god if god was needed to create us.

In the movie stated above people were proposing intelligent design through their professions and they were getting blacklisted.

That's because people doing that are intentionally distorting facts and using their biases as proof of their own beliefs. It's intellectually dishonest, unprofessional, and quite frankly nothing more than lying for a cause. In academia you are reprimanded or blacklisted for dishonest conduct or ignored due to unfounded claims. Nothing more is happening.

There is something that is being hidden here if their bosses do not want them to be spreading this around.

It isn't some kind of conspiracy. There's no evidence for creationist or intelligent design claims, and the people who commonly make these claims are constantly found to be lying con artists that falsify results and prey on people who do not understand the subject matter, or who use their degrees improperly to back their position when it actually isn't related to what they are claiming to be an expert on.

[quote]I personally do not believe that we all came from a "big bang" or an amoeba floating around in some primordial soup.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNeither do I. Luckily, that isn't relevant to the theory of evolution and it isn't what abiogenesis states. \r\n\r\n[quote]If you really think about it isn't it easier to believe that we were intentional, rather than a complete coincidence?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe problem with this is you are trying to explain a complex situation by imagining an infinitely more complex, intelligent, powerful, supernatural being created everything. It's taking an unknown and making up something even more fantastical. If it's so hard for you to think about extremely simple life forming in the right conditions among veritable trillions of chances, how do you justify the even more unexplained, ever more complicated perfect being existing without a cause? Logical extrapolation would say that an infinitely more powerful and complex being would have needed to create god if god was needed to create us.\r\n\r\n[quote]In the movie stated above people were proposing intelligent design through their professions and they were getting blacklisted.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's because people doing that are intentionally distorting facts and using their biases as proof of their own beliefs. It's intellectually dishonest, unprofessional, and quite frankly nothing more than lying for a cause. In academia you are reprimanded or blacklisted for dishonest conduct or ignored due to unfounded claims. Nothing more is happening.\r\n\r\n[quote]There is something that is being hidden here if their bosses do not want them to be spreading this around.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt isn't some kind of conspiracy. There's no evidence for creationist or intelligent design claims, and the people who commonly make these claims are constantly found to be lying con artists that falsify results and prey on people who do not understand the subject matter, or who use their degrees improperly to back their position when it actually isn't related to what they are claiming to be an expert on.

offline

liquidvenom13

82 posts

Shepherd

Posted October 5, '14 6:05pm UTC

@Kasic so I ask you this
Do you have proof that intelligent design is false? That the Theory of evolution has proved creation theorists wrong?

Logical extrapolation would say that an infinitely more powerful and complex being would have needed to create god if god was needed to create us.

Not necessarily. I don't know how familiar you are with the bible so I'll simplify this. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. At this point the earth was basically a ball of clay. The earth and all that exists within was created in 7 days. He created night and day. He creates the oceans, the sky, clouds, land, vegetation, animals etc. Not all in that order of course but you get the idea. He created man (adam) to have a friend. He made Eve from one of Adam's ribs. Then life went on from there. If you would like to know more just look up Genesis 1:1

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted October 5, '14 6:31pm UTC Edited October 5, '14 6:39pm UTC by Kasic

Do you have proof that intelligent design is false? That the Theory of evolution has proved creation theorists wrong?

Here's the thing - I don't need to do anything. It's up to the person making a claim to give others evidence and proof on why that is true or plausible. What I can do is take any claim made and evaluate to counter anything that is presented as evidence.

Edit: Of course, the same is true of evolution. I have to prove my claims. The difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution has mountains of evidence that anyone (independent of organization and with the right tools/equipment/time) can go out and see for themselves, so much so that there are literally more scientists named Steve (or whatever it is) than there are scientists in total who do not accept evolution - over 99.99% (literally) of the academic world accepts it as true and proven. If you want me to answer questions about evolution feel free to ask.

As for the theory of evolution &quotroving" creationists wrong, everything we know about our world does not require a creator and in many cases directly conflicts with creationist claims. We know (and I mean know) that man could not have come from just two people. We know that the world is not only a few thousand years old. We know that there was no world wide flood. We know that creatures change over time, and have changed. We know that we were not among the first life on this planet. We know all of that, and all of that is precisely not what creationists say.

Also, about how you bolded the word theory. This implies that you're saying evolution is just a theory, and therefore either not &quotroven" or no better off than the "theory" of intelligent design. Either you do not understand what a scientific theory is (if I'm understanding the implied meaning of your bold word correctly) or you do not think evolution has more proof to it than an old book saying such and such happened this way (Darwin's first book).

At this point the earth was basically a ball of clay.

We know this is not true. We know how stars form, and we know how they make heavier elements. We know how when those starts die they spew out those elements, and how that collects into other planetary bodies. We know that the earth was not among the first stellar objects and is extremely young compared to the rest of the universe.

The earth and all that exists within was created in 7 days.

We know that isn't true too.

He created night and day

Night and day is simply a planet's rotation so that one face is not pointing towards the star it is orbiting about. It's not "created."

If you would like to know more just look up Genesis 1:1

Yes, I've read the bible. What you don't seem to understand is that words in a book written by numerous uneducated people thousands of years ago which were just stories yet older than that written down and then selected by a group of people from numerous other stories isn't actually proof of anything. You're trying to use the bible as support for the claims the bible is making; this is called circular reasoning. All of your claims and beliefs are coming from this book, it cannot be used as proof of itself.

[quote]Do you have proof that intelligent design is false? That the Theory of evolution has proved creation theorists wrong?[/quote]

Here's the thing - I don't need to do anything. It's up to the person making a claim to give others evidence and proof on why that is true or plausible. What I can do is take any claim made and evaluate to counter anything that is presented as evidence.

Edit: Of course, the same is true of evolution. I have to prove my claims. The difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution has mountains of evidence that anyone (independent of organization and with the right tools/equipment/time) can go out and see for themselves, so much so that there are literally more scientists named Steve (or whatever it is) than there are scientists in total who do not accept evolution - over 99.99% (literally) of the academic world accepts it as true and proven. If you want me to answer questions about evolution feel free to ask.

As for the theory of evolution "proving" creationists wrong, everything we know about our world does not require a creator and in many cases directly conflicts with creationist claims. We know (and I mean know) that man could not have come from just two people. We know that the world is not only a few thousand years old. We know that there was no world wide flood. We know that creatures change over time, and have changed. We know that we were not among the first life on this planet. We know all of that, and all of that is precisely [i]not[/i] what creationists say.

Also, about how you bolded the word theory. This implies that you're saying evolution is just a theory, and therefore either not "proven" or no better off than the "theory" of intelligent design. Either you do not understand what a scientific theory is (if I'm understanding the implied meaning of your bold word correctly) or you do not think evolution has more proof to it than an old book saying such and such happened this way (Darwin's first book).

[quote]At this point the earth was basically a ball of clay. [/quote]

We know this is not true. We know how stars form, and we know how they make heavier elements. We know how when those starts die they spew out those elements, and how that collects into other planetary bodies. We know that the earth was not among the first stellar objects and is extremely young compared to the rest of the universe.

[quote] The earth and all that exists within was created in 7 days. [/quote]

We know that isn't true too.

[quote]He created night and day[/quote]

Night and day is simply a planet's rotation so that one face is not pointing towards the star it is orbiting about. It's not "created."

[quote] If you would like to know more just look up Genesis 1:1[/quote]

Yes, I've read the bible. What you don't seem to understand is that words in a book written by numerous uneducated people thousands of years ago which were just stories yet older than that written down and then selected by a group of people from numerous other stories isn't actually proof of anything. You're trying to use the bible as support for the claims the bible is making; this is called circular reasoning. All of your claims and beliefs are coming from this book, it cannot be used as proof of itself.

offline

Frank_Frooton

4,002 posts

Bard

Posted October 5, '14 6:57pm UTC Edited October 5, '14 7:05pm UTC by Frank_Frooton

It was suggested in the move "Intelligence Expelled"

I think it's just Expelled. Even if you don't have anything to do with this debate, it's still great because Ben Stein. It had a lot of good points.
EDIT: Quick question for evolutionists, if the earth is still evolving, why don't I have wings yet?

offline

HahiHa

8,256 posts

Regent

Posted October 5, '14 6:58pm UTC Edited October 5, '14 7:00pm UTC by HahiHa

@liquidvenom13

Giving you all the original evidence in favour of evolution here in this thread would be too tedious, involve weeks of full time literature research and huge posts, so this is unreasonable.

However! It is easy to give you the evidence under the condition that you read it. I can give you a few starting links:

Understanding Evolution - A relatively compact guide into the topic of evolution.

TalkOrigins FAQ - An extensive list of FAQs that adress most questions and contain several continuing links.

And of course, if you have a specific question or point to debate about, we will be glad to discuss it here. Meanwhile, providing backup for your side of the argument would certainly be appreciated.

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted October 5, '14 7:14pm UTC

EDIT: Quick question for evolutionists, if the earth is still evolving, why don't I have wings yet?

1) The term "evolutionist" is as nonsensical as "gravitationist."

2) You do not have wings because of evolution. If you were to grow wings, or a human was born with functional wings, that would be enough to throw a serious wrench into the entire theory.

offline

HahiHa

8,256 posts

Regent

Posted October 5, '14 7:28pm UTC Edited October 5, '14 7:31pm UTC by HahiHa

2) You do not have wings because of evolution. If you were to grow wings, or a human was born with functional wings, that would be enough to throw a serious wrench into the entire theory.

Quick note: mutations a la X-Men have nothing to do with mutations in reality. The way we understand evolution, people don't suddenly get wings or stuff like that.

offline

Frank_Frooton

4,002 posts

Bard

Posted October 5, '14 8:46pm UTC

I meant if the earth evolved like that, and humans came from monkeys, how do we have pictures of humans 500 years ago looking just like they do now?
Why have we not evolved more? Is there something that has strangely stopped the cycle?

offline

liquidvenom13

82 posts

Shepherd

Posted October 5, '14 9:26pm UTC

@Kasic

Night and day is simply a planet's rotation so that one face is not pointing towards the star it is orbiting about. It's not "created."

If you think about it, it really was "created"
If God really did create everything he must have created the sun, the physics behind the Earths rotation and orbit.

We know that there was no world wide flood

I beg to differ sir. Fossils of sea creatures found high above sea level.
you can see the article here: clicky
"Fossil Graveyards" are found all over the place. These fossils portray the creatures down to the last detail. Clicky

We know that creatures change over time, and have changed.

I agree that creatures do change over time, but not in the context that you are referring. You are thinking Macroevolution, which is such drastic changes in an organism that a whole new creature is created. Microevolution happens all around us. For example, birds beaks changing shape in order for them to have an easier time eating, or another example would be the difference between reindeer and caribou... there is almost none. They both derived from the caribou, but then the reindeer was domesticated and its legs got shorter, thicker fur, and a different breeding time than caribou.

We know that the world is not only a few thousand years old

There is also evidence that this is false.
In the recent years there have been dinosaur fossils found with soft tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells! Lab tests have concluded that there is no possible way that the biological material could last more than thousands of years.
Original article: clicky

The difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution has mountains of evidence that anyone (independent of organization and with the right tools/equipment/time) can go out and see for themselves, so much so that there are literally more scientists named Steve (or whatever it is) than there are scientists in total who do not accept evolution - over 99.99% (literally) of the academic world accepts it as true and proven

could you list your sources please?
Thanks!

[url=http://armorgames.com/user/Kasic]@Kasic[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]Night and day is simply a planet's rotation so that one face is not pointing towards the star it is orbiting about. It's not "created."[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf you think about it, it really was "created"\r\nIf God really did create everything he must have created the sun, the physics behind the Earths rotation and orbit.\r\n\r\n[quote]We know that there was no world wide flood[/quote]\r\n\r\nI beg to differ sir. Fossils of sea creatures found high above sea level.\r\nyou can see the article here: [url=https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/]clicky[/url]\r\n"Fossil Graveyards" are found all over the place. These fossils portray the creatures down to the last detail. [url=https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-worlds-a-graveyard/]Clicky[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]We know that creatures change over time, and have changed.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI agree that creatures do change over time, but not in the context that you are referring. You are thinking Macroevolution, which is such drastic changes in an organism that a whole new creature is created. Microevolution happens all around us. For example, birds beaks changing shape in order for them to have an easier time eating, or another example would be the difference between reindeer and caribou... there is almost none. They both derived from the caribou, but then the reindeer was domesticated and its legs got shorter, thicker fur, and a different breeding time than caribou.\r\n\r\n[quote]We know that the world is not only a few thousand years old[/quote]\r\n\r\nThere is also evidence that this is false.\r\nIn the recent years there have been dinosaur fossils found with soft tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells! Lab tests have concluded that there is no possible way that the biological material could last more than thousands of years.\r\nOriginal article: [url=https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/]clicky[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]The difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution has mountains of evidence that anyone (independent of organization and with the right tools/equipment/time) can go out and see for themselves, so much so that there are literally more scientists named Steve (or whatever it is) than there are scientists in total who do not accept evolution - over 99.99% (literally) of the academic world accepts it as true and proven[/quote]\r\n\r\ncould you list your sources please?\r\nThanks!

offline

liquidvenom13

82 posts

Shepherd

Posted October 5, '14 9:29pm UTC

@Frank_Frooton

I meant if the earth evolved like that, and humans came from monkeys, how do we have pictures of humans 500 years ago looking just like they do now?
Why have we not evolved more? Is there something that has strangely stopped the cycle?

According to the theory of evolution it would take millions of years for the evolution to take place in a series of stages.

Does this seem likely to you?

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted October 5, '14 9:31pm UTC

I personally do not believe that we all came from a "big bang" or an amoeba floating around in some primordial soup.

The Big Bang didn't have amoeba floating around. At the start of it we didn't even have matter, it was just too hot for that. once things cooled we had basic elements (hydrogen, helium). Those elements eventually began to clump together and eventually form the first proto-stars. Within those proto-stars we had fusion take place resulting in other elements forming up to iron. Once some of those proto-stars died and went super nova that created the conditions to allow elements above iron to form. Then it's just a matter of rinse and repeat.

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Evolution is the theory (scientific explanation , not guess) explaining the change and diversification of life once it came into existence. (evolution also doesn't cover how life originated.)

It was suggested in the move "Intelligence Expelled" that we were not created by some random course of events, but rather by a being with a higher status than that of ourselves. Call this being whatever you like: God, Aliens, etc.

The only thing that movie got right was it's title, because it did expel it's intelligence.

But to answer the point, there are non-random processes involved which help to shape the outcomes we have.

If you really think about it isn't it easier to believe that we were intentional, rather than a complete coincidence?

What's easier to believe isn't always what's right. Also as noted it wasn't all random chance.

In the movie stated above people were proposing intelligent design through their professions and they were getting blacklisted.

That's actually just a bold faced lie of creationists. they aren't being black listed for proposing ID. They getting booted for doing bad science, or in other words they aren't doing their jobs right.

Let's put it this way. Let's say you went into the hospital for a surgery and the doctor who was to preform it put on a mask and started doing an incantation to heal you. That person as a medical doctor would get fired for not doing his job properly.

[quote]I personally do not believe that we all came from a "big bang" or an amoeba floating around in some primordial soup.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe Big Bang didn't have amoeba floating around. At the start of it we didn't even have matter, it was just too hot for that. once things cooled  we had basic elements (hydrogen, helium). Those elements eventually began to clump together and eventually form the first proto-stars. Within those proto-stars we had fusion take place resulting in other elements forming up to iron. Once some of those proto-stars died and went super nova that created the conditions to allow elements above iron to form. Then it's just a matter of rinse and repeat.\r\n\r\nEvolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Evolution is the theory (scientific explanation , not guess) explaining the change and diversification of life once it came into existence. (evolution also doesn't cover how life originated.)\r\n\r\n[quote]It was suggested in the move "Intelligence Expelled" that we were not created by some random course of events, but rather by a being with a higher status than that of ourselves. Call this being whatever you like: God, Aliens, etc.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe only thing that movie got right was it's title, because it did expel it's intelligence.\r\n\r\nBut to answer the point, there are non-random processes involved which help to shape the outcomes we have.\r\n\r\n[quote]If you really think about it isn't it easier to believe that we were intentional, rather than a complete coincidence?[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhat's easier to believe isn't always what's right. Also as noted it wasn't all random chance.\r\n\r\n[quote]In the movie stated above people were proposing intelligent design through their professions and they were getting blacklisted.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's actually just a bold faced lie of creationists. they aren't being black listed for proposing ID. They getting booted for doing bad science, or in other words they aren't doing their jobs right.\r\n\r\nLet's put it this way. Let's say you went into the hospital for a surgery and the doctor who was to preform it put on a mask and started doing an incantation to heal you. That person as a medical doctor would get fired for not doing his job properly.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted October 5, '14 9:32pm UTC Edited October 5, '14 9:33pm UTC by MageGrayWolf

According to the theory of evolution it would take millions of years for the evolution to take place in a series of stages.
Does this seem likely to you?

Considering we've had billions of years to work with, yes.

offline

liquidvenom13

82 posts

Shepherd

Posted October 5, '14 9:37pm UTC

Considering we've had billions of years to work with, yes

Unless you refer to my last post.

In the recent years there have been dinosaur fossils found with soft tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells! Lab tests have concluded that there is no possible way that the biological material could last more than thousands of years.
Original article: clicky

Check it out!

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted October 5, '14 9:40pm UTC

I beg to differ sir. Fossils of sea creatures found high above sea level.

That's the result of tectonic activity pushing up the ground that was once underwater.

I agree that creatures do change over time, but not in the context that you are referring. You are thinking Macroevolution, which is such drastic changes in an organism that a whole new creature is created. Microevolution happens all around us.

macroevolution is basically just a bunch of microevolutionary chanced accumulated. I have to ask you what do you think puts the breaks on the process?

There is also evidence that this is false.
In the recent years there have been dinosaur fossils found with soft tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells! Lab tests have concluded that there is no possible way that the biological material could last more than thousands of years.

No there isn't, The material was maintained due to being sealed inside the fossil.

As for the use of Answers In Genesis as a source.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/atheistjokes/batslapcreation_zps878e67a3.jpg

[quote]I beg to differ sir. Fossils of sea creatures found high above sea level.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's the result of tectonic activity pushing up the ground that was once underwater.\r\n\r\n[quote]I agree that creatures do change over time, but not in the context that you are referring. You are thinking Macroevolution, which is such drastic changes in an organism that a whole new creature is created. Microevolution happens all around us.[/quote]\r\n\r\nmacroevolution is basically just a bunch of microevolutionary chanced accumulated. I have to ask you what do you think puts the breaks on the process?\r\n\r\n[quote]There is also evidence that this is false.\r\nIn the recent years there have been dinosaur fossils found with soft tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells! Lab tests have concluded that there is no possible way that the biological material could last more than thousands of years.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo there isn't, The material was maintained due to being sealed inside the fossil. \r\n\r\nAs for the use of Answers In Genesis as a source.\r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/atheistjokes/batslapcreation_zps878e67a3.jpg[/img]

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Intelligent Design VS Evolution/Big Bang