The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Intelligent design Vs Evolution
| 388 | 55554 |
I just now found out about this forum and didn't notice a I.D. Vs E. thread so I decided to make one.
I am a Christian and believe in intelligent design is the way the world came to be.
What does everyone else think about this subject?
- 388 Replies
But keep in mind the wealth of evidence we have that the big bang actually occurred.
But the main thing to keep in mind is that we have evidence of the big bang
Where.
There is however logical evidence against the big bang.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html
http://nov55.com/bb.html
Where.
Not sure if this will quote fail or not.
"* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. "
What is wrong with God using science?
Creation or I.D. is not against science in any way. In fact almost all major fields of science were started by creationist scientists.
"* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. "
That isn't evidence for the big bang. It is just a few reasons why it could have happened.
third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Just a little thing against that.
http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2047
1. Science can't really prove anything.
[url=http://http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/431383/existence_of_god_4_reasons_that_support_pg3.html?cat=9]
Sorry RedAce, but you should no longer use this site as a source of information, as it is written by one person's "thoughts" on a matter such as this.
[quote=Website]
To this end, it is statistically possible to drop the deck of cards repeatedly until they once again enter a state of perfect entropy. Although the odds are tremendously slim, it is possible for such phenomenon to occur in a span of as much as 1 billion years. Although possible, this theory is impossible when applying it to living things. As stated before, the earth started with single cellular organisms, which in turn formed into multi-cellular organisms, and so on. For this reason, it is impossible for any form of species to "de-evolve," because multi-cellular organisms cannot regress back into single-cellular organisms. Therefore, as stated, a necessary helping hand is required to have existed, which is none other than God.[/quote]
This author is talking about a metaphor that insinuates dumping of matter and energy until it reaches a form of existence. Wow. Okay lemme clear this up:
1) First of all, the Earth did not start with unicellular organisms; it started off as matter. Chemicals formed together chains to create amino acids aka the blueprints for life. It formed into RNA, in which better parts of RNA were formed into DNA. This is bare minimum information. If you want me to give you details, I will.
2) Since when have matter and organisms paired up as being the same principle, therefore could go under the same conditions? You cannot do the same to matter in the same manner to organisms. Yes, you can break down matter and reassemble it-- we have done it before. If you break down an organism, they will die. I have do--woah....that was close...
3) De-Evolving? Since when has origins or evolution for that matter been on the basis of De-Evolving? If you mean De-Evolving as in taking what the present form of an organism is and literally tracing it back to its predecessor, then it can't be done. If you mean De-Evolving as in slowly, but surely reassembling an organism's genepools to the same conditions as its predecessor, then yes, it can be done. In this case, you are wrong in BOTH WAYS.
4) God does not need to intervene for a single progression; He only needs to start it. If the conditions needed to progress can be done by itself, then there does not need to be an intelligent being, true, or null, needed to intervene.
RedAce, this 'news article' is based off one man and his thoughts, not something that has undergone rigorous testing and controversy. If you have pulled up a site that has documented theories and/or evidence of such, then I may have considered it or partials of it meritable. This article is just...wow.
I didn't even read all of it.
But there are quite a few good points made by that man. (on the other pages)
Well here is the thing lots of people believe that science supports evolution. But the fact is
1 Science can not "rove anything" as one little counter experiment cant disprove it.
2 you cant prove evolution with science becuase you cant observe evolution so you cant come up with that idea based on the scientific method.
You said
"Sorry RedAce, but you should no longer use this site as a source of information, as it is written by one person's "thoughts" on a matter such as this."
Is that your though on the matter? also who "thought up" the scientific method? eventually it all goes back to thought and resoning unless you have one Solid thing that tells you waht is true in every circumstance. and for me that is the bible.
1 Science can not "rove anything" as one little counter experiment cant disprove it.
This is the entire basis of science; it constantly checks itself to see if anything is conflicting with it. If so, it will be "back to the drawing board" and rechecked. Science has "roven anything" via laws--facts that are true beyond a shadow of doubt.
also who "thought up" the scientific method?
A team of scientists who used their own scientific method to recreate the scientific method. However, the scientific method is only a tool used to make sure if your hypotheses or theories are plausible. As this itself has undergone many changes, this is more genuine than the single thoughts of a college student who majors in psychology, not science or philosophy. Come on dude!
2 you cant prove evolution with science becuase you cant observe evolution so you cant come up with that idea based on the scientific method.
Yes we can.
eventually it all goes back to thought and resoning unless you have one Solid thing that tells you waht is true in every circumstance. and for me that is the bible.
Unfortunately, there is no truth to that. What the bible has said contradicts Science. In the end, science has won many times, and the Church has been forced to change the bible many times, in order to keep their religion from crumbling.
What is the difference between an idea that has changed many times in order to make sure of itself that it is plausible, rather than an idea that hasn't changed once and is forced upon the people as being true?
Where.
Comets have crash-landed on the Earth and had amino acids on them. The Miller-Urey experiment.
Not trying to be a jerk, but I don't really think that has been proven.
The theory of relativity is considered a scientific fact. According to that, there would be no time as all space was infinitely compressed.
That is your point of view, not a fact.
Yes, it's a fact. I explained why - pay attention. It's annoying when people don't pay attention. If you argue against something and make points directly based off of incorrect information, like you are, then you're wrong. Plain and simple.
Where did the "Everything" come from.
I ALREADY F**KING EXPLAINED THIS.
Quit it with the perpetual skepticism. It's getting to the point where you're blatantly ignoring parts of my argument so you can try and fail to refute other points I've made. This is not how to debate.
And thus those deluded by a system of lies fall ever deeper into fanaticism.
Wizards versus Mutants whooooooooooo...Pulls out the Nuke lets see who survives....those praying or those that run away...
That isn't evidence for the big bang. It is just a few reasons why it could have happened.
Evidence; an outward sign : indication : something that furnishes proof
This means the red shifting we are observing in the universe is evidence, the cosmic microwave background radiation found everywhere is evidence, how observed amounts of hydrogen and helium match this model is evidence. Why is all this evidence because they are outward signs indicating it happened.
Really? Another one of these? I say that all except one thread discussing anything about God or Gods existing should be locked. That would be so much simpler. I'll ask the mods if they can make a sticky along the lines of "Are There Gods?", that seems like a good idea...
You must be logged in to post a reply!