Human evolution vs Creationism

[First]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Your question is sort of hard to answer. Support for the theory of evolution, which makes no claims whatsoever for a guiding force, is in excess of 95% of the biology community, the recognized experts on how life came to be as it is. All theories for a guiding force for evolution have been so utterly discredited that there have been no peer reviewed studies or credible other publications ever published that support Intelligent Design or similar ideas.

Considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, verified testable predictions, and the principles that are the foundation for all of modern biology, any 'objective' source will be one that discounts intelligent design/creationism and fervently endorses the evolutionary model, and something tells me that isn't what you want.

1) Fossils are completely worthless for proving evolution. If you find a fossil, all you know is that said creature is now dead.
2) Verified testable predictions only go as far as taking an assumption about part of the overall theory of evolution, and when the prediction is true, it gets thrown into the support bin of supporting the preconcieved assumption.
3) Princples of modern biology? What principle of modern biology that is real science supports the theory of evolution, ie the change from fish to birds, etc?

Consider ID. It's a philosophical topic so good luck coming to a conclusion that everyone will agree with, but you CAN test the science behind it's claims, such as in the Bible.

1) There is a lot of evidence for a worldwide flood roughly 4000 years ago. The best source for this kind of thing I can think of is Kent Hovind. He has a lot of haters, and he's done a lot of debates. He's got his own flock of haters but he has amassed a massive amount of scientific evidence proving that a global flood could have happened exactly like the Bible records. Google "Kent Hovind Debates" on youtube or google and you'll find plenty of debates where takes on top college professors and rips them to shreds. Seriously, if you really curious, check out some of his debates, I think it's a perfect place to start looking.
2) The current population of the earth and the relative recent mass colonization of North and South America can easily be traced back and fits perfectly with a Biblical account of the origins of the world.

Good luck.

Well, this explains a lot about your other posts. Officially on ignore. :laugh:

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Duwelon
2) Holy poo poo yes it does. See, i can use high logic and reason too! You really don't believe that the current population of the earth can be traced back to approx 6000 years, given what we know about famine and diseases, etc?

Dude... the idea that the earth is 6000 years old is dogma that has NO scientific evidence to back it up at all.
It is a theory based on a book that was written by man in the middle ages.

Proof that the world is older than 6000 years is all around us. You don't even have to believe in evolution to believe that the world is greater than 6000 years old.

The city of Damascus has been populated for over 8000 years.

I'm not fixed on 6000 years per se, I should have actually said 4000, not 6000.

I really hope your joking on this ... you are Right?

Science has proven the earth is over 4 billion years old and has PROVEN that life evolved here from single celled organisms over 3 billion years ago. It has also proven that you adn I evolved from primates over the last 5 million years. This is all proven, anything you say against that only proves your ignorance...

I say all this hoping you were joking.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Catholicism is true christianity if such christianity exists, and they don't advocate literal interpretation. Literal interpretation is a crutch for the people who are afraid to be truly faithful and submissive. They worship the bible, not God. Catholics officially don't abhor evolution. We start to argue when certain scientists, like Dawkins, use evolution as a means by which to attack any notion of a higher being.

True Christianity exists and the Catholic church doesn't have an exclusive. The Creation story is clearly an allegory and it's a shame that some Christians (as well as secularists) don't understand this. The existence of God will never be proven/disproven by science...Richard Dawkins has a personal agenda to self-justify his atheism and he twists evolution science into what he wants it to be instead of what it is. He uses flawed logic to justify his 'delusion'.

You realize that Dawkins doesn't say that god doesn't exist, right? He doesn't attempt to 'prove' the nonexistence of god, because he frequently admits that such a proposition is impossible. His argument is that the existence of god is highly, highly improbable, and that is one that can be completely supported through science.

Also, I think it's quite a stretch to say that Dawkins 'twists' evolutionary science. He is one of the most highly respected biologists in the world and he's contributed a lot to the subject. You don't have to share his views about god, but it's only reasonable to respect the man as a biologist.

Richard Dawkins is a world renowned atheist...in my mind that means he thinks God doesn't exist. You appear to be making a trivial distinction in order to be argumentative.

From Wikipedia"
"He writes that one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain "how the complex, improbable design in the universe arises", and argues that there are two competing explanations:

A theory involving a designer, that is, postulating a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.
A theory that explains how from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.
This is the basic set-up of his argument against the existence of God, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit,[19] where he argues that the first attempt is self-refuting, and the second approach is the way forward."

Dawkins cites two "competing" explanations above to explain our possible origins as a mutually exclusive choice. IMO, that premise is logically flawed as these competing explanations are NOT mutually exclusive. Can you say 'false dichotomy'?

I never said I didn't respect Dawkins as a biologist, I said that his logic is twisted. I did not intend to make the accusation that he plays loose with science if that's what you're getting at. But some might say that Dawkins threatens the credibility of science by subverting it to serve his anti-theist crusade.

Dawkins is an atheist who has a personal vendetta against religion. He may be a great biologist, but his personal agenda is borderline fanaticism.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Richard Dawkins is a world renowned atheist...in my mind that means he thinks God doesn't exist. You appear to be making a trivial distinction in order to be argumentative.

From Wikipedia"
"He writes that one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain "how the complex, improbable design in the universe arises", and argues that there are two competing explanations:

A theory involving a designer, that is, postulating a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.
A theory that explains how from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.
This is the basic set-up of his argument against the existence of God, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit,[19] where he argues that the first attempt is self-refuting, and the second approach is the way forward."

Dawkins cites two "competing" explanations above to explain our possible origins as a mutually exclusive choice. IMO, that premise is logically flawed as these competing explanations are NOT mutually exclusive. Can you say 'false dichotomy'?

I never said I didn't respect Dawkins as a biologist, I said that his logic is twisted. I did not intend to make the accusation that he plays loose with science if that's what you're getting at. But some might say that Dawkins threatens the credibility of science by subverting it to serve his anti-theist crusade.

Dawkins is an atheist who has a personal vendetta against religion. He may be a great biologist, but his personal agenda is borderline fanaticism.

He's quite specific in both his speeches and his books. He says (correctly) that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, but the odds against the existence of god are very, very steep indeed. In fact, he even describes levels of theism on a continuum, from 1 to 7 if I remember. 1 is 'I'm certain god exists' and 7 is 'I'm certain god does not exist'. He placed himself at about a 6 on the scale.

I think Dawkins very much does dislike religion, but I am not aware of him twisting evolutionary biology in order to achieve atheistic ends. Can you show me some examples? Also, I'm having trouble thinking of a third possible explanation between something creating the universe and the order which we see, and the universe and order simply arising from principles that have always existed. Do you have a third possibility in mind?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Richard Dawkins is a world renowned atheist...in my mind that means he thinks God doesn't exist. You appear to be making a trivial distinction in order to be argumentative.

From Wikipedia"
"He writes that one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain "how the complex, improbable design in the universe arises", and argues that there are two competing explanations:

A theory involving a designer, that is, postulating a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.
A theory that explains how from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.
This is the basic set-up of his argument against the existence of God, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit,[19] where he argues that the first attempt is self-refuting, and the second approach is the way forward."

Dawkins cites two "competing" explanations above to explain our possible origins as a mutually exclusive choice. IMO, that premise is logically flawed as these competing explanations are NOT mutually exclusive. Can you say 'false dichotomy'?

I never said I didn't respect Dawkins as a biologist, I said that his logic is twisted. I did not intend to make the accusation that he plays loose with science if that's what you're getting at. But some might say that Dawkins threatens the credibility of science by subverting it to serve his anti-theist crusade.

Dawkins is an atheist who has a personal vendetta against religion. He may be a great biologist, but his personal agenda is borderline fanaticism.

He's quite specific in both his speeches and his books. He says (correctly) that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something, but the odds against the existence of god are very, very steep indeed. In fact, he even describes levels of theism on a continuum, from 1 to 7 if I remember. 1 is 'I'm certain god exists' and 7 is 'I'm certain god does not exist'. He placed himself at about a 6 on the scale.

I think Dawkins very much does dislike religion, but I am not aware of him twisting evolutionary biology in order to achieve atheistic ends. Can you show me some examples? Also, I'm having trouble thinking of a third possible explanation between something creating the universe and the order which we see, and the universe and order simply arising from principles that have always existed. Do you have a third possibility in mind?

And how, pray tell, does Mr. Dawkins scientifically arrive at these probabilities against the existence of God? I won't hold my breath. Surely you can see the folly in this...no?

I did not accuse him of "twisting evolutionary biology in order to achieve atheistic ends". Maybe you missed this sentence from my previous post: "I did not intend to make the accusation that he plays loose with science if that's what you're getting at." I don't know how I can be any clearer on this.

Here's a third explanation that you and Mr. Dawkins may want to consider: A theory involving a designer who designed the attributes of all matter and created the fundamental principles, processes, and laws of nature that govern all natural phenomena.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

And how, pray tell, does Mr. Dawkins scientifically arrive at these probabilities against the existence of God? I won't hold my breath. Surely you can see the folly in this...no?

I did not accuse him of "twisting evolutionary biology in order to achieve atheistic ends". Maybe you missed this sentence from my previous post: "I did not intend to make the accusation that he plays loose with science if that's what you're getting at." I don't know how I can be any clearer on this.

Here's a third explanation that you and Mr. Dawkins may want to consider: A theory involving a designer who designed the attributes of all matter and created the fundamental principles, processes, and laws of nature that govern all natural phenomena.

Your third example is no different than the first, and that example has been amply considered. The arguments against a designer are not based around what parts of existence he designed, they are based around the attributes of such a designer.

To give the super short cliffs notes version is just a variation of Occam's Razor: all other evidence being equal, the more complex something is, the less probable it is. There is no specific evidence to point to a creator, and the complexity of a creator god is many orders of magnitude greater than the alternative explanation. Therefore it is quite a bit less likely.

EDIT: I guess I'm not understanding how someone can be 'subverting' science without misrepresenting it in some way either.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

And how, pray tell, does Mr. Dawkins scientifically arrive at these probabilities against the existence of God? I won't hold my breath. Surely you can see the folly in this...no?

I did not accuse him of "twisting evolutionary biology in order to achieve atheistic ends". Maybe you missed this sentence from my previous post: "I did not intend to make the accusation that he plays loose with science if that's what you're getting at." I don't know how I can be any clearer on this.

Here's a third explanation that you and Mr. Dawkins may want to consider: A theory involving a designer who designed the attributes of all matter and created the fundamental principles, processes, and laws of nature that govern all natural phenomena.

Your third example is no different than the first, and that example has been amply considered. The arguments against a designer are not based around what parts of existence he designed, they are based around the attributes of such a designer.

To give the super short cliffs notes version is just a variation of Occam's Razor: all other evidence being equal, the more complex something is, the less probable it is. There is no specific evidence to point to a creator, and the complexity of a creator god is many orders of magnitude greater than the alternative explanation. Therefore it is quite a bit less likely.

EDIT: I guess I'm not understanding how someone can be 'subverting' science without misrepresenting it in some way either.

Sigh...please provide evidence that the explanation I gave you has been "amply considered"...and I assume rejected but I won't put your cart before the horse. Put that assignment on your 'to do' list just below yu getting me the scientifically determined probabilities against the existence of God.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

And how, pray tell, does Mr. Dawkins scientifically arrive at these probabilities against the existence of God? I won't hold my breath. Surely you can see the folly in this...no?

I did not accuse him of "twisting evolutionary biology in order to achieve atheistic ends". Maybe you missed this sentence from my previous post: "I did not intend to make the accusation that he plays loose with science if that's what you're getting at." I don't know how I can be any clearer on this.

Here's a third explanation that you and Mr. Dawkins may want to consider: A theory involving a designer who designed the attributes of all matter and created the fundamental principles, processes, and laws of nature that govern all natural phenomena.

Your third example is no different than the first, and that example has been amply considered. The arguments against a designer are not based around what parts of existence he designed, they are based around the attributes of such a designer.

To give the super short cliffs notes version is just a variation of Occam's Razor: all other evidence being equal, the more complex something is, the less probable it is. There is no specific evidence to point to a creator, and the complexity of a creator god is many orders of magnitude greater than the alternative explanation. Therefore it is quite a bit less likely.

EDIT: I guess I'm not understanding how someone can be 'subverting' science without misrepresenting it in some way either.

Sigh...please provide evidence that the explanation I gave you has been "amply considered"...and I assume rejected but I won't put your cart before the horse. Put that assignment on your 'to do' list just below yu getting me the scientifically determined probabilities against the existence of God.

Dude, read the guy's books. You can't expect me to hold your hand through a discussion of what someone believes when you haven't taken the time to read his widely published writings on exactly what he believes on the subject. He specifically talks about exactly that 'third option' that you think he's never considered or mentioned. If you don't want to believe me that's your business, but it's not like the information isn't out there if you care to look.

To demand scientifically determined probabilities on the existence of god is to descend into pedantry and you know it. If you have a problem with either the statement that there is no more evidence for the universe as we know it being designed by a god as opposed to the alternative explanation, please list the evidence you believe points to such a designer. If you have a problem with the logical construction of Occam's Razor, please tell me where you believe the logic goes awry.

If you cannot, or do not desire to do either of those, then it seems difficult to argue with the proposition that a creator god is less probable than the alternative. Considering our hugely incomplete knowledge of the subject, there is certainly tons of room for a creator god to exist, but to take the stand that it is unlikely is certainly reasonable, and can be done with no twists of logic, and no subversion of science.

 

[jonks]

When the Pope looks at you and shakes his head over your ignorance of science, it's time to take a personal timeout to assess your life.

 

[piasabird]

My view is that all fossils prove is some animal became extinct. It does not necessarily prove evoloution. However, its location in the sediment or layers of rock can give it a date or date it with other species we found at similar locations in rock or sediment.

However, it is also possible that many animals became extinct all at once in cataclysmic events, rather than slowly over time.

I guess you could try to prove Jesus did not turn water into wine, or Jesus did not rise people from the dead or Jesus did not miraculously heal people. However, at this late of a date it is pretty hard to prove or disprove. Since according to the Bible Jesus said he was the son of god and that he was doing the will of the Father (God), then Maybe there was a God and maybe there is something to the creation belief.

I have not seen any real proof of evolution.

 

[tfcmasta97]

Lol, every time we look at humans, how far we've come, all the potential ahead of us we hope for great things.

Then we realize all these dumbasses are sitting in our way, and our faith in humanity disappears.



ITT: fucking retards vs the learn-ded-ed

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: piasabird
My view is that all fossils prove is some animal became extinct. It does not necessarily prove evoloution. However, its location in the sediment or layers of rock can give it a date or date it with other species we found at similar locations in rock or sediment.

However, it is also possible that many animals became extinct all at once in cataclysmic events, rather than slowly over time.

I guess you could try to prove Jesus did not turn water into wine, or Jesus did not rise people from the dead or Jesus did not miraculously heal people. However, at this late of a date it is pretty hard to prove or disprove. Since according to the Bible Jesus said he was the son of god and that he was doing the will of the Father (God), then Maybe there was a God and maybe there is something to the creation belief.

I have not seen any real proof of evolution.

One word: Genetics.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
Lol, every time we look at humans, how far we've come, all the potential ahead of us we hope for great things.

Then we realize all these dumbasses are sitting in our way, and our faith in humanity disappears.



ITT: fucking retards vs the learn-ded-ed

LOL - it reminds me of a great scene I saw on some show. It was a born again religious person talking to a non-religious person.

Religious person - We have been arguing back and forth for so long, who even knows why our sides hate each other.

Non-Religious person - Its not a mystery. You hate us, because you think that we think you are stupid. We have you because you ARE stupid. =)

Funny and true.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: piasabird
My view is that all fossils prove is some animal became extinct. It does not necessarily prove evoloution. However, its location in the sediment or layers of rock can give it a date or date it with other species we found at similar locations in rock or sediment.

However, it is also possible that many animals became extinct all at once in cataclysmic events, rather than slowly over time.

I guess you could try to prove Jesus did not turn water into wine, or Jesus did not rise people from the dead or Jesus did not miraculously heal people. However, at this late of a date it is pretty hard to prove or disprove. Since according to the Bible Jesus said he was the son of god and that he was doing the will of the Father (God), then Maybe there was a God and maybe there is something to the creation belief.

I have not seen any real proof of evolution.

Fossil evidence has proven it, and DNA evidence has proven it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Evolution happened, you are an advanced ape, just like me.

Its easy to you have seen no real proof when you ignore the proof that is there. IF I close my eyes, I can say there is no proof that the sky is blue - it still is what it is.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have not seen any real proof of evolution.

said the guy with the blindfolded avatar

 

[BMW540I6speed]

It'd just be wonderful if someone were to point out the simple fact that while evolution remains a theory, Intelligent Design will never be more than a hypothesis, because there will never be a single scrap of evidence that the "designer" exists, whereas adaptation and beneficial mutations are things that we see in incremental changes all the time.

Of course evolutionary biology is incomplete. So what? ID and creationism can't generate a single testable hypothesis much less explain anything. What is the ID position on the diversity of Hawaiian drosophilia? Take your time. Same for everything else.

IDers look at the "diversity of life" and argue the existence of a designer based on that complexity - but the only "proof" they have of its existence is the complexity of life itself. There is no corroborating evidence, no proof of any invisible creatures creating new lifeforms at any given time, no nothing. Intelligent design wouldn't be accepted as a middle-school science project by a teacher who actually understands what science is. You make a hypothesis, then you test it. The fossil record shows smooth transitions between many species, but if you want to show that ID is valid, then we'll do this:

We'll take a small population of animals who aren't quite ideally-suited to their environment and watch them to see if they change. Then, alongside that, we'll have the same environment with nothing living in it, and we'll see if some "invisible entity" creates some in there. And if that second one works, then evolution will be proven wrong. Let's give that one a try, shall we?

We can leave that experiment as an exhibit in the creationist museum next to the display showing that the fossils left behind after the great flood were neatly collated by the floodwaters into "violent" and "nonviolent" sections. "Plants and animals are distributed in different strata based not on the time of their formation, but on where the flood waters moved them before receding."

Science? Even a theory? No. Not even close.

So what they'll do now is they'll try to just get people to doubt evolution. Which is fine. I doubt they'd enjoy it if those same crowds then turned that sort of analytical thought to their alternatives, but of course, that'll never happen. All they really want is to give the ideologue's who agree with the notion that ID is valid an excuse to call their beliefs "science".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

And how, pray tell, does Mr. Dawkins scientifically arrive at these probabilities against the existence of God? I won't hold my breath. Surely you can see the folly in this...no?

I did not accuse him of "twisting evolutionary biology in order to achieve atheistic ends". Maybe you missed this sentence from my previous post: "I did not intend to make the accusation that he plays loose with science if that's what you're getting at." I don't know how I can be any clearer on this.

Here's a third explanation that you and Mr. Dawkins may want to consider: A theory involving a designer who designed the attributes of all matter and created the fundamental principles, processes, and laws of nature that govern all natural phenomena.

Your third example is no different than the first, and that example has been amply considered. The arguments against a designer are not based around what parts of existence he designed, they are based around the attributes of such a designer.

To give the super short cliffs notes version is just a variation of Occam's Razor: all other evidence being equal, the more complex something is, the less probable it is. There is no specific evidence to point to a creator, and the complexity of a creator god is many orders of magnitude greater than the alternative explanation. Therefore it is quite a bit less likely.

EDIT: I guess I'm not understanding how someone can be 'subverting' science without misrepresenting it in some way either.

Sigh...please provide evidence that the explanation I gave you has been "amply considered"...and I assume rejected but I won't put your cart before the horse. Put that assignment on your 'to do' list just below yu getting me the scientifically determined probabilities against the existence of God.

Dude, read the guy's books. You can't expect me to hold your hand through a discussion of what someone believes when you haven't taken the time to read his widely published writings on exactly what he believes on the subject. He specifically talks about exactly that 'third option' that you think he's never considered or mentioned. If you don't want to believe me that's your business, but it's not like the information isn't out there if you care to look.

To demand scientifically determined probabilities on the existence of god is to descend into pedantry and you know it. If you have a problem with either the statement that there is no more evidence for the universe as we know it being designed by a god as opposed to the alternative explanation, please list the evidence you believe points to such a designer. If you have a problem with the logical construction of Occam's Razor, please tell me where you believe the logic goes awry.

If you cannot, or do not desire to do either of those, then it seems difficult to argue with the proposition that a creator god is less probable than the alternative. Considering our hugely incomplete knowledge of the subject, there is certainly tons of room for a creator god to exist, but to take the stand that it is unlikely is certainly reasonable, and can be done with no twists of logic, and no subversion of science.

I don't waste my time reading trash, unless of course its a Doc Savage book ?life is too short. For the record, I never asked you to hold my hand regarding the minutia of Dawkin's atheistic beliefs and had no expectation for you to do so. Dude?you're the one making ridiculous statements as if they were fact. You made this statement "His argument is that the existence of god is highly, highly improbable, and that is one that can be completely supported through science." All I'm asking is that you back it up. If you don't believe this statement, then please retract or further elaborate. I'll eat a large portion of humble pie if you can produce a credible scientific study that enumerates the probabilities against the existence of God. But who are we kidding? There is nothing in science that completely supports (or even remotely for that matter) the premise that the existence of god is highly, highly improbable. Zero, nada, zilch. I know where Dawkin is coming from?but, the $64 question is, are you coming from the same place?

In my opinion, Dawkin's first option was poorly constructed and did not adequately define the concept of a Creator. Contrasting "a complex being to account for the complexity that we see" with "simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge" as mutually exclusive theories is blatant logical fallacy. I worded the third option to show that there is no conflict between the two theories?as both are true IMO.

There will never be scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God. But as human beings, we are much more than flesh and bones, and have the ability to look at a painting and fully understand that an artist painted it. There is incredible complexity, order and beauty in every minute detail of this universe. IMO?this not only implies Creator?.it screams Creator. But?to others, it doesn't. It's a personal choice that doesn't involve scientific theories or fabricated probabilities. You speak of Occam's Razor?is not God the perfect example of this principle?

"Considering our hugely incomplete knowledge of the subject, there is certainly tons of room for a creator god to exist, but to take the stand that it is unlikely is certainly reasonable, and can be done with no twists of logic, and no subversion of science." - AGREE

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
There will never be scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God. But as human beings, we are much more than flesh and bones, and have the ability to look at a painting and fully understand that an artist painted it. There is incredible complexity, order and beauty in every minute detail of this universe. IMO?this not only implies Creator?.it screams Creator. But?to others, it doesn't. It's a personal choice that doesn't involve scientific theories or fabricated probabilities. You speak of Occam's Razor?is not God the perfect example of this principle?

It is my opinion that we (generally) see this complexity as god because we don't have an explanation for every minute detail of the universe. Ever since we evolved into self aware creatures this has helped us survive because our minds didn't short circuit on the big picture. Becoming self aware of ones death requires safety measures in place to stop that creature from thinking about it.

I'm not saying don't enjoy your religion (it's totally natural!) but don't try to stop science because of it.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
You speak of Occam's Razor?is not God the perfect example of this principle?

Don't misuse Occam's Razor; it merely suggests that if multiple solutions exist, the simplest explanation is usually correct. But the more complex a system becomes, the less likely the simple explanation is to sufficiently explain it.

Let's take television as an example. Television works by having special devices capture images based on distribution of light onto a moving reel of photographic film. These images are sent via electrical impulses along a wire where they are transmitted to a signal tower which broadcasts them through the air along a particular wavelength. The signals traveling along this wavelength are decoded by a tuner within a user's television set, which compiles the images into a seamless moving picture. And that's to say nothing of the audio that accompanies the video signal and is seamlessly matched up at all points in the broadcast so as not to create a disconnect.

That, or it's magic.

Now, it's a lot simpler to say the TV is simply magic. Occam's Razor would indicate that is the preferred response, as it is simpler. But it's wrong. Using God as the go to answer to explain the complexity of life is the equivalent of saying the TV is powered by magic. It may be true, but all evidence seems to point to the contrary.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
There will never be scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God. But as human beings, we are much more than flesh and bones, and have the ability to look at a painting and fully understand that an artist painted it. There is incredible complexity, order and beauty in every minute detail of this universe. IMO?this not only implies Creator?.it screams Creator. But?to others, it doesn't. It's a personal choice that doesn't involve scientific theories or fabricated probabilities. You speak of Occam's Razor?is not God the perfect example of this principle?

It is my opinion that we (generally) see this complexity as god because we don't have an explanation for every minute detail of the universe. Ever since we evolved into self aware creatures this has helped us survive because our minds didn't short circuit on the big picture. Becoming self aware of ones death requires safety measures in place to stop that creature from thinking about it.

I'm not saying don't enjoy your religion (it's totally natural!) but don't try to stop science because of it.

Thanks for the laugh?I mean it in a good way?not trying to be condescending. But please share with me how you came to the conclusion that I was trying to 'stop science'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
You speak of Occam's Razor?is not God the perfect example of this principle?

Don't misuse Occam's Razor; it merely suggests that if multiple solutions exist, the simplest explanation is usually correct. But the more complex a system becomes, the less likely the simple explanation is to sufficiently explain it.

Let's take television as an example. Television works by having special devices capture images based on distribution of light onto a moving reel of photographic film. These images are sent via electrical impulses along a wire where they are transmitted to a signal tower which broadcasts them through the air along a particular wavelength. The signals traveling along this wavelength are decoded by a tuner within a user's television set, which compiles the images into a seamless moving picture. And that's to say nothing of the audio that accompanies the video signal and is seamlessly matched up at all points in the broadcast so as not to create a disconnect.

That, or it's magic.

Now, it's a lot simpler to say the TV is simply magic. Occam's Razor would indicate that is the preferred response, as it is simpler. But it's wrong. Using God as the go to answer to explain the complexity of life is the equivalent of saying the TV is powered by magic. It may be true, but all evidence seems to point to the contrary.

My question was intended to be rhetorical...I was going to directly say so but thought that it was self evident. Occam's Razor is a principle that can be accurate or totally inaccurate as you've illustrated. Arguing either side of Occam's Razor is purely an exercise in futility as nothing is either proved or disproved applying this principle. Bottom line, your conclusion is totally flawed...you have proven nothing nor given any contrary evidence. All you've done is asserted your belief...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Modelworks]

I lean towards the ID side mixed in with evolution.
I just find it a really amazing coincidence that all the conditions for life just happened to occur on this planet. Things we have seen on no other planets , like the EM field that protects us from dangerous radiation.
I don't see why it is inconceivable to some that there might be a race out there that is millions of years more advanced than us that had a role in our development. Can I prove it ? Of course not. But I would find the evolution only debate a lot more credible if there were other planets with oceans, or atmospheres, or even a EM field.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Thanks for the laugh?I mean it in a good way?not trying to be condescending. But please share with me how you came to the conclusion that I was trying to 'stop science'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I wasn't trying to direct that directly at you. I was using "we" up until that point. i would never make a blanket claim about you based on how little i know about you

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I lean towards the ID side mixed in with evolution.
I just find it a really amazing coincidence that all the conditions for life just happened to occur on this planet. Things we have seen on no other planets , like the EM field that protects us from dangerous radiation.
I don't see why it is inconceivable to some that there might be a race out there that is millions of years more advanced than us that had a role in our development. Can I prove it ? Of course not. But I would find the evolution only debate a lot more credible if there were other planets with oceans, or atmospheres, or even a EM field.

Google 'the anthropic principle'.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I lean towards the ID side mixed in with evolution.
I just find it a really amazing coincidence that all the conditions for life just happened to occur on this planet. Things we have seen on no other planets , like the EM field that protects us from dangerous radiation.
I don't see why it is inconceivable to some that there might be a race out there that is millions of years more advanced than us that had a role in our development. Can I prove it ? Of course not. But I would find the evolution only debate a lot more credible if there were other planets with oceans, or atmospheres, or even a EM field.

Well I'm sure we can all agree that the conditions on this planet seem to be fairly rare. An observer so close to the point of perfection must stand in awe and wonderment. It must be magic.