Natural selection v Intelligent design

paulm50 said:

They were following the animals which were following the grazing.

Man has done this since the beginning. Along with other species. To argue that Early Man only travelled to Egypt or wherever is absurd.



So are you saying god created cells that mutated, from what?

Once you come away from the bible, it's basis is flawed. Your argument proves that some worked and others didn't. This is establish science and proof there was no Intelligence behind it. The best you can claim is trial and error.

Which is how nature created single cell beings, then double cell, then cells that instead of splitting to reproduce, mated in a primitive way. Yes some mutated, some survived and some died. What's clear is there was no "Intelligent supreme being". And certainly nothing to do with what's in Genesis.

"Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there may of been a creator. But it's got nothing to do with the bible."

Genesis is either spot on, as the word of god. Or stories by Bronze age men. It can't even be a little wrong.

Click to expand...

Paul,

Some Christian brethren will disagree with you (like me, for instance); Genesis doesn't have to be "spot on" to be the Word of God. In fact, I think that to hold up the revelatory narrative structure of the Bible against that which science offers creates a False Dichotomy. The bible can be a "story" written by Bronze age men and still carry a Divine Imprimatur of sorts. It's just that Modernist notions of story construction have seeped into our theology, making some of us Christians insist that the bible must be seen as a book carrying a scientifically accurate message. This kind of theoretical 'seepage' has caused a lot of confusion and brought about a lot of disbelief, especially of late.

On my part, I'll continue to hold to the reliability of the Bible as God's Word AND proffer Theological Evolution as a working hypothesis.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

paulm50 said:

You agree, then disagree. Due to a lack of real knowledge. Research how we got from a single cell being and by a process of survival of the fittest, which doesn't mean what you think it does. It wasn't always the fittest that survived, sometime is was the weakest, who could hide in a burrow and escape. Or the less fit who required less food, etc.

Then you'll see the randomness of the process where the species including man. Were ruled by nature, climate and events outside their control like meteorites.

Also you're straying a long way from the bible to prove the bible story is right. Maybe god did create the soup that created the first single cell from which we evolved, maybe he took a member of the ape family and bestowed it with a bigger brain. But that says the bible is wrong.

Natural selection has no mention in the bible. And the writers started from a time when there were hunters and farmers. Hence the conflict between Cain and Abel.

I'm a Christian in so far as believing in the way we should live and treat others. Just disagree with men using the power religion gives them.

Click to expand...

It comes down to whether you think God played a hand in creating life and to what extent. Did God create all the ingredients for the beginnings of life that could evolve into more complex life. Was it a series of events where God added His creative powers to kick life along. Or did He create all living things from the beginning basically as they are. Certainly in the beginning life cannot come from non life and existence can't come from nothing. So there must be some creative agent behind things. But even to think that such a small beginning could naturally self create the vast complexity we see today is hard to believe. The steps are just to complex and beyond the ability for a random process that is based on chance could do something like that. The chances are beyond anything we would consider possible.

The bible doesn't have to mention natural selection or any other scientific explanation. Its not a science book. Yet within the stories of creation we can see some of the keys to life explained simply and as a by product of Gods divine work. To God its not about getting into long explanations about how things happen. God is that explanation in His nature. Within God are all the complexity of DNA and quantum physics. Just as we see that the quantum world acts outside our understanding of our material world so does God. Science can explain things to a certain point. Beyond that we may not be able to comprehend.

As the bible says who knows the mind of God. God spoke existence into reality with His word. His light is beyond what we understand light is. That light may be existence. We dont really understand all these things and we think we do and therefore try to be the gods of our own world. But for all we know as with the quantum world our reality may just be something we see and beyond that is another realm that we will never know in this life.

Nicholas Deka said:

So the idea is that if something is incredibly intelligent and advanced and complex that it requires an intelligent creator, right? It would be impossible for it to occur naturally and develop all on its own? So anything that is complex, intelligent, and advanced was created. So then God was created by Mega-God? God is more intelligent, advanced, and complex than humans, so he requires creation more than even us. Why is it more likely that something complex came first, and then something more basic? Does that ever happen in nature?

Click to expand...

If something complex happened first then we would more than likely be seeing the deterioration of that as we go on. Some say that is exactly what we are seeing. God in the bible says He is the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega. He is the word and the word became flesh. He says He is the I Am, I am that I am. We may not be able to comprehend this and are trying to fathom it with our limited capacity in this material world. We only know a pin head of knowledge of God just as we only know a small part of what may be an infinite universe.

And I reject the idea that because the statistical probability for the conditions necessary for life to occur being as low as it is makes it impossible either. If the universe is infinite in size, and that means that there are an infinite number of atoms crashing together simultaneously, then it is not just likely, but absolutely certain that life will exist.

Click to expand...

But how did that infinite number get there in the first place. Why is it that in that vastness we have all the right ingredients coming together at the same time to make life possible. Any small change and we would be here. There are to many things that speak of design all around us if we look. We can notice the design and language of humans immediately. Yet we then deny that same thing with life. It seems illogical that we use this form of thinking with everything but then attribute an almost magical ability to nature yet and then say it all just created itself and fell into place.

[/quote]If I tell you that I am thinking of a number and I tell you to guess it, but I give you all of eternity to guess, and you can make an infinite number of guesses per second, how quickly will you guess that number?[/QUOTE]
But then add to that number a bunch of other numbers and combinations that have to be there at the same time all working together in unison and the odds suddenly become unreal. Add to that that the number you are thinking of speaks of design in itself to begin with then the question is how did that come about by itself.

The way evolution deals with it is to add the magical ingredient of time. But there may not be enough time in all existence to allow what we see in life. Its easy to dismiss things with ideas that may attempt to explain something. But they are untested and dont deal with a lot of what is actually happening. When you have to get down to the nuts and bolts of what is going on with life and existence it is another story and we are only scratching the surface. As we go on scientists are peeling back more an more of life and seeing that there is a whole lot more than they think.
Information And Entropy – Top-down Or Bottom-up Development In Living Systems?
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/4/420
DNA codes and information: formal structures and relational causes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18465197
When science and philosophy collide in a 'fine-tuned' universe
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html

If something complex happened first then we would more than likely be seeing the deterioration of that as we go on.

Click to expand...

So God is deteriorating?

But how did that infinite number get there in the first place.

Click to expand...

How did God get there in the first place?

The way evolution deals with it is to add the magical ingredient of time.

Click to expand...

Time isn't magic, it is a completely measurable concept. We know that time has gone on for billions of years because we can calculate the distance of things that are billions of years away, that we can see because light has travelled from there.

You're ignoring my point. If you want to use logic to prove something, that logic needs to be applied to everything. If something needs to be created to exist, and God is "some thing" then God needs to be created to exist. God could still exist, I'm not saying for certain that he doesn't, I'm pointing out that the "logical reasoning" behind intelligent design fails because it can't be applied to everything.

Nicholas Deka said:

So God is deteriorating?

How did God get there in the first place?

Time isn't magic, it is a completely measurable concept. We know that time has gone on for billions of years because we can calculate the distance of things that are billions of years away, that we can see because light has travelled from there.

You're ignoring my point. If you want to use logic to prove something, that logic needs to be applied to everything. If something needs to be created to exist, and God is "some thing" then God needs to be created to exist. God could still exist, I'm not saying for certain that he doesn't, I'm pointing out that the "logical reasoning" behind intelligent design fails because it can't be applied to everything.

Click to expand...

Nicholas,

We need to be careful with a concept as malleable as "some thing." From our limited human vantage point, all we know is that just about anything within our material universe counts as "some thing" that has a contingent existence. God, on the other hand, is not a native essence within our universe. In fact, we don't know just "what" God, in the Christian sense of the word, fully means. So, we can't include God in the 'set' of entities that by necessity is contingent. Otherwise, if we do, we are really equivocating.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

double

paulm50 said:

As the word of god it has to be fairly close to the real story. It's not even remotely close. It's as you say what Bronze Age men wrote from stories that came from the Stone Age. Their knowledge starts and end in their corner of their World.

Are parts of it very good rules to live one's life by? Most certainly, though shall not kill, do harm to others, steal, covet others possessions, bear false witness and more.

But the bible then goes on to tell how men did kill, do harm to others, steal, covet others possessions, bear false witness and more. Killing for very little reason was common place. Read the list.

And this.

Slavery. Words of a god or a man?

I prefer to blame men, than a god who may or may not exist. So blind faith to what men wrote, can't be trusted.

Because that is sending men to die this very day, suicide bombers or IS soldiers. Believing they will go straight to heaven were virgins are waiting. We used to think death in a holy war guaranteed us a place in heaven. We've grown out of primitive thinking, like Killing a woman for wearing trousers.

Or speaking in church. Words of a god or a man?

Steve, you're now so far away from what the bible says. It's easy to see how it's the word of men. Claiming it's "the word of god" has to include the entire book is the word of god.

Mow justify why you don't live by that word.

• Planting more than one kind of seed in a field (Leviticus 19:19)
• Wearing clothing woven of more than one kind of cloth (Leviticus 19:19)

Click to expand...

Paul, I know you mean well in defending your thoughts, but I'm having a difficult time following the conceptual consistency of your conclusions; there seems to be some decision on your part to make recourse to personal bias to support your explanations.

You prefer to blame men? On what basis? I'm not seeing how you've supported your bias here.

So, you think that Leviticus 25:44-46 can be consigned to the blame of men? Is this a partial blame, or a plenary blame? Just asking.

2PhiloVoid

Nicholas Deka said:

So God is deteriorating?

How did God get there in the first place?

Click to expand...

We cant comprehend who or what God is. But if He created everything then anything we see including time and space with all its laws were made by God. So maybe there is another dimension to God that we just dont understand. What was before our reality is something that doesn't operate with the laws we know. Only time will cause things to deteriorate and if there was no time before God then there is no deterioration and God may have just existed without time. There has to be something that was there to create everything that is outside our reality with all its laws.

Time isn't magic, it is a completely measurable concept. We know that time has gone on for billions of years because we can calculate the distance of things that are billions of years away, that we can see because light has traveled from there.

Click to expand...

Yes but according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy things will deteriorate over time.

You're ignoring my point. If you want to use logic to prove something, that logic needs to be applied to everything. If something needs to be created to exist, and God is "some thing" then God needs to be created to exist. God could still exist, I'm not saying for certain that he doesn't, I'm pointing out that the "logical reasoning" behind intelligent design fails because it can't be applied to everything.

Click to expand...

No God operates outside our reality where logic is applied. This is a common mistake that people make when they want to judge God. WE can only try to understand and explain what we see in our reality and according to the laws that apply to it. So there maybe other influences that apply or dont apply to God. If we look at the quantum world where we begin to see what happens down at the point where something comes from nothing we see that the laws of physics that we apply to our reality start to break down and act in contradiction. So there is something else that can happen beyond our reality that we dont yet understand and will probably never understand.

To 2philovoid: I don't mean to be disrespectful by calling God "some thing". I am using that term in the strictest use of it that I can, in that God is a noun. A concept is "some thing" a thought is "some thing" a miracle is "some thing".

To stevevw: God can absolutely work outside of what we primitive humans understand logically. But if that is the case, then you can't prove he exists with logic. You can't tie logic with non-logic and call it a proof. You are making two mutually exclusive statements in your argument and you aren't realizing it.

If humans are complex, then they require an intelligent creator.
God is exempt from this rule because he is so amazing.

That's your basic argument, right? But if you are making a proof for something, then there are no exceptions. It doesn't work that way. Let's look at the two statements you make if we take out the words that define who is who.

Complexity always necessitates intelligent design. (when it comes to humans)
Complexity does not always necessitate intelligent design. (when it comes to God)

There is nothing about complexity that demands that God exists if we can look at God and say, "see, there is at least one exception to how complexity can exist". We don't know how God can exist without being created, but we know it's possible, so although we may not know how we exist, as complex as we are, but it is possible we weren't created either.

I am in no way arguing that God doesn't exist, I'll reiterate again. I am simply arguing that you can't prove it logically and that is what this "intelligent design theory" supposes to do. I don't understand why Christians try to prove God exists anyways. Why would there ever be faith if you could prove it? If there has to be faith, then it should be impossible to prove. There can be evidence without proof. You can say that "our complexity seems to suggest..." but you have to acknowledge that complexity can exist without it being created.

Nicholas Deka said:

To 2philovoid: I don't mean to be disrespectful by calling God "some thing". I am using that term in the strictest use of it that I can, in that God is a noun. A concept is "some thing" a though is "some thing" a miracle is "some thing".

To stevevw: God can absolutely work outside of what we primitive humans understand logically. But if that is the case, then you can't prove he exists with logic. You can't tie logic with non-logic and call it a proof. You are making two mutually exclusive statements in your argument and you aren't realizing it.

If humans are complex, then they require an intelligent creator.
God is exempt from this rule because he is so amazing.

That's your basic argument, right? But if you are making a proof for something, then there are no exceptions. It doesn't work that way. Let's look at the two statements you make if we take out the words that define who is who.

Complexity always necessitates intelligent design. (when it comes to humans)
Complexity does not always necessitate intelligent design. (when it comes to God)

There is nothing about complexity that demands that God exists if we can look at God and say, "see, there is at least one exception to how complexity can exist". We don't know how God can exist without being created, but we know it's possible, so although we may not know how we exist, as complex as we are, but it is possible we weren't created either.

I am in no way arguing that God doesn't exist, I'll reiterate again. I am simply arguing that you can't prove it logically and that is what this "intelligent design theory" supposes to do. I don't understand why Christians try to prove God exists anyways. Why would there ever be faith if you could prove it? If there has to be faith, then it should be impossible to prove. There can be evidence without proof. You can say that "our complexity seems to suggest..." but you have to acknowledge that complexity can exist without it being created.

Click to expand...

I agree, you cant prove God logically and I am not trying to prove God to prove intelligent design. It could be a number of things. Some say that life was transported here from another place where that design had already begun. They say this to address the difficulty in explaining how life could start from non life and how it could evolve into more complexity from a simple organism.

But yes it is by faith that we believe that God exists and nothing else can really cause us to put our trust in God. But where science may end God can begin and they can work with each other. I think one without the other wont really work in the end. The bible says we all have the knowledge of God in us and that His qualities are seen in His creation and in the invisible things around us. This maybe the things like gravity, time and space. In the quantum world where things act like they are magic being able to be in more than one place at the same time. So even though logic may tell us God doesn't make sense we still can have this insight or sense that there is something going on beyond our world and reality that is at work. Whether you call it God or some other kind of agent is another thing.
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Alrighty, this looks like fun! To the start of the thread. ID VS NS, natural selection selects from what it has... Like quality control. Say you have a fast lizard and a slow lizard, the fast one can avoid danger easier, thus increasing the chance of survival for reproduction. Trying to tie that to evolution is like saying, "this train is black, thus all trains are black"... You speak of logic but ignore the elephant in the room. As for intelligent design, there is not enough evidence to prove the earth is more than 6000 years old. I'll refer you to Kent hovind on YouTube for more on that subject. But without billions of years you're only left with intelligent design...

As for the words of man vs Word of God, this is where faith comes in. Yes God said don't mix seeds, could it be because He didn't want us to do what Monsanto is doing? Could He see in the future and didn't want us to eat this stuff and get sick? He didn't want women to be over a man, because women are emotionally driven and men are for the most part logically driven.

Yes, you're right, if the bible is incorrect then it can't be the Word of God. But be careful when you compare words of men(science&philosophy) vs the Word of God. Yes you can see stars, and yes light does move at a certain speed... But you're neglecting the fact that we've slowed light down(1mph) and sped it up(400%)... But that doesn't matter because we can't even prove the earth is moving to be able to use parallax for distance calculations... Or that the earth is a ball... Be careful with your pseudo science.

quatona said:

I have never understood how "natural selection" and "intelligent design" are at necessarily at odds: An intelligent designer could have invented natural selection.
On another note, I don´t understand how pointing out flaws helps disproving intelligence. For to be acknowleged as intelligent a designer needn´t be perfect.

Click to expand...

Intelligent design is just a code-word for Christian creationism. So pointing out that the creator might be imperfect would go against the theology ID is trying to introduce.

paulm50 said:

So what is the elephant in the room?

As for not enough evidence the earth is more than 6000 years old. How much evidence is there to prove it is only 6,000 years old?

So god didn't want us to nix seeds, he also said you mustn't eat pork, wear clothes of two clothes and able to have slaves.

So the bible isn't the word of god. Science & philosophy don't mix, two different things. Science is about proving things, philosophy is more about how we think and act, like the bible teachings. Can you post a link to where we have slowed and speeded light up please. The last bit is pseudo babble. If the Earth didn't move, well you go find out.

Click to expand...

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2000/jul/19/laser-smashes-light-speed-record

There is your link for light speed change. I got the numbers wrong, the premise is the same. As far as the elephant in the room, science deals with facts, to put your interpretation on them as fact is pseudo science. You see an adaptation and assume we cane from rocks? You see a ship disappear bottom first, so the earth is round? How else would it melt into the horizon, top first?

Yes, He didn't want us mixing clothes, interesting thing about that, I have a pair of boxers that are falling apart. Guess where, yep where the two different clothes meet...

You don't find it interesting that early scientists where philosophers? It was a philosophy that earth was round, in the middle nowhere, then "science" discovered just that... You sure they don't mix? Are you sure that your interpretation of the facts is the ONLY interpretation? I do commend your faith though, to believe something so outrageous really does take faith.

Sorry forgot the young earth facts, here is a video that brings up some interesting things. You should be fully convinced in your own mind, this may help you see differently.

ray88c said:

Yes, He didn't want us mixing clothes, interesting thing about that, I have a pair of boxers that are falling apart. Guess where, yep where the two different clothes meet...

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what the Bible says about different fabrics. It isn't two different "clothes" its two different kinds of fabric. You're not supposed to wear a piece of clothing that is made from two different kinds of fabric, for example linen and wool, or in today's world, a polyester/rayon blend. Leviticus 19:19

Now what I find interesting is that you thought the Bible said something else, and then found a way to rationalize a good reason for it, when in fact your reasoning is based on something that the Bible didn't say. So because you believed that the Bible said you weren't supposed to stitch two pieces of clothing together at a seam, you pointed out that clothes deteriorate first at the seam. Did you think that the Bible said not to have seams? Did you think that they all wore ponchos?

Back on topic though.

ray88c said:

Yes you can see stars, and yes light does move at a certain speed... But you're neglecting the fact that we've slowed light down(1mph) and sped it up(400%)

Click to expand...

True, and I read your article about how they accomplished that. Now is there evidence in the universe that these conditions that we produced in a lab existed to speed up light so that we think things are older than they are, or did we just do something really unnatural in a lab?

ray88c said:

But that doesn't matter because we can't even prove the earth is moving to be able to use parallax for distance calculations... Or that the earth is a ball... Be careful with your pseudo science.

Click to expand...

Now when you say things like this, I have to ask... Why even look at the science of the universe at all? Why cite sources about the speed of light and other things that are actual scientific research if someone could honestly believe that the Earth might not be round, or that we aren't rotating around the Sun. If someone believes so strongly in the literal translation of Genesis, why not just say that the Devil manipulates our scientific instruments and be done with it? Do theories like this seem to offer more credibility than blaming the Devil? Because they don't.

The Devil planted dinosaur bones. The Devil makes all the lights we see in our telescopes spin around. The Devil publishes scientific data in peer-reviewed journals. Etc. Why say anything more? Isn't this just easier and simpler? It is certainly just as convincing as stating that the Earth might not be round and the entire universe rotates around us.