ID or ToE?

Insane_Duck

Because ducks are just awesome like that.
May 29, 2011
1,392
22
✟1,763.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Is the "Great toasted one" Azathoth?



"Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes."
No, the Great One is humble, and comes with a promise of redemption.
527.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟11,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Is the "Great toasted one" Azathoth?

You could call it that if you want, but earthists call it the "Great toasted one."


hs-2011-17-a-web.jpg


"Outer space is the void that exists beyond any celestial body, including the Earth.[1] It is not completely empty, but consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles: predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, and neutrinos. Theoretically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy."
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟11,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In line yes. But the lack of evidence for "earthism" doesn't create evidence for outer space. It's independent.
No it isn't. It's the dismissal of all earthly causes which allows us to concede that this is a new phenomenon. As long as earthism prevails, then it is earthly. It is only through the ruling out of earthly causes do we establish new causes. The environment is taken into consideration as that is all we are dealing with- a stew of environment. No matter what the specified cause.


But it does require a disbelief in "Christ".

As an aearthist, my belief in the "Great Toasted One" does not really conflict with my belief in outer space.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,666
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What are your thoughts on ID or ToE?
In my opinion, ID can take a hike -- it's too watered-down.

Notice what even you said here:
I see where the theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause...
In [true] creationism, this 'intelligent cause' is given the title 'God', whereas ID does not identify God as the creator of the universe.

In addition, no intelligence on earth can be applied to the creation week, as the creation week didn't use 'intelligence' to create the universe.

As God puts it:

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Intelligent Design attempts to bring God down to the level of our intelligence, and into the realm of our science, and usually ends up getting [rightfully] pwned by its antagonists.

Instead of arguing Intelligent Design, one should stick to Creationism.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
Thanks, but I think I can research this topic on my own. By the way, just wondering, which ToE would you propose to teach on?

1. “macro-evolution”—the non-intelligent, non-teleological mechanism of random variation, adaptation, and natural selection, whereby new and increasingly complex organisms gradually emerge from a simple ancient life form

2. “micro-evolution”—the in-built process of genetic variation and inheritance that enables species to adapt, within pre-defined limitations, to changing environmental pressures. Micro-evolution explains why dogs, for example, come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and abilities, yet are forever distinguishable from other life forms by their unique gene pool.

3. theistic evolution, where the complexity and diversity of life is neither the result of a single creative act, nor of an unconscious, natural process; but of small, gradual changes accumulated over time that are guided, or front-loaded, by God.


Perhaps you are physically / mentally capable of research and learning on your own but we find that sometimes will not and cannot are pretty much the same.


The things that i said are a couple of the most beginning basics that you dont know yet. If you wish to refuse to learn them and continue your pratts, that is fine. Does nothing for your credibility or that of your cause, but then, Im not on the side of any cause that requires misinformation to support it. Dunno why anyone is, but there you go.

As for what 'version' to teach, in science we work with what can be supported by data.

Your first version is not too far off, the others include magic and unsupportable assertions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,666
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Perhaps you are physically / mentally capable of research and learning on your own but we find that sometimes will not and cannot are pretty much the same.


The things that i said are a couple of the most beginning basics that you dont know yet. If you wish to refuse to learn them and continue your pratts, that is fine. Does nothing for your credibility or that of your cause, but then, Im not on the side of any cause that requires misinformation to support it. Dunno why anyone is, but there you go.

As for what 'version' to teach, in science we work with what can be supported by data.
After saying all that, you say this:
Your first version is not too far off, the others include magic and unsupportable assertions.
Then you wonder why I don't take you guys seriously.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Because I am one, I understand that Christians supporting Creationism generally use as a starting point the Book of Genesis in the Bible and postulate some kind of a supernatural or divine creator.

At the same time evolutionists always want to argue that evolution is not about the “origins” of life. I wonder what the Evolutionists starting point is.
The primary reason we often point that out is that creationists keep insisting that not knowing how it all began would somehow falsify the ToE. No, it wouldn't. All of the evidence for universal common descent, all the evidence for the process of evolution, all the evidence for the various mechanisms of evolution would still be there, and whether our first ancestor came from an organic soup on earth, some alien planet or God's own hand is completely irrelevant to what happened after it got here. The point where all living things had a common ancestor is, if our best hypotheses about life's origins are correct, long after the origin of what might be considered life.

That said...

So then let’s get down to the question of how it all began.
Whether you mean life or the universe, I doubt if that question will ever be answered.

For life - we may have great theories, we may make replicating RNA molecules or protocells or whatnot in the lab, but there's simply so little hard evidence that we may never know the right answer. As I said, the common ancestor of all life was already far removed from the origin (it already had a genetic code, for one thing), so it's hard to infer anything much earlier than that from studying living organisms. And RNA doesn't fossilise. Old objects on earth and the solar system may tell us something about the circumstances of life's origin, but not much about the details.

As for the universe - did it ever truly "begin"? Can we ever know? This is where science meets philosophy and true answers may be forever out of reach.

I see where the theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

What are your thoughts on ID or ToE?
You can probably guess my thoughts on the ToE. Its basic postulates (descent with modification, common descent) are a very good explanation of how life got to where it is, and its more nuanced questions (which mechanisms are most important under what circumstances, is evolution the same on all scales, how predictable evolution is, etc.) are incredibly exciting stuff to work on.

ID? As a theory, I mostly see it as useless. Where it makes testable claims (e.g. "[insert irreducibly complex system] couldn't evolve by unintelligent means"), it's routinely shown wrong. Its main claim, that some aspects of life/the universe/everything were intelligently designed, is untestable.

As a movement, it's simply disingenuous. "cdesign proponentsists" says it all.

The number of people here who believe in Darwinism far outnumber those who acknowledge the actual data on Darwinism (IDists) so the responses here should be rather lopsided in favor if materialism.
The number of people here who believe in Darwinism, I dare say, approaches zero.

For the thousandth time, the ToE =/= Darwinism.

(And neither is equal to materialism, but why do I bother telling you that? :sigh:)

Thanks, but I think I can research this topic on my own. By the way, just wondering, which ToE would you propose to teach on?

1. “macro-evolution”—the non-intelligent, non-teleological mechanism of random variation, adaptation, and natural selection, whereby new and increasingly complex organisms gradually emerge from a simple ancient life form

2. “micro-evolution”—the in-built process of genetic variation and inheritance that enables species to adapt, within pre-defined limitations, to changing environmental pressures. Micro-evolution explains why dogs, for example, come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and abilities, yet are forever distinguishable from other life forms by their unique gene pool.
The "pre-defined limitations" you mention are not part of the scientific concept of microevolution. Well, not in the sense that you seem to understand them. According to the "speciation and above" definition of macroevolution, evolution stops being called "micro" when two gene pools become isolated, but that doesn't represent a limitation to evolution - only that evolution will now work independently in the two.

Just how much we can extrapolate "microevolutionary" processes to explain the big picture is not completely clear*, but I don't think there is a point in separating the two like this. IMO it makes more sense to distinguish between mechanisms/processes (mutation, horizontal gene transfer, selection, developmental plasticity and constraint, genetic drift, meiotic drive etc.) versus patterns (namely the nested hierarchy of life), and to say that the patterns are most likely the result of some combination of the processes. Either way, I think both the big picture and the little things are important to discuss.

*There is a hypothesis that the origin of "higher taxa", most notably the origin of animal phyla during the Cambrian explosion, is something different from evolution within those groups (a recent incarnation of the idea). Since the argument is based on developmental genetics (basically, the more complexity you pile on a developmental program, the more resistant the resulting organism is to change), I would like it to be right, but I'm really not sure :)

3. theistic evolution, where the complexity and diversity of life is neither the result of a single creative act, nor of an unconscious, natural process; but of small, gradual changes accumulated over time that are guided, or front-loaded, by God.
I think it would be a great thing to make religious students aware of TE, if it might make it easier for them to reconcile their beliefs with the science of evolution. However, just like ID, TE is a fundamentally untestable idea. It's philosophy, not science.
 
Upvote 0

Deaver

A follower of Christ
May 25, 2011
485
22
Colorado, USA
Visit site
✟15,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In my opinion, ID can take a hike -- it's too watered-down.

Notice what even you said here:

In [true] creationism, this 'intelligent cause' is given the title 'God', whereas ID does not identify God as the creator of the universe.

In addition, no intelligence on earth can be applied to the creation week, as the creation week didn't use 'intelligence' to create the universe.

As God puts it:

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Intelligent Design attempts to bring God down to the level of our intelligence, and into the realm of our science, and usually ends up getting [rightfully] pwned by its antagonists.

Instead of arguing Intelligent Design, one should stick to Creationism.

AV, my friend, just so everyone knows, I do agree with you. The point of the OP was to get thoughts on ID. If a one can understand the concept that everything exists because it was designed, perhaps it will be easier for them to the point that God is in control of everything, and therefore the Creator ending the debate.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,666
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
well, let us know if you learned from your mistakes, of if you need them explained again.
I'm sure you'll jump right in here and explain it too, won't you?

Starting with your rant about Pi?

Or am I wrong?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Correct, though he's always clear that the appearance of design isn't the same as actual design.

Because I am one, I understand that Christians supporting Creationism generally use as a starting point the Book of Genesis in the Bible and postulate some kind of a supernatural or divine creator.
Agreed.

At the same time evolutionists always want to argue that evolution is not about the “origins” of life. I wonder what the Evolutionists starting point is.
The "evolution isn't about the origin of life" line is in response to the trite Creationist argument "Oh, evolution can't explain the origin of life, so therefore it's false". It's true that evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, but that hardly disproves it. Even if we had no idea whatsoever about how life first formed, not even the flimsiest conjecture, that still wouldn't affect the veracity of evolution.

But, as it happens, we do have a rather good understanding of the origins of life: it's called abiogenesis.

So then let’s get down to the question of how it all began.

I see where the theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.
A point of clarification: 'Darwinian evolution' suggests the original idea put forth by Darwin. In the past 150 years, we've advanced significantly since then. The Modern Synthesis, as it's known, is what science advocates today.

What are your thoughts on ID or ToE?
I believe ID is unsubstantiated by the evidence, while the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, but rather simply posit the existence of a universal common ancestor from which all life is ultimately descended. Where this UCA came from is explained by the theory of abiogenesis.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,666
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,434.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
He's not coming back. He's not even calling.
It's your turn to call right now.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
161
Ohio
✟5,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Because I am one, I understand that Christians supporting Creationism generally use as a starting point the Book of Genesis in the Bible and postulate some kind of a supernatural or divine creator.

At the same time evolutionists always want to argue that evolution is not about the “origins” of life. I wonder what the Evolutionists starting point is.

So then let’s get down to the question of how it all began.

I see where the theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

What are your thoughts on ID or ToE?


The Theory of Evolution doesn't cover the "starting point". Abiogenesis, however, is the research in trying to understand the origins of life.
 
Upvote 0