Natural selection v Intelligent design

[pshun2404]

Nothing snipped from Creationist propaganda in my posts (show some sources for your assertion). To me the intricately inter-dependent functionally specific design just of one man alone indicates a far greater intelligence than anyone (or 100) who says otherwise (whatever their excuses or attempts at explanation) and I believe science is what proves this highly organized lawfully obedient inter-dependable form is information generated. Each tiniest subsystem and subroutine are highly specified with purpose and intent in their function which though working independently serve the purpose of the whole. All these things demonstrate a superior intelligence at work.

Blind forces and mere chemical reactions randomly occurring, even over billions of years, could never design such a masterpiece. And I mean even just one man, let alone the millions of people, the millions of more species, and the perfect symbiosis of creature and its environment. Intricately inter-dependent design, highly ordered information guidance systems, purpose, intent...these are not the stuff of chance! But we can agree to disagree since you insist on always defaulting to mockery and insult of what we present as the final basis for your position.ID is a way of looking at the evidence that fits just as readily as your view...it takes the same facts and same methods and interprets the evidence differently.

Now give some sources from alleged creationist propaganda sites that speaks and reasons as I have in my previous posts (as you accuse). I am a thinking man with my own mind which can think outside the box I was inundated with for decades. If it were not for those who think outside the box and refuse to simply accept the mantra we would still see the universe in terms of Newtonian Mechanics.

 

[Near]

Many claim everything on Earth is from a god or Intelligent Design. Claiming Natural Selection couldn't create something as involved and complex as all the species on Earth.

And yet, evidence comes up all the time of how unintelligent the design of these species are. Early humans migrated out of Africa through Egypt rather than Ethiopia, new study says.

Natural selection, which is proven. Isn't intelligent. It's hit and miss, creatures evolve and become extinct as climates change, continents shift, and even asteroids hit the Earth. Or even one animal, Man, develops faster than others and kill off other species.

To claim that was gods work or remotely intelligent is, in my opinion, ignoring the obvious.

Either God exists, or he does not.

If God exists, ID occurred.
If God does not exist, ID might have occurred.
One way in which life may have occurred: Aliens from another planet terraformed the Earth, and introduced cells, or larger organisms to it; evolution occurred through out millions of years, and these aliens may or may not have kept track of their experiment.
No need to mention God for ID.
Atheists like to say, "we don't need God to explain things". Sure, people can come up with lots of mere ideas of how life came about excluding the divine. Atheism isn't new.
The issue is about how things actually came to be.
Either God exists, or he doesn't. Modern science doesn't tell us that God doesn't exist, or that he's unnecessary. Modern day scientists, do however for the most part as far as I know, already start off with a secular foundation, and upon that they build their theories and look at the world. They can come up with lots of differing ideas as to how things came to be, but they don't actually tell us whether or not God exist.

 

[Larniavc]

Blind forces and mere chemical reactions randomly occurring, even over billions of years, could never design such a masterpiece.

Please show why this is the case (leaving out the argument from incredulity).

 

[quatona]

Atheists like to say, "we don't need God to explain things". Sure, people can come up with lots of mere ideas of how life came about excluding the divine.

...and - seeing how little explanatory power the mere idea "Goddidit" actually has - it´s not hard to come up with competing ideas that easily match the standard religion has set for such "explanations".

 

[stevevw]

Hi Steve. This is going to sound harsher than I want it to but here goes:

What you are doing is not research. You are reading websites. To do research you need to use the primary research that you have access to. This normally means journal articles in the field that you are working in.

Often this mean that the lay individual does not have access to this body of research and has to rely on websites. Going to web sites is a very poor way to do research.

If one is doing (for example) an MSc or PhD one high tails it to the databases with search terms and pulls up journal articles to do a literature review. This takes months and is a full time job.

If you rely on internet sites (on what ever topic) you will get (at best) somebody else's opinion on the data and (at worst) somebody else's conclusion.

I really hope this does not come across as preachy but good research is a pet peeve of mine.
All the best.

Thanks for the advice. I realize that my research is nowhere near what it takes to study this at a uni level. I could not get access to the proper material anyway unless I registered for an online course. I study at present and know the difference of having access to internal material and teacher aid that comes with doing a course on line. I try my best to find the papers and go to the better sites to get definitions and commentary. I realize that there is a lot of opinion out there but I think if you do a lot of comparing you can get a pretty good idea of what is the personal view and what the research represents.

I am not interested in doing any full on study into these topics and its just a hobby of mine. I know I probably have a limited view on some things and to be able to get a complete understanding would take years of high level study. The thing is there are many like me who are lay people that take an interest in these topics on this forum. If it was only open to the qualified people to be able to have some input then we would probably have very few people commenting. I think I have learned a lot on this topic and its good to expand your knowledge.

I think I have a pretty good basic understanding though and can see the fundamental differences between the two sides. There is enough info and support out there to be able to make some assessments about the basic ideas and differences each camp has and to be fairly confident about whether its based on unsupported evidence or not. Its just to be able to completely understand the more complex and finer details so that I can make my own conclusions is hard to get your head around and a little frustrating.

 

[paulm50]

Either God exists, or he does not.

If God exists, ID occurred.
If God does not exist, ID might have occurred.
One way in which life may have occurred: Aliens from another planet terraformed the Earth, and introduced cells, or larger organisms to it; evolution occurred through out millions of years, and these aliens may or may not have kept track of their experiment.
No need to mention God for ID.
Atheists like to say, "we don't need God to explain things". Sure, people can come up with lots of mere ideas of how life came about excluding the divine. Atheism isn't new.
The issue is about how things actually came to be.
Either God exists, or he doesn't. Modern science doesn't tell us that God doesn't exist, or that he's unnecessary. Modern day scientists, do however for the most part as far as I know, already start off with a secular foundation, and upon that they build their theories and look at the world. They can come up with lots of differing ideas as to how things came to be, but they don't actually tell us whether or not God exist.

If a god exists, link him to the bible.

Who's to say there wasn't some intelligent being or beings behind the big bang, introducing the starting elements of life, or giving it a nudge along the way. That's not we're debating.

Was there an Intelligent Designer in the way the bible and Christians believe? The answer has to be no. Because the description of Creation in Genesis, as you allude to, is so wrong. There was no god guiding their hand in the writing, so they were simply making it up. And it's so clearly wrong, that it wasn't even be explained in a way they would understand. He was god, they would of believed anything he said.

To debate as the word of god, leaves us with"He was lying to them".

 

[paulm50]

Thanks for the advice. I realize that my research is nowhere near what it takes to study this at a uni level. I could not get access to the proper material anyway unless I registered for an online course. I study at present and know the difference of having access to internal material and teacher aid that comes with doing a course on line. I try my best to find the papers and go to the better sites to get definitions and commentary. I realize that there is a lot of opinion out there but I think if you do a lot of comparing you can get a pretty good idea of what is the personal view and what the research represents.

I am not interested in doing any full on study into these topics and its just a hobby of mine. I know I probably have a limited view on some things and to be able to get a complete understanding would take years of high level study. The thing is there are many like me who are lay people that take an interest in these topics on this forum. If it was only open to the qualified people to be able to have some input then we would probably have very few people commenting. I think I have learned a lot on this topic and its good to expand your knowledge.

I think I have a pretty good basic understanding though and can see the fundamental differences between the two sides. There is enough info and support out there to be able to make some assessments about the basic ideas and differences each camp has and to be fairly confident about whether its based on unsupported evidence or not. Its just to be able to completely understand the more complex and finer details so that I can make my own conclusions is hard to get your head around and a little frustrating.

So tell us what your side has to offer as evidence.

After all your studying you must have some evidence that convinces you the Creationist story is right.

Your signature says. "Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator." So present the evidence it's getting closer to "there had to be a creator".

You also say "I realize that there is a lot of opinion out there". Science isn't opinions. If it were, the Internet wouldn't exist. Science is proven facts, as are bones of animal long, long long gone, and some long gone. And even remains of creatures and plants that were here a billion years ago.

Evolution = Nature getting on with the job of adapting species to fit, or not and they die out.
Design = Intelligent being coming here very often to keep adjusting species to fit. Not often enough so some die out.

Or do you have another solution?

 

[stevevw]

Evolution as the term is used can mean at least….

a) Any change over time

b) The explanation for a universe and earth developing over billions of years old.

c) An explanation used to support the hypothesis of a common ancestry for all life.

d) A way of explaining the chemical origin of life (not part of Darwin’s theory)

e) A way of explaining the hypothesis of common descent

f) an idea of, plus a mechanism for changes.

g) In the case Darwin, natural selection by sifting the random variations in reproducing populations (Darwin called this chance variations).

h) In modern Neo-Darwinism a way if interpreting new variations allegedly identified with mutations in DNA.

And more….so when someone says “It is NOT random” they are saying Darwin was not correct because his idea was that they are.

Either these processes and changes are guided (even if only by reliable laws) or they are unguided (just happen and some succeed)….these changes and subsequent developments (says specific organelles) either have definite predetermined purpose (which DNA and the inter-dependent Translation/Transcription process surely indicate) or they are/ were (at least at first) stumbled upon by chance and then remained because they work.

I do not exclude the possibility that both cases exist (some having purpose and possibly intent and some, based on variance or mutation/disturbance cause difference albeit usually detrimental).

In Mayr’s, Towards a new Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), p. 98 he notes that "When it is said that mutation or variation is random, the statement simply means that there is no correlation between the production of new genotypes and the adaptational need of an organism in a given environment." He notices this is the case in many instances (not all). The change in genotype does NOT occur because of an adaptational need (this actually brings many alleged conclusions by todays Neo-Darwinians into question). This means that they did not develop certain abilities or characteristics BECAUSE their environment or circumstance demanded it (the case some make for longer shorter beaked finches). I think Darwin would say the initial variations are random, and then selection/success are determined by adaptational need, but is it not equally plausible variances simultaneously existed and creatures died off or else moved to more equitable environments . I think the only real difference between many neo-Darwinians and the Id scientist is that the ID scientist would merely say that in the beginning all this was put into motion with a definite intent (therefore giving all developments purpose) which that it is or is not is a matter that science cannot prove or disprove which ever camp one is in.

I suggest all parties look up the word “random” and think…if this iS, or IS NOT, what you see in creation/nature as it pertains to the development or becoming of life. Pick your side and do not play the fence. And if ID and non-ID scientists agree these changes and developments were/are not RANDOM, then at least let that be noted.

When the amazing complexity of life is used to show how evolution can't possibly create it some want to say evolution is not random and chance. That natural selection is the guiding force that can account for all the complex systems, codes and body plans. Its almost claiming that evolution has some guidance to design.

I think this is a sort of back door into trying to give account of how much life looks and seems designed. It's a sort of acknowledgement that life is too complex to happen by chance. It seems that evolution is trying to copy Gods creation by coming up with explanations that substitute what we see in design. If natural selection is not random then is it guided. If its guided then isn't that a quality of design.

 

[paulm50]

When the amazing complexity of life is used to show how evolution can't possibly create it some want to say evolution is not random and chance.

When it is proven to show it had to be designed by an intelligent being, be sure to let us know.

I think this is a sort of back door into trying to give account of how much life looks and seems designed.

And the god debate isn't a back door???

A species that fits in one time, may not fit in another. Nature's the boss. We see this in our world today with species dying out fast because we are changing their environment. We do it quicker than nature does, so it's easier to see. Other creatures are coming to the front, not as fast as those dying out but it's happening.

When a predator species falls, a creature that was prey, grows. That's how Mammals grew after the big dinosaurs disappeared.

As I've stated after all your research you have nothing but thinking nature isn't wonderful enough. When it clearly is.

As for god doing all this, which god? Not the one in Genesis.

 

[KCfromNC]

Nothing snipped from Creationist propaganda in my posts (show some sources for your assertion). To me the intricately inter-dependent functionally specific design just of one man alone indicates a far greater intelligence than anyone (or 100) who says otherwise (whatever their excuses or attempts at explanation) and I believe science is what proves this highly organized lawfully obedient inter-dependable form is information generated. Each tiniest subsystem and subroutine are highly specified with purpose and intent in their function which though working independently serve the purpose of the whole. All these things demonstrate a superior intelligence at work.

Blind forces and mere chemical reactions randomly occurring, even over billions of years, could never design such a masterpiece. And I mean even just one man, let alone the millions of people, the millions of more species, and the perfect symbiosis of creature and its environment. Intricately inter-dependent design, highly ordered information guidance systems, purpose, intent...these are not the stuff of chance! But we can agree to disagree since you insist on always defaulting to mockery and insult of what we present as the final basis for your position.ID is a way of looking at the evidence that fits just as readily as your view...it takes the same facts and same methods and interprets the evidence differently.

Lots of preaching and assertions here, but I don't see anything that's backed up by more than hot air. With that being the case, I can simply say "no it isn't" to each of your assertions and we're both left with equally supported positions.

But then I can fall back on the entirety of modern biology to support my case. All you seem to have listed is statements of faith on the matter. Is this really the best creationism has to offer? If so, no wonder no one who understands biology takes it seriously.

Now give some sources from alleged creationist propaganda sites that speaks and reasons as I have in my previous posts (as you accuse).

http://www.icr.org/article/richard-leakeys-skull-1470/
http://www.icr.org/article/how-different-was-java-from-modern/

Same examples you hinted at. What a coincidence.

If it were not for those who think outside the box and refuse to simply accept the mantra we would still see the universe in terms of Newtonian Mechanics.

Yep, another good example of science working. Creationism didn't have any part in it, just like it has zero part to play in progress being made in biology. At some point it is time to admit that we can learn something from that consistent pattern.

 

[stevevw]

So tell us what your side has to offer as evidence.

After all your studying you must have some evidence that convinces you the Creationist story is right.

Your signature says. "Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator." So present the evidence it's getting closer to "there had to be a creator".

You also say "I realize that there is a lot of opinion out there". Science isn't opinions. If it were, the Internet wouldn't exist. Science is proven facts, as are bones of animal long, long long gone, and some long gone. And even remains of creatures and plants that were here a billion years ago.

Evolution = Nature getting on with the job of adapting species to fit, or not and they die out.
Design = Intelligent being coming here very often to keep adjusting species to fit. Not often enough so some die out.

Or do you have another solution?

Its more about letting the science do the work to discover that life is far to amazing to have come from some self creating and random process. Aspects of creation don't have to always mean supernatural acts. Some believe that God planted all the ingredients to start life and that evolution is the process that continues to develop it (Theistic evolution). Some believe that God intervened on more than one occasion with acts of creation to gradually make life. Then some believe that God created life through a supernatural event with all the info needed in one go. In all these situations nature still will play its part in developing things. Even if God did a one off creation of all life nature is still needed for living things to adapt to the changing environment.

This is the same for physics and our planet and universe. God created the laws, codes and all the ingredients that go into design. He didn't just make things once and they stay the same. He had to create the mechanisms for them to operate as well. So the acts of creation are really a minor role in creation even though they may be supernatural acts and completely beyond our comprehension. It will be harder to show evidence for a supernatural event as we were not there and it leaves no evidence apart from the end results. But its easier to see the qualities of Gods work through His design in nature.

So just look to the finely tuned universe or the complexity of our DNA if you want to find the evidence. As science discovers more details about life and existence we will see more evidence for Gods handy work. If you look at how the quantum world works we can see some good examples of Gods qualities. Science can explain things to a certain degree but it will never be able to explain Gods creation in things like something from nothing and life from non life. The world view tries to have an explanation for everything and will but maybe its just describing how God works in our lives through the design. Science will explain things in a naturalistic way where everything can be the result of a self creating process that doesn't need God. So between these views God is taken out of the picture.

So its the indirect evidence for God that we see in His creation. This is stated in the bible. We intuitively know that there is more to life than what we see. Gods invisible qualities are seen in the things He created like the stars and planets and living things. We know that its to magnificent to be something that just popped into existence on its own. Something had to start it and that something had to be greater than everything we do and see. If humans can be capable of great intelligence and design then why can there be that same quality in how everything was made. It makes good sense and to deny it is to deny the obvious and to pretend that we know better than God Himself.

Romans 1:19 - 20…19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

 

[paulm50]

Its more about letting the science do the work to discover that life is far to amazing to have come from some self creating and random process. Aspects of creation don't have to always mean supernatural acts. Some believe that God planted all the ingredients to start life and that evolution is the process that continues to develop it (Theistic evolution). Some believe that God intervened on more than one occasion with acts of creation to gradually make life. Then some believe that God created life through a supernatural event with all the info needed in one go. In all these situations nature still will play its part in developing things. Even if God did a one off creation of all life nature is still needed for living things to adapt to the changing environment.

This is the same for physics and our planet and universe. God created the laws, codes and all the ingredients that go into design. He didn't just make things once and they stay the same. He had to create the mechanisms for them to operate as well. So the acts of creation are really a minor role in creation even though they may be supernatural acts and completely beyond our comprehension. It will be harder to show evidence for a supernatural event as we were not there and it leaves no evidence apart from the end results. But its easier to see the qualities of Gods work through His design in nature.

So just look to the finely tuned universe or the complexity of our DNA if you want to find the evidence. As science discovers more details about life and existence we will see more evidence for Gods handy work. If you look at how the quantum world works we can see some good examples of Gods qualities. Science can explain things to a certain degree but it will never be able to explain Gods creation in things like something from nothing and life from non life. The world view tries to have an explanation for everything and will but maybe its just describing how God works in our lives through the design. Science will explain things in a naturalistic way where everything can be the result of a self creating process that doesn't need God. So between these views God is taken out of the picture.

So its the indirect evidence for God that we see in His creation. This is stated in the bible. We intuitively know that there is more to life than what we see. Gods invisible qualities are seen in the things He created like the stars and planets and living things. We know that its to magnificent to be something that just popped into existence on its own. Something had to start it and that something had to be greater than everything we do and see. If humans can be capable of great intelligence and design then why can there be that same quality in how everything was made. It makes good sense and to deny it is to deny the obvious and to pretend that we know better than God Himself.

Romans 1:19 - 20…19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

You start with. "Its more about letting the science do the work to discover that life is far to amazing to have come from some self creating and random process." While doing your utmost to disprove science. When you're clearly not qualified to do so.

Then go on to say god did this and that, without a shred of proof.

Present proof, you are right. Not what you think, feel or opinions, or what we might discover in the future. Odds on what we discover in the future will do what it did in the past. Take us further away from the god theory.

 

[stevevw]

When it is proven to show it had to be designed by an intelligent being, be sure to let us know.
And the god debate isn't a back door???

A species that fits in one time, may not fit in another. Nature's the boss. We see this in our world today with species dying out fast because we are changing their environment. We do it quicker than nature does, so it's easier to see. Other creatures are coming to the front, not as fast as those dying out but it's happening

Yes its strange how a process that is geared towards survival can create a creature such as humans to be the thing that works against itself. Evolution seems to have created a monster in humans. We are killing millions of species by the day. We are destroying the environment and the only planet we have to survive on by the day. So in the end if we succeed then evolution has created the very opposite of what its suppose to be all about survival of the fittest.

Other creatures that we are killing may be the fittest but they dont have a chance with the type of destruction we inflict on them. We can wipe out their habitats in an instant just as a matter of course. It seems there is more to us then just flesh, chemicals and biological reactions. We have a spirit as well that knows right and wrong. We can be selfish and cruel to others and intentionally do things we know are no good for us or the planet. Yet we still do it and don't seem to care.

We think we are the gods of our own world and destinies. We think that we have all the answers and power and will overcome anything. We have made out that this world and life are the results of self creating naturalistic processes and have taken God out of the picture and put ourselves in His place. It is all limited and susceptible to decay and destruction. Our empires will fall and thats when we will begin to realize that we need the help of someone who is greater.

When a predator species falls, a creature that was prey, grows. That's how Mammals grew after the big dinosaurs disappeared.

Some say that everything was created good and it is gradually decaying. So the species that are dying out now will not be replaced.

As I've stated after all your research you have nothing but thinking nature isn't wonderful enough. When it clearly is

Nature is wonderful but it hasn't got the great amount of ability that some make out. It cannot create things. It can repair things to a limited extent. But that is getting harder all the time as we destroy things at a faster rate as you have mentioned.

As for god doing all this, which god? Not the one in Genesis.

I think initially we should be considering that a God or some sort of agent is responsible for what we see and it didn't just happen by chance and out of nothing. Giving credit where credits due. This would help us to have some respect for things instead of thinking its all greater than it is in self preservation and creation. That would put us in our place and bring some stability. When we try to do it our way we end up getting into conflicts and making a big mess of things. It is only acknowledging God and allowing Him to lead the way will we find true peace and harmony with nature.

 

[stevevw]

You start with. "Its more about letting the science do the work to discover that life is far to amazing to have come from some self creating and random process." While doing your utmost to disprove science. When you're clearly not qualified to do so.

I dont think you need to be a scientists to realize there is more going on than what some who support evolution are saying are saying. I havnt said anything bad about science. In fact I have acknowledged its influence and ability to understand things. It is through the science that we can appreciate Gods creation but understanding its complexity. Science has its place but we have to know when it cannot be the answer to some things.

Then go on to say god did this and that, without a shred of proof.

How do you prove creation or a supernatural even of creating a living thing or a universe. We were not there and we cant test it as science would want us to. So even if we wanted to get the proof we cant. We have to do it in other ways. That comes from indirect evidence such as seeing that life is to amazing to have come from nothing and created more complex things out of less complex things. That is common sense and logical. But you wont see that if you already believe that everything came from a naturalistic process. Then you will be looking for reasons without God.

Present proof, you are right. Not what you think, feel or opinions, or what we might discover in the future. Odds on what we discover in the future will do what it did in the past. Take us further away from the god theory.

What is happening now is not taking us further away from God. Though many are denying this. The age of self realization has made us think that there is no God. We base everything on what we see and will not believe anything unless we can see and touch it. But at the same time we are finding through the advancements in physics there seems to be things beyond what we see. Quantum physics is showing us that everything we see in the material world may just be the surface of things.

Even scientists are coming up with some ideas that go beyond what we can see in our reality such as other dimensions and worlds. The more we discover now the more questions it brings up. We are at the threshold of looking into how something can come from nothing and the code for life. These things are showing us that there has to be more to life than what we see. Its just to great to have created itself and not have something greater behind it.
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang.

Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
Science Finds God
The achievements of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing number of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/newsweek/science_of_god/scienceofgod.htm

 

[paulm50]

Yes its strange how a process that is geared towards survival can create a creature such as humans to be the thing that works against itself. Evolution seems to have created a monster in humans. We are killing millions of species by the day. We are destroying the environment and the only planet we have to survive on by the day. So in the end if we succeed then evolution has created the very opposite of what its suppose to be all about survival of the fittest.

True, all backed up and encouraged by religion. go forth and multiply.

Other creatures that we are killing may be the fittest but they dont have a chance with the type of destruction we inflict on them. We can wipe out their habitats in an instant just as a matter of course. It seems there is more to us then just flesh, chemicals and biological reactions. We have a spirit as well that knows right and wrong. We can be selfish and cruel to others and intentionally do things we know are no good for us or the planet. Yet we still do it and don't seem to care.

The spirit you talk of is Greed, which is what has driven religion since the beginning

We think we are the gods of our own world and destinies. We think that we have all the answers and power and will overcome anything. We have made out that this world and life are the results of self creating naturalistic processes and have taken God out of the picture and put ourselves in His place. It is all limited and susceptible to decay and destruction. Our empires will fall and thats when we will begin to realize that we need the help of someone who is greater.

Nicely put and the bible says we have this power. A false promise to get the people believing, or was it part of gods plan to give us little power except the power to destroy. Which he has done a few times himself. It one believes the bible word for word. We are a greedy species, urged on by greedier people.

Some say that everything was created good and it is gradually decaying. So the species that are dying out now will not be replaced.

Nature is wonderful but it hasn't got the great amount of ability that some make out. It cannot create things. It can repair things to a limited extent. But that is getting harder all the time as we destroy things at a faster rate as you have mentioned.

Some say it was all created by a man in the sky. Doesn't make it true. There will be others to follow us. You wonder at the power of nature, I don't and see how it's revovered after cataclysmic events. Nature will do the same and come back again.

I think initially we should be considering that a God or some sort of agent is responsible for what we see and it didn't just happen by chance and out of nothing. Giving credit where credits due. This would help us to have some respect for things instead of thinking its all greater than it is in self preservation and creation. That would put us in our place and bring some stability. When we try to do it our way we end up getting into conflicts and making a big mess of things. It is only acknowledging God and allowing Him to lead the way will we find true peace and harmony with nature.

I think initially we should weigh the evidence.

And so far, that's the evidence to date.

I take great exception when people, with an ulterior motive of gaining power, tell me what to think. To the extent that if I step out of line they would of killed me. Hence the law of heresy.

Teach children a myth, tell me to hate gays, women are second class and ultimately most of them are standing with a hand in my pocket, and trying to control the leaders.

This is the 21st Century, and we should embrace science, what Man has achieved and move away from stories based from the Bronze Age and Earlier. Because any story about how life started here. Has to be from people who were on the brink of discovering how to melt rocks to make metals. And clueless about the world around them, which makes their occupation of the World more wonderful.

 

[Near]

...and - seeing how little explanatory power the mere idea "Goddidit" actually has - it´s not hard to come up with competing ideas that easily match the standard religion has set for such "explanations".

Point being, just because people are able to come up with other theories, doesn't make those theories true.

 

[Near]

If a god exists, link him to the bible.

Who's to say there wasn't some intelligent being or beings behind the big bang, introducing the starting elements of life, or giving it a nudge along the way. That's not we're debating.

Was there an Intelligent Designer in the way the bible and Christians believe? The answer has to be no. Because the description of Creation in Genesis, as you allude to, is so wrong. There was no god guiding their hand in the writing, so they were simply making it up. And it's so clearly wrong, that it wasn't even be explained in a way they would understand. He was god, they would of believed anything he said.

To debate as the word of god, leaves us with"He was lying to them".

Multiple intelligent beings behind the big bang, or the creation of life on Earth is one explanation. Why aren't we including that? Why limit ID's possible designer(s) to the God of the Bible?
You previously seemed to advocate the idea that there wasn't some sort of being, God or not, who may have been behind the creation of life on earth.
Anyways, you seem to have faith that the bible is wrong. Why would the answer "have to be no"? Why is Genesis, as you say, so clearly wrong?

 

[Asyncritus]

As Prof. David Stove showed, natural selection is too flawed to be worthy of any consideration. Thus:

Theoretically, natural selection rigidly weeds out the weak, those incapable of surviving and other such groups.

Therefore, those groups cannot survive if natural selection is working.

But those groups include the females, and the young of every species. Therefore, no species can possibly survive more than one generation, as the females and young would be wiped out or eaten by the males of the species.

This is a fact ignored or not recognised by the evolutionary community: and there is no answer to it.

No wonder Stove could say: 'Darwinism says many things, especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated person, or at least by an educated person who retains any capacity at all for critical thought'.

The book is called 'Darwinian Fairytales' and is available on Kindle for a few bucks for those with an independent cast of mind.

 

[bhsmte]

Point being, just because people are able to come up with other theories, doesn't make those theories true.

Typically, the greater amount of evidence to support a theory, the greater likely hood it is accurate.

 

[Near]

Typically, the greater amount of evidence to support a theory, the greater likely hood it is accurate.

That makes sense, but as with scientific theories that coome from modern scientists, they don't require us to say that God doesn't exist, or that he had no role in the creation of life. It's not a matter of God vs. Science.