If all of life was created by an ingenious entity, (obvious God they are talking about), how do you explain extinct animals? That means the Creator must have made an animal that could not survive the elements, and would therefore mean the Designer is flawed. Oops....

If all of life was created by an ingenious entity, (obvious God they are talking about), how do you explain extinct animals? That means the Creator must have made an animal that could not survive the elements, and would therefore mean the Designer is flawed. Oops....

Oops

There's also about a million other problems with it.

Oops

There's also about a million other problems with it.

And also a million other threads. But we haven't had one for ..oh..maybe two weeks so I'll leave it up for a bit.

REMEMBER this needs to be about religious issues . If it gets too scientific then it goes over to MS.

Obviously this is a nice rebuttal versus anyone pushing the ideal of a perfect creator, as most theists do. Of course, this is far from a real rebuttal against the concept of god in general. Unfortunately, most theists don't take up with the imperfect god concept, which, looking around at the world, more should.

My point is only that this doesn't disprove or really even argue against creationism, but only creationism by a 'perfect' creator. Of course, it seems that most christians you meet will simply reply with 'god works in mysterious ways', therefore defining the universe as a perfect creation as a tautology vis-a-vis the definition of the perfect creator, no matter what you say.

You eat some food, you shit it out. Was eating it a mistake?

Not all life that we know has existed (through the fossil record) could have existed at the same time. So intelligent design has to believe in super evolution that happend for x amount of years then slowed down to present evolution (what they call micro evolution)

Not all life that we know has existed (through the fossil record) could have existed at the same time. So intelligent design has to believe in super evolution that happend for x amount of years then slowed down to present evolution (what they call micro evolution)

Not so to the believers. It seems this older fossils, including dinosaurs, exist only to test your faith. To the believer, all of existence could have begun yesterday and you have no way to disprove it.

Suppose the intelligent designer created all things simultaneously and then allowed them to undergo natural development, e.g. planets forming and shit. (Big bang? You know what I'm talking about?)

Well that means that stuff evolved, so no wonder species went extinct.

Not so to the believers. It seems this older fossils, including dinosaurs, exist only to test your faith. To the believer, all of existence could have begun yesterday and you have no way to disprove it.

But without a means to prove this theory, the theist loses.

Well that means that stuff evolved, so no wonder species went extinct.

Are you suggesting a perfect designer can't design them to not go extinct in the first place, even if they do evolve? That he can't design an universe where extinction was impossible?

Not to mention that:

a. that's not really what ID as a movement believes. It believes the "intelligent designer" is involved in all or many aspects of animal life/"evolution" (in the general sense).

b. There are other unintelligent aspects inherent in the universe itself. Like comets and asteroids headed for Earth.

You eat some food, you shit it out. Was eating it a mistake?

Shitting equals extinction? ROFL, this is about as logical as 9/11 deniers get.

If you remove that hidious word religion from creation who's to say what perfection is, perhaps evolution and natural selection are the perfect solutions to what is intelligent in design.

Perfection need not be set in stone and static. The infinetly unfolding universe could be the perfection of creation.

For one thing, "perfect" does not equal "changeless." An acorn is perfect in its way, but it is a long way form being an oak tree. Everything changes.

Everything from quarks to quasars to T. rex just sort of spin out of the Void, interact, and return to the Void. It is the great dance of creation.

Not so to the believers. It seems this older fossils, including dinosaurs, exist only to test your faith. To the believer, all of existence could have begun yesterday and you have no way to disprove it.

no they actually do believe and promote super evolution. Heres a video with pictures taken from the creation museum itslef.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk

A request:

You define perfection to me, and show how the cycle of birth, death, decomposition, and rebirth in every last aspect of existence is somehow 'imperfect'...do all that and I'll put some more thought into this shitty thread.

A request:

You define perfection to me, and show how the cycle of birth, death, decomposition, and rebirth in every last aspect of existence is somehow 'imperfect'...do all that and I'll put some more thought into this shitty thread.

If "perfection" is subjective, then "the cycle of birth, death, decomposition, and rebirth in every last aspect of existence" could easily be said to be "imperfect".

So that then leaves an objective definition of "perfection". Let's attempt one. Let's say something is perfect if that something cannot be improved in any way.

Human beings can be improved (e.g The appendix, the recurring laringial nerve, junk DNA, blind spots in eyes).

If all of life was created by an ingenious entity, (obvious God they are talking about), how do you explain extinct animals? That means the Creator must have made an animal that could not survive the elements, and would therefore mean the Designer is flawed. Oops....

The fact that the animals survive elsewhere and not here, while we can survive here, and not in an extremely different environment, balances the scales.

It gives equal chance for all animals, and eventually all will live, flourish, and die. There is no winner, like you're perceiving, because what doesn't happen on this planet, now, will happen elsewhere, later. I think, at least.

I think it is funny how beaten back religion has become.

150 years ago GOD MADE US no other answer. Made the universe also.

50 years ago ID would have been a no no.

To today where christians wish to trojan horse ID into science books so they can snag and indoctrine young gullible minds with their meme complex.

I cannot wait to see what the next 50 years brings for mystics and worshippers of the sun everywhere.

I don't think anyone here is really trying to say that intelligent design is science, or that it belongs in science textbooks.

I don't think anyone here is really trying to say that intelligent design is science, or that it belongs in science textbooks.

I wouldnt even care if it was put in textbooks. You'd have a 3" thick biology textbook with 1 page saying "but its so hard to learn, theres so much complexity, GOD DID IT"

The most retarded thing we here is "give ID and evolution equal time in the classroom". What do you mean equal time? ID is one simple phrase, which young highschool students could destroy in a debate. While evolutionary biology could take what? 6 years to study, or more.

What do you mean equal time?

I may be vastly underestimating the idiocy of fundamentalist Christians (trying to compensate for Westboro Baptists giving y'all a bad name; cut me some slack)...

but I think when people say that, they don't LITERALLY mean equal time; even people who do not believe a word of evolution know that it is infinitely more complex than intelligent design. I think they just want ID and evolution to be treated as equal theories... which is kind of retarded, because intelligent design and evolution can BOTH be true at the same time. There's really not even any need to mention it. Intelligent design, the way I look at it, is not an "alternative" to evolution. The essential tenet of ID is that all things were created. How they were created is irrelevant.

The essential tenet of ID is that all things were created.

That's not true; that's the basic tenet of "Creationism" (i.e. that all things were created by a god). Now, sure, most of those supporting Intelligent Design are actually Creationists in disguise trying to push their Christian agenda in the Science class room, but if we were to take them as two different ideas, then no, Intelligent Design doesn't just say that things were created.

Intelligent Design requires a "Designer" that is involved in all or many (most) aspects of the development of life, in the past, present, and future. He would be responsible for mono-cellular life changing into the multi cellular life we see now, by deciding what changes to make in each, or many (most) steps along the way.


intelligent design and evolution can BOTH be true at the same time. Nope, they are both mutually exclusive. Intelligent Design is incompatible with evolution. Evolution says that by genetic change and selection we can explain the evolution of life, while ID says that it explains the evolution of life through the choices of a "designer" and that natural selection and genetic change aren't enough.

Rust: what definition of Intelligent Design are you using?

Who says that intelligent design has to be that way? (Another problem with ID as a theory; it's impossible to define.) Who says the designer has to replace evolution?

Rust: what definition of Intelligent Design are you using?

Who says that intelligent design has to be that way? (Another problem with ID as a theory; it's impossible to define.) Who says the designer has to replace evolution?


What definition am I using? The one that most (read, 90%+) of all ID proponents use.

Here's an example, from the Discovery Institute, one of the biggest ID groups there are:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

In other words: An "intelligent" designer did it, not genetic change + natural selection.

Pretty much the same definition was entered as expert testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District tiral:

"The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.”
Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).
Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.”




-- From the Judge's decision in that case.


If the "intelligent designer" operates outside of the laws of science, and is purposely arranging the parts - then it 100% incompatible with the theory of evolution.


Why in the world do you think there is a discussion in the first place? Why do you think they argue it should be taught as an "alternative"? The two ARE mutually exclusive.

This is not a valid argument, OP. You talk like the creator has to bend to the laws of its own creation (the world). Maybe the creator meant for the world to constantly change, and for that meant evolution to take place to allow his creatures to change accordingly.

A perfect creator isn't neccessarily forced to exhibit perfection in everything it does anyway.

Intelligent Design=/= The Theory of Intelligent Design

Theory of Evolution =/= Abiogenesis

ID (read: theism) can correlate to Evolution and (to a far lesser degree) abiogenesis. The theory of Intelligent Design can correlate with nothing since it dictates that evolution is a guided process and abiogenesis is false.

If "perfection" is subjective, then "the cycle of birth, death, decomposition, and rebirth in every last aspect of existence" could easily be said to be "imperfect".

So that then leaves an objective definition of "perfection". Let's attempt one. Let's say something is perfect if that something cannot be improved in any way.

Human beings can be improved (e.g The appendix, the recurring laringial nerve, junk DNA, blind spots in eyes).

Congrats on actually getting one of my points! Perfection is opinion. Shaved balls are perfect for me...most think it's hell because of the 5 o'clock itch. But it's perfect, for me. It's all fucking opinion...it's all choice. God's perfect if you choose, as is child molestation, greens, and Republicans. We all know that vegetables and right wingers suck ass though...but toddler fondling and religion rock! :P

I don't think I need to include this, but I shall anyways...

For those who don't like to think or read (or hopefully get a chuckle): Different strokes for different folks.

ID (read: theism) can correlate to Evolution and (to a far lesser degree) abiogenesis. The theory of Intelligent Design can correlate with nothing since it dictates that evolution is a guided process and abiogenesis is false.

You're just redefining ID to mean "theism", when that's not really it's definition. By that logic we can make evolution correlate with anything we want to...

You might need to be a theist to be an proponent of Intelligent Design (except if you believe the Designer is somehow an alien or something) but the two concepts are not the same.

Congrats on actually getting one of my points!

So then your request was easily fulfilled. Great!

Perfection is not a matter of opinion. (Well... I guess it can be.) There are, however, many different definitions of the word "perfect". Wikipedia for more on this exciting story.

Perfection is not a matter of opinion. (Well... I guess it can be.) There are, however, many different definitions of the word "perfect". Wikipedia for more on this exciting story.

The only way you can define perfection is if you know the imperative of the object/concept/situation being criticized. To understand whether or not a God is perfect, you would need to know what its imperative is and whether or not it fulfills this imperative to absolution. If God's imperative is to love, and it loves unconditionally, then it is perfect. If its imperative is to destroy, and it destroys unconditionally, then it is perfect. If its imperative is to be imperfect, and its flaws are known, then it is perfect.

Proving perfection relies upon the knowledge of an imperative and to what extent this imperative is fulfilled or failed. Continuation of a species is often seen as an imperative, but I think that's failing to take into account that we humans are simply able to perceive the after effects of a common instinctual imperative in our own and other species. That imperative being an animal 'releasing'. The continuation of a species is the most blaring side effect of ejaculating...one which we humans have invented many ways to prevent (from pulling out, to abortion, to murder, to genocide).

For extinction to be an imperfection, it must be an imperative of a species to exist eternally. Only if unlimited survival was an imperative of the extinguished species can extinction be proven to be an imperfection.

Without knowledge of the purpose of life (if there even is a purpose), we can not know the imperative or the extent to which it is met with success. Judging extinction as an imperfection is unfounded in reason.

Furthermore, even if you can prove there is a purpose, an imperative, and a failure to meet this imperative, you would have to then prove ID in order to claim the designer put flaws into the system.

Perfect in it's loosest since and most used sense means, lacking nothing of an essential nature. A perfect bowl of soup, would be a well crafted bowl filled with any kind of soup. OF course weather the soup is perfect is up the the individuals subjective tastes.

Anyways to the original topic.

If I truley have faith in God, then I will assume that he created the world with an all-powerfulness, and all-knowingness. If such is the case, nothing that occurs is random or by chance.

Therefore to my the study of evolution is the study towards a clearer understanding about how God created this world and the life on it.

ID is a weak theological position. It states that well perhaps some micro evolution is due to chance and randomness, but all the major steps were planed and directed.It's a sell our, a halfway point between belief and unbelief that marks so many protestant philosophies.

If a person has faith and believes that god is all-powerful and all-knowing, then they can claim that no event is truly random.

Reading the bible perfectly literally leads to problems in this regard, however reading it allegorically, and keeping in mind the limitation of the judiac understanding of the world, allows for the second story of creation to support the view of abiogenisis. That man was formed from dust (dust being elements, the primordial soup so to say, and the forming process was evolution, and the life breathing occurred at the point men were given souls and self-awareness. It makes sense especially if combined with a long-day interpertation of the first story of creation.

It makes sense especially if combined with a long-day interpertation of the first story of creation.

Yeah, where plants were created the day before the sun was.

Yeah, where plants were created the day before the sun was.

Again if you understand the judiac world view this anomaly doesn't register. The sun isn't the source of most light on earth, but is the figurehead, the king of celestial bodies during the day. So according to the judiac world view, the sun isn't necessary for daylight to occur. A miskaten view yes, but helps to explain why the early Jews told this story in the order that they did.

Again if you understand the judiac world view this anomaly doesn't register. The sun isn't the source of most light on earth, but is the figurehead, the king of celestial bodies during the day. So according to the judiac world view, the sun isn't necessary for daylight to occur. A miskaten view yes, but helps to explain why the early Jews told this story in the order that they did.

Long-day creationsim is ridiculous since the geological time and the mathematics that relate to it don't add up. You'd know that if you looked around, it's really obvious; 14 billion/7=2 billion years per day, which is ridiculous and doesn't correlate to geological time.

Religion is clever in that it covers it's back by saying things like 'god works in mysterious ways' and 'it was sent to test us' and 'the devil did it'. Unfortunatly, you don't see through these obvious excuses until you are on the outside.

You have to admire how well made religion is, but then again it has had thousands of years to perfect itself.

FLRX

Long-day creationsim is ridiculous since the geological time and the mathematics that relate to it don't add up. You'd know that if you looked around, it's really obvious; 14 billion/7=2 billion years per day, which is ridiculous and doesn't correlate to geological time.

Again the bible is mostly allegorical. It is not by any means a scientific text. By long day interpretation I mean to say that God created this world in a deliberate manner from nothing into planet we have today, with a sky, night and day, land, sea, plants, sun and moon, animals, and man.

Weather the Jews understood the correct order and period is unimportant. The message is that there is a creator that created us. We like the jews even with our scientific method can only guess the exact process used.

The Bible does not concern itself with natural phenomena, have you noticed that? The point of the creation stories is not HOW God created the universe, simply that he DID create the universe. It approaches the rest of nature in a similar manner - not attempting to explain WHY the sun rises and sets, but that the sun is a creation of God, etc. etc.

The Bible primarily concerns itself with people, their relationships with one another, and their relationships with God.

The Bible does not concern itself with natural phenomena, have you noticed that? The point of the creation stories is not HOW God created the universe, simply that he DID create the universe. It approaches the rest of nature in a similar manner - not attempting to explain WHY the sun rises and sets, but that the sun is a creation of God, etc. etc.

The Bible primarily concerns itself with people, their relationships with one another, and their relationships with God.

Which in no way confirms it as true.

Again the bible is mostly allegorical. It is not by any means a scientific text. By long day interpretation I mean to say that God created this world in a deliberate manner from nothing into planet we have today, with a sky, night and day, land, sea, plants, sun and moon, animals, and man.
How can we tell what parts of the Bible are allergorical then, for all we know, some sky-god with a beard made everything in 6 days, and that could be literal, allegorical, or pure 'guess' as you call it. We don't know, and it doesn't specify, so the Bible is subject to huge differences in interpretation and therefore, all but useless.

Weather the Jews understood the correct order and period is unimportant. The message is that there is a creator that created us. We like the jews even with our scientific method can only guess the exact process used.

Again, this could be pure guessing, and what makes this guess more valid than science? Well the subtle difference in the a priori arguments, the valid induction used by scientists, and the fact that the world works by way of science. If religion's guesses are as valid as empirical ones, then we might as well return to epicycles to chart the planets. The message is nothing, it's a guess. Unlike the Jews, our science applies to damn near everything, and has empirical backing behind it, and not only that, it isn't founded on "there is a God, how did he create us?", but rather on "let's discover the origins of matter".

Science isn't guessing, it's empiricism and logic based on hard facts and working theories. All guesses are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Which in no way confirms it as true.

Well, hot piss. I guess if I were trying to confirm the Bible as true, you would have technically just "pwned" me there.

However, I was in fact simply pointing out that the Bible is not concerned with how things work or how (specifically) they got there. It is simply concerned with who put them there.

Well, hot piss. I guess if I were trying to confirm the Bible as true, you would have technically just "pwned" me there.

However, I was in fact simply pointing out that the Bible is not concerned with how things work or how (specifically) they got there. It is simply concerned with who put them there.

I wasn't trying to "pwn" you, or even suggest that you meant that it was true; it was simply an addition to your post for anyone else reading.

If all of life was created by an ingenious entity, (obvious God they are talking about), how do you explain extinct animals? That means the Creator must have made an animal that could not survive the elements, and would therefore mean the Designer is flawed. Oops....

you, my friend, have won the fucking prize

+1

you, my friend, have won the fucking prize

+1

why thank you