Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Talk about religion here
Forum rules
Please read the forum rules carefully before you post.

If you like AnimorphsFanForum.com, please consider making a donation. Any donation will go towards the cost of the hosting, the domain and any other running costs.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Life on earth is a product of random chance
1
4%
Life on earth is a result of Natural Selection
15
56%
Life on earth was created by a sentient being
6
22%
Somewhere in between (God helped evolution along… God created the world through evolution… etc.)
5
19%
I’m not sure
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 27

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6069
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Post by Tobias_Marco » Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:06 pm

<At this point I am not going to say that the "god" who guided the formation of the human race can't have been an alien.>
<There is an episod of Star Trek: The Next Gen where the capt is mistaken for a god because he has technology far greater then that of anyone on the planet that they are visiting.>
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Post by Blu » Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:57 pm

I'm gonna address TMs..... even longer post, with what I assume to be an adequate answer to some of the points made.

Language is a means of communication. It is symbollic and is organised.

DNA, no matter how you put it, was not organised. Nucleotide bases formed RNA to from the first cells several thousand million years ago. It's simple chemistry: The nucleotide bases were joined by a sugar phosphate backbone.

I am no real expert on abiogenesis, but i believe that this point acting in a similar fashion to natural selection. Proteins were soon formed by the RNA sequences, and those that were useful stuck around. As time went by, polyploidy could increase the amount of information in the genome. Seperate chromosomes could combine to form larger chromosomes, or they could have grown larger before eukaryotes came about. Bacteria can exchange plasmids, which are like circular strands of DNA, across to other bacteria.

There are many ways the genome could be increased. It is, however, random. The genome keeps useful mutations or additions. This gives an impression of language, but it is in fact a natural process that gathers over time.

Also, you cannot just give the word 'language' to something. A giant could walk around the Earth, and see the mountains (yes, im using mountains again) and use it as morse code. They are a certain distance from each other and certain sizes. They are also in certain orders. Is this a language, or an accumulation of natural processes that give an impression of some kind of pattern?

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6069
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Post by Tobias_Marco » Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:59 pm

<I hate to break this to you, but morse code is in nice neat lines. Mountains seem to be spread a little too randumly to be mistaken for morse code.>
<DNA on the other hand is the most tightly packed information in the world.>
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Post by Blu » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:35 pm

Tobias_Marco wrote:<I hate to break this to you, but morse code is in nice neat lines. Mountains seem to be spread a little too randumly to be mistaken for morse code.>
<DNA on the other hand is the most tightly packed information in the world.>
You seem to have missed the point of my post.

The point was that you can't simply look at something and declare it to be some sort of language, when it could have (and has) come about by natural processes

User avatar
Current
Eldritch Abomination
Eldritch Abomination
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:20 pm
Favourite Animorph: Rachel
Location: Southwestern quartersphere

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Post by Current » Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:47 pm

Wild Cowboy wrote:
Current wrote:As a minor comment, a "guiding intelligence" is not necessarily a god. IF evolution required a mind to guide it, and it does not, all it would prove is that there's a mind out there we didn't previously know of. I don't see how that means we should worship that mind.
<Just a thought here. I seem to recall that in some posts people have said that if some kind of god does exsist that he (or she) must not be all powerful or all knowing.>
<What I want to know is what would be the diffrence, in your mind, between a being that could be called "god" who is not all knowing or all powerful, and an alien life form that acts as a "guiding intelligence" for evolution?>
Well, the definition of God is a bit fuzzy. Culturally, we* are too influenced by the Abrahamic concept of God that we end up assuming omniscience and omnipotence as traits of any god, when most religions actually had limited gods. You could define gods as powerful beings who interact with humanity and ask for worship, but that leaves out deism, pantheism, etc. I don't think that the definition of a god should be a creator/designer, either, because again plenty of gods weren't.

I think the best approach is two combine definitions. That is, a god is an entity that a)is significantly more powerful than a human, is supernatural, and asks to be worshipped or b) does not demand worship, but is a conscious mind that controls the universe, or is synonymous with it.

Anything that fits one of a or b is a god. A designing intelligence need not.


*We meaning people raised in Abrahamic-majority countries, which I figure is most of the world and also most of the people posting in this thread.
What is not the answer to this question?

User avatar
btlizard
Aristh
Aristh
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:01 am

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Post by btlizard » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:54 pm

I may regret jumping into this discussion, but I wanted to reply to this...
Current wrote:Well, the definition of God is a bit fuzzy. Culturally, we* are too influenced by the Abrahamic concept of God that we end up assuming omniscience and omnipotence as traits of any god, when most religions actually had limited gods. You could define gods as powerful beings who interact with humanity and ask for worship, but that leaves out deism, pantheism, etc. I don't think that the definition of a god should be a creator/designer, either, because again plenty of gods weren't.
I think there is a reason for this. First of all, I happen to believe that He is the true God. So that's probably why he influences everything as He does. But beyond this, there is a reason to believe in one all-powerful God, rather than many derivative gods. The existance of false gods does not mean they are equally valid. So, without going into all of the metaphysics and philosphy and quote C.S. Lewis and others...the bottom line is that everyone and everything derives its existance from something else. Eventually, something has to be transcendent. Otherwise, you have endless Cause and Effect, which can only take you so far. This is a very very very oversimplified answer, I realize. So I hope no one takes that off the deepend.
Image

User avatar
Blu
Rampant Drunk
Rampant Drunk
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:07 am
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Location: Behind you

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Post by Blu » Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:39 pm

btlizard wrote:I may regret jumping into this discussion, but I wanted to reply to this...
Current wrote:Well, the definition of God is a bit fuzzy. Culturally, we* are too influenced by the Abrahamic concept of God that we end up assuming omniscience and omnipotence as traits of any god, when most religions actually had limited gods. You could define gods as powerful beings who interact with humanity and ask for worship, but that leaves out deism, pantheism, etc. I don't think that the definition of a god should be a creator/designer, either, because again plenty of gods weren't.
I think there is a reason for this. First of all, I happen to believe that He is the true God. So that's probably why he influences everything as He does. But beyond this, there is a reason to believe in one all-powerful God, rather than many derivative gods. The existance of false gods does not mean they are equally valid. So, without going into all of the metaphysics and philosphy and quote C.S. Lewis and others...the bottom line is that everyone and everything derives its existance from something else. Eventually, something has to be transcendent. Otherwise, you have endless Cause and Effect, which can only take you so far. This is a very very very oversimplified answer, I realize. So I hope no one takes that off the deepend.

This whole thing can be summed up to:

"I'm right, you're wrong. NYEH!"

User avatar
btlizard
Aristh
Aristh
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:01 am

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Post by btlizard » Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:03 pm

Blu wrote:This whole thing can be summed up to:

"I'm right, you're wrong. NYEH!"
I don't recall saying "nyeh", but truth by definition is exclusive. So, someone's opinion really doesn't matter. What's true is what matters.
Image

User avatar
Current
Eldritch Abomination
Eldritch Abomination
Posts: 1780
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:20 pm
Favourite Animorph: Rachel
Location: Southwestern quartersphere

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Post by Current » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:30 pm

btlizard wrote:I may regret jumping into this discussion, but I wanted to reply to this...
Current wrote:Well, the definition of God is a bit fuzzy. Culturally, we* are too influenced by the Abrahamic concept of God that we end up assuming omniscience and omnipotence as traits of any god, when most religions actually had limited gods. You could define gods as powerful beings who interact with humanity and ask for worship, but that leaves out deism, pantheism, etc. I don't think that the definition of a god should be a creator/designer, either, because again plenty of gods weren't.
I think there is a reason for this. First of all, I happen to believe that He is the true God. So that's probably why he influences everything as He does.
Or, alternatively, he's just popular.
But beyond this, there is a reason to believe in one all-powerful God, rather than many derivative gods.
It has its ups and downs, but I see your point. I know I'm more likely to believe in a single deity than many. Then again, I'm a part-time pantheist.
the bottom line is that everyone and everything derives its existance from something else.
Not really. As I explained in another thread, quantum-level events can be uncaused. And, of course, time-based frameworks.
Eventually, something has to be transcendent. Otherwise, you have endless Cause and Effect, which can only take you so far.
Or closed time loops. But personally, I don't think it's either of those. I favour the hypothesis that cause and effect are useful concepts at everyday-level, but not strict absolutes even now, let alone at the beginning of time.
What is not the answer to this question?

User avatar
Tobias_Marco
Proud Uncle
Proud Uncle
Posts: 6069
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Gender: [Male][/Male]
Favourite Animorph: Tobias
Location: Somewhere in the realm of time/space

Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Post by Tobias_Marco » Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:40 pm

Blu wrote:The point was that you can't simply look at something and declare it to be some sort of language, when it could have (and has) come about by natural processes
<No, YOU have missed MY point.>
<You say that DNA "could have (and has) come about by natural processes", but you have yet to prove to me that it did.>
<If DNA came about by a natural process as you say, then shouldn't humans be able to recreate it in a lab?>
<If that had happened then whoever did it would have won the Noble Prize.>
True education, true science, true religion is the search for truth.
Matthew 28:16-20, John 3:14-20