ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Creationism / Intelligent Design or Darwinian Evolution

Report this
Created by: Fleet_Engineer

Gleekoid32

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 702

Report this Aug. 20 2010, 7:07 am

What I believe-being a Biologist, is that Evolution happened over millions of years, and Darwin proved it. I have never heard any stories of cats evolving, the first I hear of cats in history, is that the Eygiptians worshipped them, therefore I believe that cats are alien creations-genetically engineered to look like tigers and other big cats inside-to gather information about our planet, but since our information is changing rapidly, the cats have been here for a long time, so the alien beings who created them, upped and left, leaving the cats on this planet, to contact them if/when they finish the jpb of gathering data on our planet, so the genetically engineered cats started to breed into the cats you see today, and their mission is the same, to gather data about our society and boldly go where no cat has gone before...for a few hundred years.


Think about it. They are the perfect spies. They can listen in on conversations, when they are sitting on our laps and watch the news on the TV, nature documentaries etc. and when they go out the cat flap, whre so they REALLY go? To transmit that data off to the aliens who are by now thousands of light years away. Cats aren't loyal animals-unlike dogs-so that makes them perfect creatures to be genetically engineered to gather data about us.


But-as an atheist-that's just my opinion


Mum to 3 boys, Jonathan Archer-8 Huey Martin and Trip Jonah, who sadly passed away in my tummy. RIP.

Gleekoid32

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 702

Report this Aug. 20 2010, 7:36 am

How do you know Vulcans didn't do it all? ; )


Mum to 3 boys, Jonathan Archer-8 Huey Martin and Trip Jonah, who sadly passed away in my tummy. RIP.

UNTRugby

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1212

Report this Aug. 20 2010, 7:53 am

I dont think its a question of weather or not our ancestors were apes but how we have sentience and no other animals does. If it was evolutionary we would have sentient species all over the planet.

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14322

Report this Aug. 20 2010, 9:23 am

Quote: UNTRugby @ Aug. 20 2010, 7:53 am

I dont think its a question of weather or not our ancestors were apes but how we have sentience and no other animals does. If it was evolutionary we would have sentient species all over the planet.
Sentience is a major drag - the brain requires considerably more energy for even the simplest of actions once it gets to a certain size. That in turn puts even more pressure to obtain food and puts a species survival even more on the knife edge.

The power requirement of the human brain also contributes to us having so few offspring and their slow development into adulthood. And that of course threatens our survival too. Less intelligent animals, which have several litters of several offspring, have more chance of developing beneficial changes and therefore evolving and surviving. Frankly it's amazing we made it to sentience.

Soongcat

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4390

Report this Aug. 20 2010, 12:28 pm

I think that life has a reason. I do not care if we came to earth like the Bible tells us. Life is no Copperfield show... there are not always big lightnings around and music and a big giant hand comes out of the sky and PANG, you got two humans sitting in the green....

I believe in God and also in evolution. the Big Bang was also part of the plan.
It is HIS way of creating life. Who are we to judge over HIS creation and the way all goes?
We are here, that is the most important part. Why do we kill each other for something we may never really understand?

LONG LIVE DATA!

Swidden

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1192

Report this Aug. 21 2010, 5:54 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Darwinian Evolution fits the geological and scientific evidence. No need for devine intervention or any supernatural influence.

>
There may be no "need" for it, but it does not preclude the possibility. Even the Catholic church has long since taken the stance that much of the early chapters of Genesis might very well be apocryphal.


Wheels within wheels In a spiral array A pattern so grand And complex Time after time We lose sight of the way Our causes can’t see Their effects

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3682

Report this Aug. 21 2010, 6:51 pm

Clouds condensing to make stars, planets ... life.
So basically, at least part, and we presume much,
of the universe itself is self-aware. Considering
how it was arrived at, in any other kind of reality,
that would sound as fanciful as religion does to some.
If the universe, nobel gasses and the like can become
self-aware, then anything ... even some kind of a god
is possible. It's certainly no less bizarre.

Tureaz'47

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2605

Report this Aug. 22 2010, 1:47 am

Interesting using "Darwin" as a crutch or an excuse to deny what is already there. "A god by any other name..." Any label is not based on an individual that is not divine but has to do with facts and the Universe and acknowledgement that "we did not create these things." Once we get past that fact, then, we can move onto other truths..

It's strange, being a catalyst for things that move outside.

O. Wilish

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Aug. 22 2010, 4:24 am

Why not a comination of the above, life isn's nessarily black and whiter than white "There ae more things in heven and earth that are ever deamt of..."


 


"In the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is king."

Dendodge

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 945

Report this Aug. 22 2010, 4:39 am

As a fan of the works of Richard Dawkins . . .

I don't think I even need to finish that sentence.

konarciq

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 930

Report this Aug. 23 2010, 7:38 am

I have to admit I never really got this "evolution fits the scientific evidence" bit. Admitted: natural science isn´t quite my field, but as far as I recall, a theory remains a theory, a hypothesis, until it has met the criteria of being sufficiently proved to be accepted as the truth (for now, until we formulate a better hypothesis).

And isn´t one of the criteria that the experiment can be done over and over again, in order to check on its reliability? If anyone - named Darwin or otherwise - has managed to create a bunch of new universes, with life and all, then I´m sorry I missed it.

Or even if it were only throwing a few particles together and they start to develop and turn into something living, and then adapting to their environment, each in a different way.

When was the last time evolutionary development in a living species was seen (other than animals becoming extinct)? I mean like growing wings, or change breathing system from land to water based living etc. Having a bunch of species that are clearly related and seem to succeed each other in their development is no proof for that - that could just as well be the result of the intelligent being (whoever you think that could be) making a few test species to perfect his work. Same thing with the continents moving.

Personally, I don´t think we´ll ever know. No one was there when it happened, and there are no records of eyewitnesses. The closest thing to records would be the Bible and similar creation stories in other religions.

But I think that´s the problem with the natural sciences: they have sworn off religion and try to explain everything rationally. And personally, I think they are so desperate to deny any divine (or alien) intervention that they forget that their own (as far as I know not quite proven) theory has become as sacred as the Bible. Even though it´s just a theory, and therefore hardly more scientific than the creation stories for which there seems to be some evidence as well.

I think the real problem lies in the acceptance that you can´t explain everything. Not understanding everything is acceptable in religion, but not in science. And afraid of having to admit that, it seems to me evolutionists tend to cling to their theory as if it were a religion. And chide those who believe in some form of intelligent design for not being scientific.

But is it scientific to treat an unsufficiently proven theory as the absolute truth?

If there is nothing wrong with me, then maybe there´s something wrong with the universe? -Dr. Crusher

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14322

Report this Aug. 23 2010, 3:17 pm

Quote: konarciq @ Aug. 23 2010, 7:38 am

I have to admit I never really got this "evolution fits the scientific evidence" bit. Admitted: natural science isn´t quite my field, but as far as I recall, a theory remains a theory, a hypothesis, until it has met the criteria of being sufficiently proved to be accepted as the truth (for now, until we formulate a better hypothesis). And isn´t one of the criteria that the experiment can be done over and over again, in order to check on its reliability? If anyone - named Darwin or otherwise - has managed to create a bunch of new universes, with life and all, then I´m sorry I missed it. Or even if it were only throwing a few particles together and they start to develop and turn into something living, and then adapting to their environment, each in a different way. When was the last time evolutionary development in a living species was seen (other than animals becoming extinct)? I mean like growing wings, or change breathing system from land to water based living etc. Having a bunch of species that are clearly related and seem to succeed each other in their development is no proof for that - that could just as well be the result of the intelligent being (whoever you think that could be) making a few test species to perfect his work. Same thing with the continents moving. Personally, I don´t think we´ll ever know. No one was there when it happened, and there are no records of eyewitnesses. The closest thing to records would be the Bible and similar creation stories in other religions. But I think that´s the problem with the natural sciences: they have sworn off religion and try to explain everything rationally. And personally, I think they are so desperate to deny any divine (or alien) intervention that they forget that their own (as far as I know not quite proven) theory has become as sacred as the Bible. Even though it´s just a theory, and therefore hardly more scientific than the creation stories for which there seems to be some evidence as well. I think the real problem lies in the acceptance that you can´t explain everything. Not understanding everything is acceptable in religion, but not in science. And afraid of having to admit that, it seems to me evolutionists tend to cling to their theory as if it were a religion. And chide those who believe in some form of intelligent design for not being scientific. But is it scientific to treat an unsufficiently proven theory as the absolute truth?


Evolution isn't a theory, its existence as a process is proven fact. The 'theory' part refers to the scientific laws which explain the hows & whys of evolution. And laws are ARE tested on a daily basis.

Evolution simply put is beneficial change occurring in a species. When the HIV virus developed immunity to the drugs used against it that was evolution. When insects develop an immunity to insecticides, that's evolution too. It might not as fancy as a T-Rex turning into a chicken but that kinda change takes millions of years to occur.

Science treats NOTHING as absolute truth and nor does it pretend everything is knowable. In fact, we the opposite is true - the uncertainty principal of of quantum mechanics confirms knowing everything is impossible. It's religious organisations which promises their followers absolute truth.

DammitJim6200

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6876

Report this Aug. 23 2010, 4:00 pm

Humanity is all a mistake..We're all just some random FREAKISH accident. The Dinosaurs was suppose to rule the Earth, not us.

konarciq

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 930

Report this Aug. 31 2010, 2:51 am

Quote: DS9TREK @ Aug. 23 2010, 3:17 pm

Quote: konarciq @ Aug. 23 2010, 7:38 am

>Quote:

>Evolution isn't a theory, its existence as a process is proven fact. The 'theory' part refers to the scientific laws which explain the hows & whys of evolution. And laws are ARE tested on a daily basis. Evolution simply put is beneficial change occurring in a species. When the HIV virus developed immunity to the drugs used against it that was evolution. When insects develop an immunity to insecticides, that's evolution too. It might not as fancy as a T-Rex turning into a chicken but that kinda change takes millions of years to occur.

You´re right, I hadn´t thought of that. But still, it doesn´t explain how the universe came into existence. Or life in general. I need as much belief to accept that a few molecules hit off together and became alive as I need to believe that there is intelligent design (divine or alien) behind it all. Did they ever prove that part as well?

 

Quote:

Science treats NOTHING as absolute truth and nor does it pretend everything is knowable. In fact, we the opposite is true - the uncertainty principal of of quantum mechanics confirms knowing everything is impossible. It's religious organisations which promises their followers absolute truth.


If that is so, then why are scientists/evolutionists in general so unwilling to consider intelligent design behind it all? Again: natural science is not my field, but in my experience, evolutionists are just as stubborn in refusing to seriously consider intelligent design behind it all, as certain religious groups are refusing to consider the evolution as a serious possibility.


If there is nothing wrong with me, then maybe there´s something wrong with the universe? -Dr. Crusher

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14322

Report this Aug. 31 2010, 3:47 am

Quote: konarciq @ Aug. 31 2010, 2:51 am

Quote: DS9TREK @ Aug. 23 2010, 3:17 pm

Quote: konarciq @ Aug. 23 2010, 7:38 am

>Quote:

>Evolution isn't a theory, its existence as a process is proven fact. The 'theory' part refers to the scientific laws which explain the hows & whys of evolution. And laws are ARE tested on a daily basis. Evolution simply put is beneficial change occurring in a species. When the HIV virus developed immunity to the drugs used against it that was evolution. When insects develop an immunity to insecticides, that's evolution too. It might not as fancy as a T-Rex turning into a chicken but that kinda change takes millions of years to occur.

You´re right, I hadn´t thought of that. But still, it doesn´t explain how the universe came into existence. Or life in general. I need as much belief to accept that a few molecules hit off together and became alive as I need to believe that there is intelligent design (divine or alien) behind it all. Did they ever prove that part as well?

 

Quote:

Science treats NOTHING as absolute truth and nor does it pretend everything is knowable. In fact, we the opposite is true - the uncertainty principal of of quantum mechanics confirms knowing everything is impossible. It's religious organisations which promises their followers absolute truth.

If that is so, then why are scientists/evolutionists in general so unwilling to consider intelligent design behind it all? Again: natural science is not my field, but in my experience, evolutionists are just as stubborn in refusing to seriously consider intelligent design behind it all, as certain religious groups are refusing to consider the evolution as a serious possibility.

They can't consider intelligent design a possibility until evidence is brought to the table. In science you find the evidence first and then come up with theories/explanations, not the other way round.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum