I just want to here the different points of view. Why are you on this website? Im guessing it to gain knowledge or entertain you. Either way does it really matter?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution vs Intelligent design/creationism
- Thread starter Stevex27
- Start date
I just want to here the different points of view. Why are you on this website? Im guessing it to gain knowledge or entertain you. Either way does it really matter?
Sorry, but that is just wrong. It is "still a theory" in the same sense that gravity is.
Allow me:
Online Reference: FAQs and tutorials on the Theory of Evolution
So tell us: do you find pathetic creationist apologetics educational, entertaining, or both?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Evolution is a 'proven' as much as anything in science ever is. Just like science doesn't claim it have proven that the Earth orbits the sun, but all of the evidence we have indicates that it in fact does.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I have yet to find a single example in all of history of a consciousness existing without a brain, suggesting that all consciousness is in fact a product of a physical brain.
I addressed my position on that question already in this thread. See my posts #15 and #18.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Yes, we can see how bacteria act, which is within a limited capacity for adaptation while firmly remaining bacteria,
That's the observable, testable, scientific part, whether or not a single cell design can eventually morph into a human being through millions of lucky mutations.. is a tiny wee bit more speculative!
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
"I think multiple paranormal subfields point to consciousness without physical apparatus; Near Death Experiences, spirit/ghost phenomena, spirit communication, etc.."
Until someone can provide some sort of verifiable evidence that ghosts/spirits exist, that's hardly a valid reason to claim that there's evidence of a consciousness existing without a brain. As for 'near death experiences'... has anyone without a brain ever claimed to have had one?
There is a plethora of subjective evidence to support many phenomena that are coined "supernatural."
I have been studying paranormal phenomena for decades and I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of consciousness without a physical brain. To me, it is the cumulative weight of the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence from multiple subfields of the paranormal. I have heard too much not reasonably explainable through a materialist paradigm.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but 'evidence' that can't be tested is basically worthless.
Profound Realization
Active Member
Any potential creator(s) and/or intelligence would have used "natural" intelligent information as its mechanism with evolution.
The theory of evolution will state that it's a fact that all life forms come from previously existing life forms. Since there is no evidence satisfiable for the fields of science of a living creator(s) and/or intelligence in the external environment, it cannot be falsified to state that a creator(s) and/or intelligence once were previous lifeforms, died/became extinct, sacrificed their previous life forms and have arisen in new and evolving creating/intelligent life forms.
"Natural selection" as the scientific mechanism is also highly flawed. Basically, no intelligence whatsoever given to species. Species are just assumed stupid as all. There is no intent/purpose/altruism given amongst species throughout the process. We can also scientifically observe that this is not the realistic/true case amongst observable species.
I'm personally not quick to jump ship and assume all large-scale changes were events from smaller-scale changes over time in a left to right arrow in linear fashion. Nature is full of things/bonds that both attract and repel. Species don't reproduce with whatever species they please. I have an open system of "mind." I don't care if I potentially came from apes or potential alternatives. I do not know if early lifeforms evolved to a certain point and started branching off in a multitude of directions and at vastly differing rates of speed/time per species. I do not know if life starting arising abundantly all over the place in different areas rather than a single event/single place.
Just as our planet may one day not be hospitable for life, and futuristic thinking is/will look for alternative hospitable "planets" for life, I do not know if in a distant past, another "planet" once experienced this and several hundred/thousand human beings traveled to populate "Earth" and lost most of their memory in the process, habiting Earth will all of its array of lifeforms. Also, just as we have no clue as to where this observable universe came from scientifically, I do not know whether all of its "matter" already had specific inherent memory/information/intelligence from the same universe that once existed and recycled or from another universe with specific inherent memory/information as the mechanism for life forms with specific functioning.
I also do not know if there were many differing particular forms/fields/waves/frequencies of energy that are now extinct yet vivid in past times. It's nice to assume conditions were identical to give a somewhat decent prediction as to what went on, but at the same time, I cannot conclude this as fact. I'm in no desperate, impatient attempt to have an observable ToE
in my current lifetime to the point where I will just auto-assume many things, claim magical emergence, and "could's" and claim them as facts.
In the field of science perhaps, but I am not a follower of arrogant scientism. I consider things from the human experience and eastern wisdom traditions also that science can not yet address.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Evolution among like kinds has been observed, it's fact. It is when scientists try to convince me that one kind changed into another completely different kind over millions of years is where I draw a line and say BS.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
You really don't have to be a follower of the scientific method. It remains by far the best method we have for determining how the universe functions, whether you follow it or not. Your lack of trust in the method doesn't mean the scientific theories governing electrons that allow you to communicate on thus forum don't work for you.
So tell me, if you can't test your evidence, how do you determine if your evidence is valid? If you can't determine if your evidence is valid, what possible worth does it have?
Actually, I applaud the scientific method, but its reach is limited to what is detectable by physical senses and instruments. The paranormal tells me there is more. And eastern wisdom traditions explain that 'more'. I have come to trust the masters of this tradition as their knowledge has by far best explained what is experienced by many and continues on from there. They claim to perceive beyond the physical senses and I have rationally come to believe them. This is not scientific proof but my best analysis considering everything.
By the way, using the scientific method aren't you agnostic to paranormal phenomena that makes no testable claims.
Last edited:
Where are you getting your information from? Of course we've seen evolution in action. The fact of evolution is well established. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
A built-in capacity for limited adaptation- is a pretty obvious, practically essential feature of any reasonably sophisticated design you can think of. We have no clear examples of this being a comprehensive design mechanism in any context. Tempting as that extrapolation may be..
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
And if something cannot be detected by physical senses or instruments (thus far), what method do you use to determine if it actually exists?
My position is that non-physical entities can affect the physical and that can be detected. But that is not predictable so it can't be studied by the scientific method.
Also, there are psychic senses we possess that can perceive what physical senses and instruments can not.