That should not surprise you, that is the way God willed/designed to be.
-
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, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?
- Thread starter Im an Atheist
- Start date
If thats true, god has a sick fascination with beetles. There are about 350,000 different species of beetles on earth.
Auto wrote:
That’s another constitutional right of mine, and science is good to use in discussion with scientifically inclined people such as you. Remember that most of us here end up agreeing that this is so science cannot prove or disprove God, I know that there is no way that I can prove to an atheist that there is God through science or anything else but the only way to continue the discussion is to use what they believe is their evidences. I believe that there are evidences in science and nature or as the Bible says in the thing made. What the problem?
That’s another constitutional right of mine, and science is good to use in discussion with scientifically inclined people such as you. Remember that most of us here end up agreeing that this is so science cannot prove or disprove God, I know that there is no way that I can prove to an atheist that there is God through science or anything else but the only way to continue the discussion is to use what they believe is their evidences. I believe that there are evidences in science and nature or as the Bible says in the thing made. What the problem?
It's not the duty of science to prove or disprove claims made about a god. You can't prove to anyone that there is a god through science. There in lays the problem. Science is neutral on those issues. In fact science works best when it stays neutral on those issues.
AH Zebras, Why are they Zebras and not humans?
The evidence that God loves humans more than He loves Zebras is: "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all [fn] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
The chromosomal changes in Zebras did not endow them with the capacity/potential to have dominion over the creation that includes Zebras, human are the highlight of creationism and evolutionism irrational brutes aren’t.
Gen 1:28
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Really? and what purpose would they all fill?
The ID theory that we are discussing is evidence for the existance of God even through science and evolution is one of them. It is not it duty but we can use it.
Science is working on that, but be sure that there is one.
Well, there would have to be 350,000 reasons. I'm sure there are reasons for their existence, I was just wondering if you knew what they were since you just asserted that they did, with no evidence to back the claim. There are certain insects however, that serve no purpose.
I find that hard to believe, I am not a scientist and I am sure that they are to busy studying Chimps and hominids, I can wait, it will come to them no big lost or we may be lucky and get a replay that solve our problem.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, they're all useful in some way, but nothing has a purpose.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
@ emilano
Part 1 design of life
One of the most persuasive argument for theologists has always been this idea that creatures were somehow designed. Paleys watch and watchmaker is an example of this. This was essentially an argument from incredulity. What they, and you, are saying is I cant see how this occurred therefore goddunit. To illustrate the ridiculousness of this here is what they, and you, are doing:
We cant explain design [SIZE=+3]→[/SIZE]Goddidit
We cant explain it [SIZE=+3]→[/SIZE] We can explain it
The above is enough to illustrate the fallacy involved, but there is something even stronger that can be brought to the table. The design in creatures has been explained natural selection. The DNA molecule isnt copied perfectly when organisms replicate creating new variation. Some of new variation is better suited to the environment meaning the creatures possessing this advantageous variations are more likely to reproduce and pass this advantageous variations to the next generation. The environment is selecting those creatures best suited to survive and reproduce within that environment. This is the process that has designed the creatures on this planet to fit their respective environments.
Did you know that using the concept of natural selection scientists can write computer programs that produce designs far better than human designers can? For example, genetic algorithms that mimic natural selection can design satellite orbits that outperform those designed by humans?
When you talk about the design of creatures being evidence of god, not only is it flawed from purely logical perspective, it also flys in the face of the design process of natural selection that science has discovered to be the cause of it.
Part 2 design of the solar system
How are the planets so perfectly aligned so they do not collide? How are they all spherical in shape? Who/what designed this most wondrous of cosmic dances?
That designer is [SIZE=+3]GRAVITY!!!![/SIZE]
Here is the idea is 5 steps.
Step 1 - Matter attracts matter because of gravity. If you had a cloud of stationary matter, of which most was hydrogen, out in space then gravity would, given sufficient time, cause it to collapse in on itself. Such clouds of matter undergoing gravitational collapse have been observed by the Hubble telescope.
Step 2 As clouds of matter collapse under gravity they begin to spin (the spinning is a consequence of a collapse with non-uniform density). Some of this hydrogen material, at the core of the cloud, become a new star. This process of star formation can be observed with sufficiently powerful telescopes.
Step 3 Some of the material, including some of the heavier elements, will be thrown outwards by the spinning cloud. Some of this material may, provided it gained sufficient kinetic energy, go into orbit around the central protostar. This material will, under further gravitational collapse, coalesce into rings that will become protoplanets.
Step 4 After sufficient time the protostar will stabilise under gravity and undergo the process of nucleur fusion. Basically the sheer weight of the material will force hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium releasing large amounts of nuclear energy. This is how our sun operates. The sheer weight of the suns material under gravity is forcing hydrogen to undergo nuclear fusion, releasing enough energy to counterbalance the force of gravity creating what is called stellar equilibrium.
Step 5 Those protoplanets will similarly stabilise under gravity to become planets. These planets do not have enough material to be forced into nuclear fusion like the sun was. These planets also contain greater proportion of heavier elements due to lighter elements escaping the unstable protoplanets atmosphere, and due to the bias of heavier elements being more likely to gain momentum during the original clouds collapse.
In short, gravity explains why the planets appear to be in such perfect orbits. It should also be noted that there are many asteroids, comets and meteors orbiting the sun that are in much less perfect orbits, which sometimes leads to collisions[/quote].
Part 3 design of the universe
Until I can get what purpose the universe was designed for this doesnt need to be addressed.
The claim that the universe was designed for life is ludicrous given the absolute scarcity of places that life could survive. If I found an iron atom in my house I would be out of order in claiming my house was designed or fine-tuned for producing iron. So why is it not out of order to claim the universe was designed for life? The ratio of habitable space to the universe is far worse than the ratio of an iron atom to my house.
The usual response is to say that the universe was fine-tuned in order to make life a possibility. Can someone show me that doubling the force of gravity (for example) would prevent life from arising? Life as we know it wouldnt exist in such a universe but can you show me that no other form of life can exist?
Look at the variety of lifeforms that have every existed on our planet every single one is adapted to their environment. The environment was not designed for us, rather we (by we I mean all lifeforms) have been adapted to the environment.
Part 1 design of life
One of the most persuasive argument for theologists has always been this idea that creatures were somehow designed. Paleys watch and watchmaker is an example of this. This was essentially an argument from incredulity. What they, and you, are saying is I cant see how this occurred therefore goddunit. To illustrate the ridiculousness of this here is what they, and you, are doing:
We cant explain design [SIZE=+3]→[/SIZE]Goddidit
We cant explain it [SIZE=+3]→[/SIZE] We can explain it
The above is enough to illustrate the fallacy involved, but there is something even stronger that can be brought to the table. The design in creatures has been explained natural selection. The DNA molecule isnt copied perfectly when organisms replicate creating new variation. Some of new variation is better suited to the environment meaning the creatures possessing this advantageous variations are more likely to reproduce and pass this advantageous variations to the next generation. The environment is selecting those creatures best suited to survive and reproduce within that environment. This is the process that has designed the creatures on this planet to fit their respective environments.
Did you know that using the concept of natural selection scientists can write computer programs that produce designs far better than human designers can? For example, genetic algorithms that mimic natural selection can design satellite orbits that outperform those designed by humans?
When you talk about the design of creatures being evidence of god, not only is it flawed from purely logical perspective, it also flys in the face of the design process of natural selection that science has discovered to be the cause of it.
Part 2 design of the solar system
How are the planets so perfectly aligned so they do not collide? How are they all spherical in shape? Who/what designed this most wondrous of cosmic dances?
That designer is [SIZE=+3]GRAVITY!!!![/SIZE]
Here is the idea is 5 steps.
Step 1 - Matter attracts matter because of gravity. If you had a cloud of stationary matter, of which most was hydrogen, out in space then gravity would, given sufficient time, cause it to collapse in on itself. Such clouds of matter undergoing gravitational collapse have been observed by the Hubble telescope.
Step 2 As clouds of matter collapse under gravity they begin to spin (the spinning is a consequence of a collapse with non-uniform density). Some of this hydrogen material, at the core of the cloud, become a new star. This process of star formation can be observed with sufficiently powerful telescopes.
Step 3 Some of the material, including some of the heavier elements, will be thrown outwards by the spinning cloud. Some of this material may, provided it gained sufficient kinetic energy, go into orbit around the central protostar. This material will, under further gravitational collapse, coalesce into rings that will become protoplanets.
Step 4 After sufficient time the protostar will stabilise under gravity and undergo the process of nucleur fusion. Basically the sheer weight of the material will force hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium releasing large amounts of nuclear energy. This is how our sun operates. The sheer weight of the suns material under gravity is forcing hydrogen to undergo nuclear fusion, releasing enough energy to counterbalance the force of gravity creating what is called stellar equilibrium.
Step 5 Those protoplanets will similarly stabilise under gravity to become planets. These planets do not have enough material to be forced into nuclear fusion like the sun was. These planets also contain greater proportion of heavier elements due to lighter elements escaping the unstable protoplanets atmosphere, and due to the bias of heavier elements being more likely to gain momentum during the original clouds collapse.
In short, gravity explains why the planets appear to be in such perfect orbits. It should also be noted that there are many asteroids, comets and meteors orbiting the sun that are in much less perfect orbits, which sometimes leads to collisions[/quote].
Part 3 design of the universe
Until I can get what purpose the universe was designed for this doesnt need to be addressed.
The claim that the universe was designed for life is ludicrous given the absolute scarcity of places that life could survive. If I found an iron atom in my house I would be out of order in claiming my house was designed or fine-tuned for producing iron. So why is it not out of order to claim the universe was designed for life? The ratio of habitable space to the universe is far worse than the ratio of an iron atom to my house.
The usual response is to say that the universe was fine-tuned in order to make life a possibility. Can someone show me that doubling the force of gravity (for example) would prevent life from arising? Life as we know it wouldnt exist in such a universe but can you show me that no other form of life can exist?
Look at the variety of lifeforms that have every existed on our planet every single one is adapted to their environment. The environment was not designed for us, rather we (by we I mean all lifeforms) have been adapted to the environment.
What do you find hard to believe? I told you there were 350,000 different species of beetles, and you said they must all serve a purpose. And I replied, yes there would have to 350,000 reasons. So, I don't know what you find hard to believe.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
My only problem is when you step in and say "______ couldn't have happened naturally it must have been a miracle" when indeed the event was natural and has happened several times. (such as chromosomal fusion).
One has to be very careful when discussing science and religion... not to read too much into the science and start looking for miracles. Especially when you get into subjects that you only have a little experience with because it makes the chance for error so much greater.
This is true... and neither did our chromosomal fusion... all it shows is that chromosomal fusion isn't you're miracle event. Or evidence of Intelligent Design... You will have to keep looking.
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
erm... while I'm hesitant to assign 'purpose'.... If one considers niche filling a 'purpose' then I'm not sure I can agree with this.Tristesse said:
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
*sigh*. emiliano: Science is about the natural world. It does ask or answer any questions about God. Science assumes that God so willed, or did not, either way, and asks only, "How?" So if you believe God so willed it, then Biology wants to know how He did so. One hypothesis, that of YEC, is magic poofing. Another, which turned out to be incorrect, is Lamarckian descent. Finally it turned out that He did so through evolution, that is, descent with modificiation plus natural selection.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Why do people assert their constitutional right to be wrong? Of course that's your right, but how is that relevant? It doesn't make your argument any more correct.
Well, emil, just for clarity's sake, rather than lead people to believe you're questioning science, or asserting ID, which is anti-science, maybe we should start a thread to discuss your assertion that science proves the glory of God. What say you?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Really? What is it?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What ID theory is that? Could you lay it out? The term is used in many different ways.
You better hope you're not relying on ID theory, as it has been thoroughly debunked.