Life

[Jayhawker Soule]

Or that the intelligent designer was eternal. Something that we have no proof of or against. That seems better than claiming that the universe is eternal, which flies in the face of our scientific "best guess", don't you think?

How would you know?

 

[Sunstone]

Does it take more faith to believe that life comes from non-life than it does to believe in an intelligent designer of life?

In so far as the question is at all intelligible, then since you must believe an Intelligent Designer is more complex than its design, it would seem to take more faith to believe in an extraordinarily complex Intelligent Designer than to believe in comparatively simple chemistry.

 

[BucephalusBB]

..then since you must believe an Intelligent Designer is more complex than its design,..

And how does one define the ladder of complexity?
If an architect designs a building. Why would the architect be more complex than the building?
Because we, the same specie as the architect, understand the building better?

 

[Sunstone]

I understand that at some point there had to be an uncaused first cause...right?

Why is that?

 

[Sunstone]

In Christianity, we would say....

Who are you to speak for all Christians? Many Christians -- even in America -- accept evolution.

 

[crystalonyx]

Or that the intelligent designer was eternal. Something that we have no proof of or against. That seems better than claiming that the universe is eternal, which flies in the face of our scientific "best guess", don't you think?

Not really, the latest multiverse theories suggest the mutliverse is eternal, i.e. matter and energy have always existed. This makes sense really, otherwise you have to make the leap from "nothing" to "something". An issue of the "Skeptic" magazine dealt with this issue in depth a year or so ago.

 

[Alceste]

Who are you to speak for all Christians? Many Christians -- even in America -- accept evolution.

And if you step outside America, almost all Christians accept evolution.

 

[Magic Man]

Or that the intelligent designer was eternal. Something that we have no proof of or against. That seems better than claiming that the universe is eternal, which flies in the face of our scientific "best guess", don't you think?

I'm sorry, what is this scientific "best guess" you're talking about? Do you mean the Big Bang? The event that started with a tiny particle of matter that exploded into what we have now? You do realize that science doesn't conjecture on what happened before that, right?

That tiny particle could have been eternal, or the universe could have contracted from something like it is now into that and then exploded again. There is nothing in science that says or implies that the universe isn't or can't be eternal.

 

[kmkemp]

Evolutionary biologists make no distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. Nor should any such distinction be made, so far as I can see. What makes you think the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution is something other than so much bunk?

The distinction is that one has been observed while the other is not. I think it's a very useful distinction.

 

[kmkemp]

Not really, the latest multiverse theories suggest the mutliverse is eternal, i.e. matter and energy have always existed. This makes sense really, otherwise you have to make the leap from "nothing" to "something". An issue of the "Skeptic" magazine dealt with this issue in depth a year or so ago.

And the scientific evidence for the multiverse theory is where?

 

[kmkemp]

I'm sorry, what is this scientific "best guess" you're talking about? Do you mean the Big Bang? The event that started with a tiny particle of matter that exploded into what we have now? You do realize that science doesn't conjecture on what happened before that, right?

That tiny particle could have been eternal, or the universe could have contracted from something like it is now into that and then exploded again. There is nothing in science that says or implies that the universe isn't or can't be eternal.

The universe is the reality that erupted from that particle, not the particle itself. As far as I'm aware, the oscilating universe model has been largely abandoned by scientists pending some kind of proof.

 

[Magic Man]

The universe is the reality that erupted from that particle, not the particle itself. As far as I'm aware, the oscilating universe model has been largely abandoned by scientists pending some kind of proof.

But saying the universe came from the Big Bang is not saying it came from nowhere. It's saying that there was a tiny particle that contained the whole universe, which could have been around forever. My point is that nothing in science has implied or flat out said that the universe can't be eternal. You said that science has said that the universe is not eternal, and that is wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The universe is the reality that erupted from that particle, not the particle itself. As far as I'm aware, the oscilating universe model has been largely abandoned by scientists pending some kind of proof.

And we all know that your awareness is legendary. It amazes me that the proponents of the cyclic model didn't check with you first.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Evolutionary biologists make no distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. Nor should any such distinction be made, so far as I can see. What makes you think the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution is something other than so much bunk?

The dividing line between "micro"- and "macro"-evolution is very distinct:

- micro-evolution are those aspects of the theory of evolution that are so well-known by the general public that they must be acknowledged by even the most ardent Creationist if they want to be taken seriously (the definition of the word "kind" is closely related).

- macro-evolution is the rest of the theory, well understood by the scientific community and well-supported, but less-than-commonly known by the general public to the point that it's still possible to get a room full of people together who don't recognize that the Creationist fairy tales they're being fed violate these well-established scientific principles.

Even though this line is constantly changing, at any given point in time it's fairly rigidly defined.

 

[Alceste]

And the scientific evidence for the multiverse theory is where?

Why not go looking? Outside creationist propaganda, I mean. Go looking in scientific publications. Lots of resources are available for the layman interested in enhancing his understanding of physics. I'm not sure why it's Sunstone's job to explain multiverse theory to you.

It baffles me that proponents of ID seem not to be curious enough about physics, geology and evolutionary biology to do any reading on their own that conflicts with biblical creation stories. It creates a gulf between ID theorists and scientists that is impossible to bridge, as it is clear the ID crowd has no understanding of the scientific concepts they are trying to use to promote Christian mythology as science. A bit of reading (outside the boundaries of ID literature) would surely help promote a basic grasp of science that would then be very useful in a debate about evolution.

As it is, it seems as if ID advocates are happy only reading ID books by people who claim to have academic credentials, without comparing their findings with those of the academic community at large. (That's a propaganda technique called "appeal to authority", in case you're curious.) Why aren't they reading Stephen J Gould?

 

[Sunstone]

Why not go looking? Outside creationist propaganda, I mean. Go looking in scientific publications. Lots of resources are available for the layman interested in enhancing his understanding of physics. I'm not sure why it's Sunstone's job to explain multiverse theory to you.

It baffles me that proponents of ID seem not to be curious enough about physics, geology and evolutionary biology to do any reading on their own that conflicts with biblical creation stories. It creates a gulf between ID theorists and scientists that is impossible to bridge, as it is clear the ID crowd has no understanding of the scientific concepts they are trying to use to promote Christian mythology as science. A bit of reading (outside the boundaries of ID literature) would surely help promote a basic grasp of science that would then be very useful in a debate about evolution.

As it is, it seems as if ID advocates are happy only reading ID books by people who claim to have academic credentials, without comparing their findings with those of the academic community at large. (That's a propaganda technique called "appeal to authority", in case you're curious.) Why aren't they reading Stephen J Gould?

Let me get this straight, Alceste. You are seriously suggesting that creationist critics of evolution actually study and comprehend evolution? Are you some kind of radical? What have you got against tradition?

 

[kmkemp]

Why not go looking? Outside creationist propaganda, I mean. Go looking in scientific publications. Lots of resources are available for the layman interested in enhancing his understanding of physics. I'm not sure why it's Sunstone's job to explain multiverse theory to you.

It baffles me that proponents of ID seem not to be curious enough about physics, geology and evolutionary biology to do any reading on their own that conflicts with biblical creation stories. It creates a gulf between ID theorists and scientists that is impossible to bridge, as it is clear the ID crowd has no understanding of the scientific concepts they are trying to use to promote Christian mythology as science. A bit of reading (outside the boundaries of ID literature) would surely help promote a basic grasp of science that would then be very useful in a debate about evolution.

As it is, it seems as if ID advocates are happy only reading ID books by people who claim to have academic credentials, without comparing their findings with those of the academic community at large. (That's a propaganda technique called "appeal to authority", in case you're curious.) Why aren't they reading Stephen J Gould?

Yea man, you're right. I'm a fervant creationist who doesn't know anything about science. I guess you win!

 

[Magic Man]

Yea man, you're right. I'm a fervant creationist who doesn't know anything about science. I guess you win!

What else are we supposed to think from your comments in this thread? You've shown a lack of knowledge about science, and that you support ID.

 

[kmkemp]

What else are we supposed to think from your comments in this thread? You've shown a lack of knowledge about science, and that you support ID.

Ummm no, I'm afraid you read what you wanted to.

 

[Bishadi]

Does it take more faith to believe that life comes from non-life than it does to believe in an intelligent designer of life?

No.

the only thing that is really important is to be honest with yourself rather than become what other wish to create of you

simply the only idea of a designer or even the concepts to understand life come from what you expose yourself too; from nature you will not be lied to, from another person, may be suspect.

so be sure your faith is within your judgment