The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[InformedIgnorance]

To the effect that genitals are specialised and interdependent - they work as part of a single reproductive process - their structure is such that they are likely to have been developed at or near the same time.

Of course the fact that the two are structured in such a way as to be able to work together is backed up by evolution... given that if they were NOT then there would not have been offspring... and that the reproductive systems change gradually as a result is supported by microscopic evolution (the kind even most creationists agree with) what is more arguable is that the reproductive mechanism itself of some distant ancestor may have altered from a yet more distant ancestor organism which was unisex... that is the more difficult of the arguments to make however there are theories that back it up.

 

[Vger]

To the effect that genitals are specialised and interdependent - they work as part of a single reproductive process - their structure is such that they are likely to have been developed at or near the same time.

Of course the fact that the two are structured in such a way as to be able to work together is backed up by evolution... given that if they were NOT then there would not have been offspring... and that the reproductive systems change gradually as a result is supported by microscopic evolution (the kind even most creationists agree with) what is more arguable is that the reproductive mechanism itself of some distant ancestor may have altered from a yet more distant ancestor organism which was unisex... that is the more difficult of the arguments to make however there are theories that back it up.

So , if I am understanding this correct. All that is being said is that we came from a one cell being and evolved to where we are. If that about it or am I really off here?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That is what most evolutionary theories boil down to at some stage or other.

But no, his post is saying that the fact that male and female reproductive systems actually work - indicates that they 'must' have been designed by God to work together and therefore this is proof or at least significant evidence that God designed everything.

 

[Vger]

Well I myself tend to lean toward ID but evolution and ID really does not conflict with one another.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

No they don't... unless you take a literal approach to a particular creation story in your use of ID

For example, it would most certainly be arguable that a God could have inspired a very simplistic creation story rather that the real thing, because human intelligence is limited... especially back a couple thousand years.... instead the literalistic interpretation is a denial of the capacity for these stories to be the subject of non-literal interpretation.... their vehemence truly baffles me.

 

[Vger]

No they don't... unless you take a literal approach to a particular creation story in your use of ID

I have found that it is hard to take anything literal when it comes to ID or evolution. I don't believe all of the evidence is in yet , on either of them.

 

[Vger]

You sound like a skeptic and that is a good thing.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well I am a proponent of evolution and am very strongly agnostic in my theological position on the overwhelming majority of concepts for 'god'(s) that I have encountered... that makes me a very critical thinker (or perhaps I should say vice versa)

Unfortunately, it is critical thinking itself which literalists abhor; the adherents of literalistic interpretation find critical thinking threatening.

 

[Vger]

Well I am a proponent of evolution and am very strongly agnostic in my theological position on the overwhelming majority of concepts for 'god'(s) that I have encountered... that makes me a very critical thinker (or perhaps I should say vice versa)

Unfortunately, it is critical thinking itself which literalists abhor; the adherents of literalistic interpretation find critical thinking threatening.

I would rather side with a skeptic who is not an atheist than an atheist who is not a skeptic.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

what is more arguable is that the reproductive mechanism itself of some distant ancestor may have altered from a yet more distant ancestor organism which was unisex... that is the more difficult of the arguments to make however there are theories that back it up.

And this is why I asked him about Hermaphrodites (Intersexuals). They are born with both male and female organs and can get pregnant. The answer I got from him was 'they are like they are because this was a result when "sin" entered the world'......Human and Non-Human Primate Male Nipples seems to be a conundrum for creationist as well.....

 

[Vger]

And this is why I asked him about Hermaphrodites (Intersexuals). They are born with both male and female organs and can get pregnant. The answer I got from him was 'they are like they are because this was a result when "sin" entered the world'......Human and Non-Human Primate Male Nipples seems to be a conundrum for creationist as well.....

It is possible that he should give this a little more thought before he answers.

 

[outhouse]

I have found that it is hard to take anything literal when it comes to ID or evolution. I don't believe all of the evidence is in yet , on either of them.

thats sad

because there is no debate about the facts regarding evolution.

ID however needs all its evidence because there is none at all. Its a known man created myth

 

[Photonic]

thats sad

because there is no debate about the facts regarding evolution.

ID however needs all its evidence because there is none at all. Its a known man created myth

Well, ID is based on the LACK of evidence.

Which is a very poor form for a supposed scientific hypothesis. Why?

Because if you assume the answer before the evidence, you twist the facts to suit the theory. Science is about twisting the theory to suit the evidence.

 

[Vger]

thats sad

because there is no debate about the facts regarding evolution.

ID however needs all its evidence because there is none at all. Its a known man created myth

What is sad is the fact that you come off as you know what you are talking about and no one else does. But that is OK , The simple fact of your statement above shows me that your line of thought is no better than most theist I have run into. One of the things I have found is that The term ‘atheist’ does not convey any commitment to critical thinking, science advocacy, or sincere inquiry. Atheism does not describe one’s stance on critical thinking. In fact, I’ve encountered many an atheist boasting only limited critical thinking skills, without any desire to improve them. So keep believing what you believe and ignoring evidence that shows a different view. Whatever works for you.

 

[Photonic]

What is sad is the fact that you come off as you know what you are talking about and no one else does. But that is OK , The simple fact of your statement above shows me that your line of thought is no better than most theist I have run into. One of the things I have found is that The term ‘atheist’ does not convey any commitment to critical thinking, science advocacy, or sincere inquiry. Atheism does not describe one’s stance on critical thinking. In fact, I’ve encountered many an atheist boasting only limited critical thinking skills, without any desire to improve them. So keep believing what you believe and ignoring evidence that shows a different view. Whatever works for you.

Considering the only evidence is a lack of evidence, that's hardly a worthy notion to base even the most delusional arguments on.

 

[Vger]

Considering the only evidence is a lack of evidence, that's hardly a worthy notion to base even the most delusional arguments on.

First off I am not a theist. But there is some evidence toward ID. You may find the book "There is a God" by Anthony Flew interesting. I just feel that anyone that is so sure of their beliefs that they know with out a doubt that they are correct , just is not using their mind for much.If you are an atheist, and you maintain that there is no way you would ever believe in God, then you are not a skeptic. An atheist who is not a skeptic is just another troll, as far as I’m concerned. However, even if I were somehow convinced that God exists, I would not cease being a skeptic. I would still adhere to the same core epistemic values of critical thinking, honest inquiry, and empirical support for beliefs.As I feel we all should. If not , you may as well believe in the tooth fairy.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think this was it....http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2763875-post442.html.....It didn't make any sense and it doesn't make any sense now...

Ok, so tell me what part didn't make sense and i will be happy to elaborate. It was plain and simple. How does the males gentitals have exactly what is needed within it to reproduce with a female, and vice versa? There is no good answer for this.

 

[shawn001]

"But there is some evidence toward ID."

what would that be? Because the "fine Tuning" arguement doesn't work.

ID according to the IDers is a hypothesis, with not one proven fact. The ID Movement even lied to repackage creationism to call it ID so they could try to push christianity and creationism in schools again. The document had c-design in it, by accident, because they didn't totally edit the wedge document. They say ID could be any "god" or alien or anything, but it is clearly a Christian fringe movement to repackage creationism.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

To the effect that genitals are specialised and interdependent - they work as part of a single reproductive process - their structure is such that they are likely to have been developed at or near the same time.

Just as the bible indicates. There is no possible way that the early stages of the reproductive process could have been happening simultaenously or near the same time without the direction of an I.D'er. As the male was developing the penis, there is no possible way the female could have been simulatenously developing the vagina. Without an intelligent agent, how would the vagina even KNOW to BEGIN developing??? Lies!!!

Of course the fact that the two are structured in such a way as to be able to work together is backed up by evolution... given that if they were NOT then there would not have been offspring...

Backed by evolution? Nonsense. As I stated before, the only way evolution could have taken place would be with the help of an intelligent agent. Evolution is a faith based system. This whole "given if they were not then there would not have been offspring"is just an obviously way to fast foward to the effect without providing a plausible answer for the cause. Remember, one genders evolutionary history is completely indepedent of the other. So I will ask again, how, on a evolutionary view, could either gender evolved a reproductive system to be compatible with the other one without the guidance of an Intelligent Designer. If you say both happened at the same time the question is how would one gender evovle precisely the right ingredients within its system to be compatible with the other, at the EXACT same time?? If you say it happened over time, the question becomes how was it reproducing up until it evolved the right compatible ingredients???

and that the reproductive systems change gradually as a result is supported by microscopic evolution (the kind even most creationists agree with) what is more arguable is that the reproductive mechanism itself of some distant ancestor may have altered from a yet more distant ancestor organism which was unisex... that is the more difficult of the arguments to make however there are theories that back it up.

If it is "some distant ancestor" you are presupposing the effect without proving an explanation of the cause. If it has an ancestor that in itself suggests some kind of reproductive process. But this doesn't get pass my original point. Evolution is a religion. There are some things within it that has truth value. But other things are completely either lies or faith based. When you mix fact with fiction, the whole thing becomes a lie.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Wow. ok, I guess I don't get it either.

Oh, to bad. InformedIgnorance seemed to get it, i guess he/she is more smart than you are.