Science tries to explain the diversity of life with the Theory of Evolution. If a scientist proposed a different theory, that a god personally produced every species or "kind" on the planet, what next? Where does he go from there? Do we provide funding so he can begin looking for this god or gods and provide evidence for their existence?
-
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!
What is Evolution?
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
if a scientist (or anybody) proposes that organisms were created in their current forms as is and there has been no substantial change over the course of their ancestral history, then we ask them to present evidence, and to refute existing evidence to the contrary. They can find evidence how they like, there is no central funding body for all science.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Sure, you said yourself you had difficulty understanding it - but it's really not a terribly difficult concept- it's just written to appear as if it is. let me simplify
some features from individual to individual are different, with no effect on the functionality of the design
other features vary and do have a consequential effect.
we can compare the rates at which each feature is passed on over the other, and so the rate of the selection of the consequential feature over the non consequential one, proving that one is being selected over the other. duh
But again, am I talking about cars or life? I dunno either- because the principle is the same, superior designs will be selected over inferior ones, or ones that are different in an inconsequential way.. we all get that
The problems begin when we realize that random changes with neutral or negative consequences vastly outnumber positives. Acquiring a significant design advantage by design, not a problem, acquiring the same by accident, problematic...
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That's exactly why the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so named. Simple explanations are often the most tempting, not always the most adequate.
"The course of human evolution has been punctuated by a long succession of chance discoveries and accidental inventions; and in fact, experts estimate that between 30 and 50 percent of of all scientific discoveries are in some way accidental."
http://www.mnn.com/leaderboard/stories/10-accidental-inventions-that-changed-the-world
I am failing to see this really address the maths sayak83 posted. If you have any actual interest in understanding this particular topic, research into the 'Hardy-Weinberg Principle'.
It's more about mathematical proof of the action of evolutionary processes upon existing populations.
So do you think we should start funding scientists so they can start looking for gods? Maybe the SETI project will find them anyway.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Nice post.
However, the problem with almost all creationists, including those here on RF isn't that they don't understand what evolution is or how it is supposed to work, but that they don't care to. Having committed themselves to the utter truth of the Bible, anything, no matter what it may be, ethics, the variety of life, or the formation of the universe, has to completely agree with their beliefs or it's simply false. No ifs, ands, or buts. Oh, they'll pick up on a point or two to debate, but it isn't to attain a better understanding. It's to refute and try to demolish the beast of evolution that threatens the peace of mind their religion brings them. The thinking being: if evolution is right then my religious theology has to be wrong, And if that's wrong, what is there to live for . . . . well, perhaps not bad, but they've got a huge emotional investment in the truth of their faith. One that's just too valuable to allow to be picked at. Hell, just look at any of the creationists web sites and see how much they're forced to lie about evolution. Why lie? Because on its own creationism has virtually nothing to stand on other than "The Bible tells me so," whereas evolution is backed by impartial evidence, reason, and logic, things religious faith can't lay claim to . . . . . . . well, justifiably anyway.
Again, good post.
.
That's a lie. There are Christian websites that promote Creation and show the science actually proves it rather than contradicts it. Here is one.
www.icr.org
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Kirran , the 'math' is merely is a means of identifying the principle here, nobody is debating the simple math in the post, it's fine- and it proves natural selection in life yes.
The point was that we can also mathematically prove natural selection in cars, it doesn't prove, or even suggest in the slightest, that design improvements are accidental
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
So we can prove that trial and error works wonders where we have intelligence to select results, provide a motive, goals.
How can you apply the Hardy-Weinberg formula to cars, Guy?
How do you pronounce Guy, is it the same as guy? Or is it like Gee? I've never met anybody called that
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
well SETI has found the so called 'great silence' that as far as we can tell we are alone, the primary beneficiaries of creation, I wouldn't call that inconsistent with God no!
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
How can you apply the Hardy-Weinberg formula to cars, Guy?
How do you pronounce Guy, is it the same as guy? Or is it like Gee? I've never met anybody called that
without external influences, a successful design will not change,
you tell me which one of these I am referring to and why.
It's guy, short for Guybrush
So which fields of scientific research do you think we should discontinue so we can allocate the money to search for gods?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
It looks like you're new here. You get a pass on this one.
You've got a lot of seasoning yet to come
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I think if 'we' fund science at all, it should be the method, the search for truth, not science the academic ideology.
And the proof is in the pudding, arguably the greatest theoretical scientific breakthroughs of all time came from skeptics of atheism like Lemaitre and Planck. While some of the greatest practical breakthroughs came from high school drop-outs like Wilbur and Oliver.
Academic atheists like Hawking, Sagan, deGrasse Tyson, Dawkins, do better in pop culture, TV shows, book sales perhaps, but actual contribution to science itself? not so much
In searching directly for fingerprints of intelligent design, now you're talking about the cutting edge of scientific investigation going on right now, unconstrained by 150 year old theories like Darwinism. The search for subatomic/ quantum blueprints guiding biology, as we found existed for physics. A definitive indivisable unit of resolution to space/time, and various information system fingerprints that we can recognize from our own coding- it's gets pretty interesting.
Even many atheists are beginning to consider the possibity of 'extra-universal' alien intelligence accounting for all this- as long as we don't call it 'God' of course!
That's fine by me, all our beliefs are personal choices/ belief in the end. And where we acknowledge that belief as such, we call it faith
Must run but I appreciate the thoughtful discourse
Last edited:
So no application of the Hardy-Weinberg formula?
Cool! So not pronounced the French way
Some atheists have considered this for quite a while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raëlism
So why don't all the theists and atheists join forces and spend all our efforts and resources and money on actually finding this or these Intelligent Designers?
If you become a Realian, you get to go to orgies too.
Have you tried it?