FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

[Mouldy]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

I€™m an atheist, But the alien theory is quite compelling lol

[craig_anto]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

impose their narrow minded religious views on the rest of us

This is a minority not majority, the amount of people that have said to me i didnt know u were religous is substantial. I choose to accept other peoples beliefs are there own, and mine are mine. I know what i believe and i stick to it. The Bible is open to interpritation if u read everything as it is written and dont see that is is jus a book of stories and views that has evolved over 2000 years. Some facts can be distorted by thousands of people telling them. In fact if u read the bible in latin it makes for very diferent reading.

A hundered or so years ago the religous types would have been throwing eden down your throat over evolution, now its the other way round. I have the freedom to choose what i believe some times it defys logic, but if id of listend to them id never of built Tanto.

[terryc]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

Im with Darwin on this. ID had nothing to do with the evolution of my robot.

[philip_taylor]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

Does anyone/everyone believe in the law that says in a closed system without the input of energy things go from a state of higher order to a state of lower order

Where did the energy come from to make everything we see. The many and varied theories of evolution have always contradicted the law of entropy IMO.

Nothing exploded just does not do it for me.

[nick]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

Where did the energy come from?

Conservation of energy is the logical consequence of the laws of nature not changing with time. It follows that at the moment of creation of time there can be no conservation of energy.

entropy

You may have misunderstood the law of entropy. The entropy of the Earth and all things on it is not doomed to increase endlessly since excess entropy is radiated into space as heat. Life on Earth takes things with low entropy and converts them into waste materials of higher entropy as a means of maintaining or increasing the internal order of its own structures. The overall increase of entropy with time is always very positive, so no thermodynamic laws are violated. All this extra entropy is removed from life-forms partly through excretion and by far larger amounts into the atmosphere or oceans as waste heat. Space is extremely huge and cold and very nearly empty - it will be able to receive this entropy in the form of low energy photons indefinitely. Were all heat trapped on Earth, life here would quickly become impossible by any means but evolution has essentially no bearing on the viability of this process since every living reproducing thing is similar in this respect.

[jamesb]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

just my little bit of input to see how people respond.

if you count how many stars, planets and etc are out there, it approximtes infinate possibility (not exactly true, but close enough to make my point) if the odds of a little blue planet being a set distance from a sun like ours, with a moon and all of our conditions existing is 1 in 100 million to the power 1 hundred million, then in an infinite possibility universe, there are an infinate number of this world exactly as it is. reduce the number to less than infinate, and we still have a high probability the we exist more than once. its not ID, its just playing the odds.

also, if there is a universse made of matter and time (simplifying a lot there ) then for matter to equal 0 time must be 0, but for anything other than this, for matter to be infinatly small (approximating 0) then time must be approximating infinity. So all time existed at once as matter approched 0. this means that as time approaches 0 (the end of days) matter approximates infinity, meaning that the gravity invloved collapses things to infinate density. this then creates a point of infinate mass, and 0 time, which cannot exist as anything multiplied by 0 = 0, so there must be a reversal as something moves into negativity (reverse time or anti matter?) in a big bang?

just thinking out loud

[james...venom]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

A higher intellegance kills its own theory really.

if everything was here by gods saying, then fate would be real, god has designed curcumstances to happen. if this was the case we wouldnt have any control over what we do because god would have already decided/designed things for us. that being the case there can be no heaven and hell or good and evil simply because we had no control over our actions so how could we have led a good or bad life as it was gods doing. that being the case why on earth would god send his son down to earth and make us kill him so brutally?

Everything on this earth, and all circumstanses have an explanation. for example the sunami over in india. the plates of the earth are constantly moveing, as 2 collide they slowly over time build up pressure and slip causeing an earthquake in the ocean which in turn causes a tidal wave.

However i would like to have faith in somthing that is stronger than us but not to the extent that i have no control over my life. faith is a humans strongest asset. its what makes us top dog down here and will keep us alive otherwise if there was nothing to have faith in we would all be misserable gits as there would be no meaning to life. just my 2 cents.

[tunna]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

I recon not only is the Universe bigger than we understand, its bigger than we can understand!}}

[philip_taylor]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

the scientific evidence in support of Darwin is unimpeachable Darwins theory of evolution would be called Darwins law of evolution if it was proved. There is no unimpeachable evidence at all.

There has not been a single missing link found that has not been disputed.

There was a program on TV a while back on evolution that said that the complete lack of missing links has lead the scientific community to abandon Darwins Gradualism and replace it with puntuated equilibrium.

[tunna]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

Thats it} over my head,

[jamesb]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

so what you are looking for Philip is something that is halfway between a human and an ape....
you obviously havent met me yet then?

at the end of the day anyone who puts thought into the whole why and how we are here, is that not one of the meanings of life?

thats right, i may not know which sandwich is cheese and which is egg (so i take both) but ive figured out the meanings of life.

reproduction, love, self discovery, happiness and full pressure axes. IMHO

[craig_anto]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

no matter how full pressure u go James ill still blunt ur axe

[geeza]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

I think its is possible (although I dont) to believe in Darwinism, ID and Big Bang theory. If a god-like being created the universe from the big bang (bear in mind science is still unable to say what caused the big bang). Darwinism could be the guiding of life by some a god. But this then brings the question of fate, if all life and evolution is guided are we free or is our life mapped out for us?

[dogbot4000]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

Both.:wink::new::-)

[babeth]

FRA Debate - Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution

Read the Honor Harrington-books of David Weber and you get a more interesting idea of god... the Tester.
Actually the people on the world of Grayson believe in the Tester, the Intercessor and the Comforter. A god who puts tests everywhere on your path, life itself being the ultimate test, and if you havent passed them well... ah well, He will try to help you out and even if that wont work at least Hell console you. Or something like that. They dont believe in pre-determination, but they do believe that too much technology is bad for humanity, especially the technology that made them tinker with our genes. Interesting concept really. You have to read the books Im afraid, if you want more explanation, Im rambling on long enough here as it is.

There have been recent new findings about the history of our species: archeologists found shells with holes drilled in them to form a necklace in a site that was way older than expected, setting the theory of humankinds first aestethic abilities some 50.000 years back in time. Even the Neanderthals, an evolutionary dead-end according to DNA-testing, knew about body adornment and buried their dead with beautiful things. We are still working with theory because it all happened so long ago mankind had no recollection of it and we can only guess as to the meaning of artifacts we dig up or find. Why the cave-paintings ? Why the use of ocre on dead bodies ? What did they look like ? How did they live ? We can only guess.

But the people who advocate Intelligent Design claim that there is only one principle and that one is more than set in stone... their god. They claim something that nobody has ever seen or felt or tasted. But science has to work with the tangible and educated guesses (brought on or shored up by facts). Artifacts tell us that someone long ago liked shells, or knew how to carve a horse from a stick, but there is no artifact that shows us a Higher Being did it or made people do it. The ID-advocates claim that their theory is as valid as Darwins. But Darwin at least could show us the fossils and what descended from them. He never really implied that no god could have been responsible, he simply stated that our world and all that lives on it have evolved from a lower state to a more complex one, and that there have been many changes.
What the ID-advocates hate about Darwin is that he never put the responsibility in the Divine corner. He simply stated facts.
And that is what science is about... no interference from religions, simply researching the facts with all possibilities open. Even for religious possibilities, but you have to prove them with hard facts.
And you know how the God of the Bible is... never showing Himself, but hiding in a burning bush or in roiling clouds or in a flaming pillar... never leaving a trace. How unkind of Him.