I won't hide the fact that I'm a Christian, but if I weren't I'd find it very hard to believe that it's possible for the complexity that we see in the natural world to product of random chance. I believe that everything in existence was designed by God. Just look at the complexity of a cell, our DNA, the processes that keep everything in the universe going, I just don't see how that can be the product of random chance. I know that I'll most likely get torn to shreds and insulted for posting this, but I really hope some of you go see Expelled and take another look at the possibility.

Well, I won't tear you to shreds, just argue that your incredulity is not an argument for intelligent design. Many of us see what you believe to be God as too complex (not to mention to anthropomorphic) to have come about by random chance, so using your logic (or lack thereof) he must have been designed (most likely by us). Don't forget, the large amount of complexity you perceive around you in the natural world is minuscule compared to the astronomical simplicity of the observable universe.


From everything I have read about the movie, if I am going to give ID a chance, Expelled wouldn't be giving it a fair one. Sounds like it focuses on Nazism's alleged ties to evolutionary theory (argument from consequences is never valid), takes quotes out of context (dishonesty leading me to distrust anything else it has to say), and argues against evolutionary theory more than for ID (using a false dichotomy, and missing the fact that evolution being right/wrong has nothing to do with the rightness/wrongness of ID).

Evolution is not random.

"the proof is in the fossil record."

Explain the "Precambrian Explosion", then.

I disbelive in evoloution for many reasons, but my main one is: it puts creatures with completely different biologies in each other's "lines of decent." For example, some evolotionists belive our four-chambered heart goes back to a small reptile of the Carboniforus Period.

EXCUSE ME?! the Delapodasaur was a REPTILE, humans are MAMMALS. Going from one species to another is one thing, but from CLASSIFICATION of animal to another?

Yeah right.

Random genetic mutations are a key mechanism in natural and sexual selection, the engines behind evolution.

Sometimes I wish I could travel back to the Council of Nicaea and ask them to forget the whole Genesis thing while they were busy editing and debating the "word of God."

"I won't hide the fact that I'm a Christian, but if I weren't I'd find it very hard to believe that it's possible for the complexity that we see in the natural world to product of random chance. I believe that everything in existence was designed by God. Just look at the complexity of a cell, our DNA, the processes that keep everything in the universe going, I just don't see how that can be the product of random chance."

And then there were two...

BTW,I'm a Christian myself, and I interpret the Bible literaly, but there are some beliefs I find ridiculous, like Earth being 6000 years old. That's no only irrational, it's flat-out stupid. Or natural resources beling unlimited/global warming being a big lie/overpopulation a hoax. These are not Christian beliefs, they are extremist, idiotic beliefs.

There are creatures with "completely different biologies"? Last I checked, most known animals, outside of invertebrates and arthropods, have four appendages, a head, a tail or tail-like skeletal feature, reproductive organs near the lower/rear appendages, bi-symmetrical body configurations, most sensory organs located in/near the head, skin, and many have hair/scales/feathers covering the exterior of their skin. Also, I could be wrong, but don't (asking no one in particular) hairs, scales, and feathers share similar molecular configurations and origins (in the sense of how our bodies produce them)?


Maybe you do in the future and that is how all those prophecies we hear about are so clear and accurate (sarcasm intended); but forget, or decline for reasons you have yet to learn, to make the aforementioned suggestion.

Personally I think this country has far more to fear from fundamentalist Christians than from fundamentalist Muslims.

Go spout your proselytizing elsewhere.

I really do object to this interjection of religious crap. And I literally mean crap.

This thread is as offensive to me as child pornography. I don't see why we need to be subjected to this.

My reasoning scientificly to why there is no god to clarify my last post for SetarcosNous: "A lack of a non-proof is not proof."

Mathamaticly speaking it is like saying: Even though [X does not = 2], it does not mean [X is actually = 1].

And I have yet to see an argument to why one should choose a religion over another other than reprocutions in the unprovable after-life. Even if people say a God or even multiple Gods will do bad things/smite you while your alive, It have never been proven with a statistical test, and I'll say it again. Lack of a disproof does not equal proof.


Edit:
To quote a friend, "If I beleaved in God because there is no way to disprove him then I would have to beleave in unicorns and dwarves with green hats living in a basement typeing the next starwars movie."

Edit 2:
I think the complexity actualy aids the argument, as one organism changes a little to survive better only the ones who can catch and eat it will survive, the ones with the right characteristics will live the rest will die, the genetic advantage will live on. Over billions of years this would happen thousands of millions of times (english million) which will cause massive ammounts of complexity.

I can see we most likely agree 100%; however, you are not scientifically proving the non-existence of god(s). You are logically denying that there is proof of god. As the friend you quoted said, "If I believed in God because there is no way to disprove him then I would have to believe in unicorns...". This can be taken a step further. If I believe in one religion's god(s) due to lack of disproof, I must believe in all religions' god(s) due to lack of disproof. Luckily, while there may be no disproof of god(s) in general, there is plenty of disproof for most religions' god(s) (or at least their claims to be able to "know" or understand such beings).

No, seriously.

The alternative theory to evolution is magic. If species didn't evolve gradually overtime they either

A) Were Seeded by Aliens
Instasummoned by god, just like the bible. God probably used magic, but because he's god, he ignores the need for semantic components.
C) Were always here forever
D) ????Profit?

A and C are pretty unreasonable (Although A is far more likely than B, frankly) and D pretty much professes ignorance. If you don't have a better idea, what are we supposed to do? Stop all genetic research while you consult your nose hairs?

If god -didn't- use magic, then he used SCIENCE. And since, gee whiz, there isn't any scientific proof that correlates to this, god is either outside of Science, and now in the realm of magic. Or religion. NEITHER has any revalence whatsoever to school.

So if you're promoting Intelligent Design, you're promoting MAGIC, or you're promoting NOTHING. Intelligent Design can certainly incorporate evolution. Intelligent Design promotes a single uniform creator, Monothesim. How do you expect this to pass in places where there's Polythesim? How about India? How about China, Japan? The entire thing is ridiculous once you throw the idea of a Judeo/Christian/Muslim god out the window.

Quite frankly, I think you'd do better skipping all this pseudo-science nonsense, and teaching our kids scriptures from MULTIPLE cultures other than Christian. It's exactly because we don't understand the other cultures and religions that this nonsense arises.

I do not believe either topic is mutually exclusive. It's just both sides of the argument are unwilling to combine their beliefs into a single truth.

I believe in science/evolution and a God.

I'll try to refrain from saying too much, because in all actuality, nothing anyone says here will change peoples' view. It feels quite hopeless for both camps to exhaustively argue on points that the other side will not except.

What allows for all the wonderment in the universe? How is it all objects in existence can be defined? Physics is the reason things CAN exist, but why does it act the way it does? It could have been different. Ever wonder how strange it is we are in a universe that is ever expanding, but has no bounds?

Evolution is one of Gods' greatest creations. It allows for adaptation, that otherwise, would lead to extinction. Only an intelligent God could see into billions of years to realize the need for evolution, gravity, physics, math, chemistry, etc. God is time. I don't mean the kind of time on your wristwatch, but he/she exists at all times at all places at once. God is more abstract than religion will allow for. God is all things.

All the rules of life have been laid out in a form that only science can discover, philosophy can imagine, and religion can embrace.

It's just unfortunate that religion is unwilling to allow science to rewrite the books.

They can? Even the ones we haven't even discovered yet? How will we know we what we don't know?


Speaking of defining things...."wonderment"?


Actually, physics is the "how" things exist, and maybe the why they exist the way they do, but we really can't state there would be nothing without the laws it observes.


It could, but we probably wouldn't be here to make that observation.


Do we know it has no bounds? What are bounds anyway? If space is part the universe, not just what it occupies, how can anything outside of it be said to have bounds? Saying space has no bounds is like saying time has no beginning or end, in a weird sort of way it can't be false or can't be true depending on how you define the boundary conditions.

"science" as we call it, is about taking guesses at how. not why.

Intelligent Design is a "why" explanation, there is no tangible evidence to suggest that it is true, at all. it is, in all truth, theology just as much as all forms of religion, all codes of morality and string theory.

in short, its an improvable theory. it has no evidence, statistic, physical, or otherwise.

Evolution has evidence supporting it from various forms of study, from statistical analysis to in depth case studies.

does ID have any place in schools? I personally do not think so. but absolutely it does NOT have a place in any course labeled "science". its not science, and without any capacity for proof it will *remain* that way.

wonderment == beautiful question

SetarcosNous, those questions were chosen because there is no polarized answer. You said yourself "it can't be false or can't be true". That was the exact effect I was looking for. Seems you missed my point completely. Your reaction to my "CAN" statement is really a matter of semantics. If you can't make the leap or the connection on your own, then we must agree to disagree.

Sure there's the big bang that began time for this universe, but where did the big bang occur. Science has proven that time and location are uniform with E=mc^2. So if the big bang occurred somewhere, it also must have occurred at some time. If it occurred no-where, then well... that is something I just can not rap my head around, but it would be a very interesting question to explore. See, it's these kind of wonderful questions that make life interesting. Embrace their mystery, don't try to fight it.

The paradox of time is one of my favorite wonderments. It is true, it's a weird thought that time has no beginning or end. But lets say we know for a fact it does. Then I ask... When time began, what was there before it? Was that the end of some other time-line? Where does the universe exist in? On an abstract level, everything we observe happens inside something else. So to say time does have a discrete beginning and end, is also purposing a paradox.

I suppose I should be more clear in reference to the topic. I do not believe Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. I do not believe the topics of science and religion are mutually exclusive. I do believe in a God (not in the same way as organized religion). Religion can never answer the questions why, but it can purpose philosophical reasons. There is ignorance on both sides of the argument, but I chose to sway more towards science because... (here is a bold statement, brace yourself)... science never murdered any of histories' greatest thinkers. Everyone of those scientists in our past that were killed for their beliefs, have been vindicated by todays' science. Proven to be valid thinkers and immensely valuable to our world. Science has never, by it's own name, declared wars, burned piles and piles of books, or killed individuals because they did not agree with their ideals. And here is the sad irony of this subject, many of those killed scientists believed in religion (God), and only wanted to explain the beauty created by God and give him/her more power on a philosophical level.

Thanks for the original poster for bringing this up.
I want to make a few points.

To the person who posted this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&eurl
Disproves evolution. End of story, lock the thread.

Unless this was a joke this is completely retarded, i mean comparing the theory of the beginnings of life a jar of peanut butter ???, i know you didnt make the video so thats why im so vocal about it.

Also just because you dont spontaneously get life everywhere doesnt mean that evolution is incorrect now does it, the conventional Darwin evolution theory has three rules which i wont go into. They all deal with life AFTER the point of creation (spontaneous or otherwise) which is all we as scientists and normal people can observe.

SCIENCE does not and cannot at the moment (or mabye ever, and this is not a a failing of science) say what started life (its so completely amazing, just as impossible to define as why we are conscious)

anyway on the piont of the beginning of life, we know base elements form molecules and can join together to form amino acids PURELY by chemical reaction. Amino acids are one of the lowest building blocks of life, now how these co-coalesced to form the finrst primitve single celled life, nobody knows, but as science always tries to provide a "possible" answer to ANY problem, its theorized that perhaps the sudden addition of energy created the first life, its our best guess.

Now on this issue, speaking as an agnostic and also as an earth science student soon to be graduate (four weeks !!!) there is no proof against god, just proof against the bible, mabye it took the divine touch to start life, but after that it followed its own rules.

Science will never be able so say WHY the universe began only how it developed, probably the same for life itself.


If there was ever proof of god it would be the most amazing moment in my life.

Anyway this is an expansive topic just a few of my thoughts in there.

TO all the people out there:

Science is not some person or a belief system, we as scientists don't "believe" in science we practice it. Its a process of thought which can be applied to anything. Its a methodology not a single "thing". I hope i can convay this propperly, this is the most important point i have to make.

sorry kyro, you posted your request for moving the thread just as i was writing this so i didnt see it, im just editing it now.
By the way i completely agree with the reasons for moving this, its true what they say you know, NEVER talk about religion or politics over dinner, it ruins every occasion and there is a satisfactory conclusion

Alright guys. Upon some research it appears that this overall "off topic" category is limited to the various games forums (not the case with the subcategories under it, but the OTF itself is).

As such, in keeping with the posted OTF policy (moved now from the old GC2 OTF to this new all-games OTF) and by the topic starter's request, I'm locking this thread.

If you wish to continue to discuss the topic, please take it over to the JoeUser.com forums. Your login from here will work there as well.