Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 Well, both sound pretty crazy, but one is true and the other isn't.I don't see how having a being that has never been observed or detected, is any more logical than a random assortment of carbon atoms.and you know...without absolute information we may never be certain of either with absoluteness...but when I look at how everything has a purpose and design...I just hate to think that though everything else has purpose and design to it, we (by far the most complex) are just the product of randomness Link to post Share on other sites
herokid7 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Well, both sound pretty crazy, but one is true and the other isn't.I don't see how having a being that has never been observed or detected, is any more logical than a random assortment of carbon atoms.You're absolutely right. One is true and the other isn't I believe in the God part. If this world is just a random occurence, that's scarier than Hell. As Dr. Kent Hovind says, " Either there is a God, or there isn't. Both concepts are scary. Because, if there is a God, then we better find out what He wants and do what He says, if there isn't then we're hurdling around the sun at millions of miles per hour and no one's in charge." But, I do think God is a bit more logical than random assortment of carbon atoms, just because I find it hard to believe that those random assortment of carbon atoms found their way to where there supposed to be without any help. Link to post Share on other sites
Petoria 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 You're absolutely right. One is true and the other isn't I believe in the God part. If this world is just a random occurence, that's scarier than Hell. As Dr. Kent Hovind says, " Either there is a God, or there isn't. Both concepts are scary. Because, if there is a God, then we better find out what He wants and do what He says, if there isn't then we're hurdling around the sun at millions of miles per hour and no one's in charge." But, I do think God is a bit more logical than random assortment of carbon atoms, just because I find it hard to believe that those random assortment of carbon atoms found their way to where there supposed to be without any help.Probabilistically, it's not only possible it's likely, given an infinite number of tries. I could go through the math, but I'd have to introduce MacLauren series, conditional probability, the Principle of Inclusion-Exclusion, and other combinatorial expressions, which I dont think you want to hear about. I mean, I'll explain it if you want, but not if I dont have to. Suffice it say that there's approximately a 63% of lifeforms existing at some point in the universe.I agree, it would suck if there were no God, bc then our lives are pretty meaningless, not that they wouldnt be meaningless anyway, but you know it's depressing. I understand where you're coming from, I just disagree. I dont want to get into the existence of God, but I do believe that there are ways for God to have influenced the universe even ignoring evolution. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 If this world is just a random occurence, that's scarier than Hell.only to theists Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 and you know...without absolute information we may never be certain of either with absoluteness...but when I look at how everything has a purpose and design...I just hate to think that though everything else has purpose and design to it, we (by far the most complex) are just the product of randomnesseverything else has purpose and design to it?Probabilistically, it's not only possible it's likely, given an infinite number of tries. I could go through the math, but I'd have to introduce MacLauren series, conditional probability, the Principle of Inclusion-Exclusion, and other combinatorial expressions, which I dont think you want to hear about. I mean, I'll explain it if you want, but not if I dont have to. Suffice it say that there's approximately a 63% of lifeforms existing at some point in the universe.I agree, it would suck if there were no God, bc then our lives are pretty meaningless, not that they wouldnt be meaningless anyway, but you know it's depressing. I understand where you're coming from, I just disagree. I dont want to get into the existence of God, but I do believe that there are ways for God to have influenced the universe even ignoring evolution.I disagree with the second paragraph. Sure, God gives meaning to ilfe, but that seems a prettyeasy/simple solution (likely why it is widely used). personally, i think finding meaning in life without the crutch of an all-powerful, all-knowing, creationary force is one of the basic ideas of living. Link to post Share on other sites
MDXS 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Because, if there is a God, then we better find out what He wants and do what He saysThis is a fallacious statement. There's no reason to think that if there is a god, he cares a bit about what we think or do.As for the economic tie-in to micro and macro evolution, well, that's the funniest thing I've read all day...and that includes a lengthy article on the upcming movie Snakes on a Plane. Matt, I suggest you read what Frink posted again. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Probabilistically, it's not only possible it's likely, given an infinite number of tries. I could go through the math, but I'd have to introduce MacLauren series, conditional probability, the Principle of Inclusion-Exclusion, and other combinatorial expressions, which I dont think you want to hear about. I mean, I'll explain it if you want, but not if I dont have to.Actually, I'd kinda like to hear it, if it's not too much trouble. Link to post Share on other sites
Petoria 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Actually, I'd kinda like to hear it, if it's not too much trouble.Well, how much do you know about combinatorics and MacLaurin series?EDIT: How about I PM you tomorrow about it, I really don't want to take up space in this thread to explain the math behind it. Sound good? but seriously, what kind of mathematical background do you have so I explain what needs explaining. Link to post Share on other sites
Frinkenstein 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 This is a great point you bring up, Matt. I often wonder why people think Christians are "weird, stupid and/or crazy" because we believe God created us, but yet evolutionists believe we came from a rock that came from absolutely nothing. Which sounds more crazy to you?Evolutionists do not necessarily believe the rock came from nothing. Evolution says nothing about anything before life on earth.All we're saying is that species have evolved through natural selection over the years.Two very different things.I am sorry but if you are tryin to argue micro and macro are the same thing you are mistaken. An economics majors readin will agree with me after taken multiple years of both. Microevolution is more about adapting to yoru surroundings in that area...but you in fact dont evolve...Actually, biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 But, I do think God is a bit more logical than random assortment of carbon atoms, just because I find it hard to believe that those random assortment of carbon atoms found their way to where there supposed to be without any help.Frink makes a good point in the post above me, in his first line.Another thing which must be pointed out is that, from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no "supposed to." Mankind is not the "goal" of evolution, because evolution cannot possibly have intent. Link to post Share on other sites
MDXS 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Another thing which must be pointed out is that, from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no "supposed to." Mankind is not the "goal" of evolution, because evolution cannot possibly have intent.I think this thread is proof positive that we aren't done evolving. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I just dont see how anyone can reject evolution. Same way you were rejected from being the official tournament director of thr hideout- easily. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 I think this thread is proof positive that we aren't done evolving.why b/c people disagree with you over something that isnt definitive? Link to post Share on other sites
MDXS 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 why b/c people disagree with you over something that isnt definitive?Well, it pretty much is definitive...that's the thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Canada 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 do you forget the trial and error that has been done with the evolution theory in order to get the current definition of it? If we stick to the original definition then the theory is dead wrong, we can assume that women are a lower species then us and that eyes are miraclesWhich bit don't you get?Even if Evolution is wrong it is still science. It takes existing evidence and provides and explanation within the natural world - the italic bit is fundamental to it being a science.ID requires the existance of a supernatural being. So by definition it is a religous concept not a science.Regardless of which is right or wrong Intelligent Design is a religion, cannot be a science and therefore should not be taught in public schoolsNow back to the right or wrong bitI just hate to think that though everything else has purpose and design to it, we (by far the most complex) are just the product of randomnessThat is your fundamental problem. You are too scared, incapable, unwilling or disinterested to deal with standard scientific principles, like randomness, probablity and inifinity.So to fill the gap where the human mind falls short you insert a sentinent being that you can identify with to deal with all these big issues. 'He' has all the answers to the questions i can't answer/are to scared of/don't care about.Let's have a look though at what this intelligent designer has done. Simple things. If they are created with intelligence there must be a reasonAnother poster mentioned light from distant stars and the need to create them in place. Lets continue on that themeWhy are there stars and galaxies? We'll never visit them let alone ever see the vast majority of them. What purpose do they serve?Why is the universe expanding away from a central point? This means that Mr Designer created everything in-situ and then gave it all a push, or did he just stand at the centre and sneeze?What about Supa-Nova? Stars that have exploded tens of thousands of years ago. This means that he didn't bother with these stars, but instead just created light beams showing them exploding? "Heres some images of things I never actually created?!?"Or simple things closer to home, like snow layers in the antartic. Go there this year and put a stone in the snow, go back next year and do it again the same spot. Repeat it for a few years and then dig out a core, you'll have very distinctive layers that are identifiable by more than just your stones. And if you dig deeper and deeper you get 100's of thousands of years of ice layers (and guess what - no flood!)There are endless examples in all branches of science. These are all simple things that most people can grasp, yet ID would struggle to explain beyond it's 'Get-out-of-jail-free-card' of There must be some higher purpose to it all that we don't understandSeriously - the definition of irony?That the creators of Intelligent Design chose to use the word Intelligent Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 That is your fundamental problem. You are too scared, incapable, unwilling or disinterested to deal with standard scientific principles, like randomness, probablity and inifinity.haha...I deal with that everyday...Im an economist remember. Link to post Share on other sites
Canada 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 haha...I deal with that everyday...Im an economist remember.lol Keynes is proof there is no God Link to post Share on other sites
DerekTah 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 and you know...without absolute information we may never be certain of either with absoluteness...but when I look at how everything has a purpose and design...I just hate to think that though everything else has purpose and design to it, we (by far the most complex) are just the product of randomnessI don't understand why as a christian that bothers you or anyone else.Ever heard of "What is random in the eyes of man is inevitable in the eyes of god."Based on science we evolve randomly, there is nothing scientists can do to prove or disprove that god was involved in evolution. Whether anyone believes that is a personal choice, nothing science has done or ever will do proves god either way. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 I don't understand why as a christian that bothers you or anyone else.Ever heard of "What is random in the eyes of man is inevitable in the eyes of god."Based on science we evolve randomly, there is nothing scientists can do to prove or disprove that god was involved in evolution. Whether anyone believes that is a personal choice, nothing science has done or ever will do proves god either way.Im not exactly sure what you were asking so ill answer what i think you said and let you decideIt doesnt bother me at all as it is what makes me believe even more in GodMy whole argument about a problem with christians is that to often we say "well only God knows" and dismiss it..God tells us that there is so much we will never know or understand...but that doesnt mean we cant try to learn as much as possible. Link to post Share on other sites
DerekTah 0 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I was commenting on this "I just hate to think that though everything else has purpose and design to it, we (by far the most complex) are just the product of randomness".And honestly I do question if everything else has a purpose (or at least one that can be determained easily, what is the purpose of rocks for example. What task does a rock perform) Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 Based on science we evolve randomlyThe process of natural selection is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF A RANDOM PROCESS. IT IS BY DEFINITION NON-RANDOM. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I was commenting on this "I just hate to think that though everything else has purpose and design to it, we (by far the most complex) are just the product of randomness".And honestly I do question if everything else has a purpose (or at least one that can be determained easily, what is the purpose of rocks for example. What task does a rock perform) It's what I use to throw at passerbys who annoy me. They are quite useful, I assure you. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 It's what I use to throw at passerbys who annoy me.just like your pre-human ancestors did with their feces Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 just like your pre-human ancestors did with their feces If I got some around, I will use that too. I am not picky. Link to post Share on other sites
DerekTah 0 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 The process of natural selection is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF A RANDOM PROCESS. IT IS BY DEFINITION NON-RANDOM. I should of stated that the mutations (or form) are random (no one know exactly how a mutation will occur, what that mutation will be, or when).You are of course quite right the process isn't random, but the pre-process is (I'm talking about the idea of mutations within the species). Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now