Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com/" target=_blank>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Intelligent Design / Creationism
Thread: Intelligent Design / Creationism [ This thread is 7 pages long: (1) 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]
Xerox
Xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 15, 2012 05:24 PM

Intelligent Design / Creationism

I need to find scientific arguments supporting intelligent design / creationism. I don't want to be biased, but right now this video pretty much sums up my view of creationism:/
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 15, 2012 05:41 PM

There are none.

[/thread]

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
alcibiades
alcibiades

Hero of Order
and Light
posted February 15, 2012 06:05 PM

Ugh ... isn't the default argument that the with all the intricate interdependancies there seems to be in the biological world - right from the macroscopic level (food chains, biologic synergies, etc.) to the microscopic level (biochemistry sure is a marvel in its ways to make the impossible possible), it is hard to believe that all this came just by pure chance?

Take DNA as an example. I won't give you a speach on how DNA works, but the whole system is so marvelous in it's complex-yet-simple brilliancy that it's easy to understand why someone could get the idea that a sentient being was behind it.
____________
Heroes 7 - News overview | Heroes 7 - Discussion thread

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical

Hero of Order
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted February 15, 2012 06:19 PM

I am by far no expert (not even really a novice) in intelligent design, but I believe the probability factor is the most relevant argument for intelligent design.  That the perfect distance from the sun, the combination of possible dna outcomes, and the billion things that could have stopped humans from ever gaining a foothold on this mudball is so astronomical that despite the age of the universe there would be so low a chance that it all would randomly come together that it is laughable.

So therefore some higher power had to have guided things so that we actually had a chance of coming into being.

That and the 'it had to start somewhere' argument..ie that the matter and energy that was used in the formation of the universe had to have somewhere to come FROM, a starting point as it were, and the reasoning is no matter how far back it might have been..all that matter and energy had to come from somewhere...

Again, I am not positive of the particulars, nor am I arguing for intelligent design, just stating what I have heard and remembered.  My days of debating religion on this site are long long over.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 15, 2012 06:47 PM

Hey, guys, didn't you see what I wrote?  No?  Then I will quote myself.

Quote:
[/thread]


Statisical "evidence" for ID is just ignorance of biology, ignorance of statistics, ignorance of chemistry... hell, ignorance of evidence.

To wit:
Quote:
... it is hard to believe that all this came just by pure chance?

It's hard to believe [fill in the blank] came about just by pure chance because it didn't come about by pure chance.  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Bad-mannered
Legendary Hero
Everywhere and nowhere
posted February 15, 2012 06:51 PM
Edited by Drakon-Deus at 18:52, 15 Feb 2012.

I am a Christian but most of the ID blabber isn't real science so to speak.

However, one should not take the Bible as a fairy tale, there's a lot of hints on the creation if you read genesis in its original Hebrew form or so I heard and seen a few samples.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted February 15, 2012 07:38 PM

Contrary to the rants of a one of our beloved atheist moderators there is a lot that could be considered evidence of intelligent design.

A starting point for you to do the research could be the "Reasons to believe" website run by a diverse group of scientists. The website does not take a "young earth" stance. I'm sure you can find other websites with google on your own.

Clicky
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge

Hero of Order
Mayhem Elemental
posted February 15, 2012 07:49 PM
Edited by Doomforge at 19:53, 15 Feb 2012.

As a Christian, but also a rationalist, I like to think that the world was created like humanity has learned through science, but with a beginning initiated by God. I'm not a fan of literal interpretation of "6 days". I mean, nowadays, why would you believe that? @_@
____________
I regret nothing, I expect nothing.
NONE OF YOU ARE SAFE!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 15, 2012 08:53 PM
Edited by Corribus at 20:58, 15 Feb 2012.

A scientific argument shouldn't depend on what your religion (or lack thereof) is.  Scientific facts should frame beliefs about the universe, and not the other way around.

Quote:
Clicky

No, I think you misunderstood.  He wanted scientific arguments.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted February 15, 2012 10:02 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Clicky

No, I think you misunderstood.  He wanted scientific arguments.


Which is why I linked to a site with tons of such arguments. However, I recognize that some atheists already KNOW God does not exist and therefore KNOW there is no evidence for intelligent design and therefore KNOW there could not be any such evidence discussed in the articles that would take months of diligence to pour through that are on the website. Anyone who already KNOWS God does not exist or KNOWS there is no evidence for intelligent design would be better served reading something they already know they agree with instead of wasting their time reading what they KNOW to be incorrect.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 15, 2012 10:31 PM

I will quote a brilliant scientist, who once said:

Quote:
A scientific argument shouldn't depend on what your religion (or lack thereof) is.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 16, 2012 05:33 AM

I agree with Corribus. "Intelligent design" is a concept (I shy away from the word "theory", that is based on INTERPRETATION of facts rather than facts).

"Complexity" is a term you often stumble upon when intelligent design is mentioned, but "complexity" is a rather relative and misleading term. As an example, take fractals. Designs of nature may LOOK "complex" - as do fractals -, but a lot of them are simply endless but finite repetitions of a very simple basic design.
To give a different example - you can do a lot of things with binary processes, which are very simple, although the result may be quite astonishing.

Also, what about the (just as seemingly) "dumb designs"?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Brukernavn
Brukernavn


Famous Hero
posted February 16, 2012 06:59 AM

I just want to add my two cents to this discussion. It's important to remember that the Philosophy of science is a huge subject. Science is not void of assumptions and presuppositions. Over the years logical fallacies which science is based upon like the problem of induction and affirming the consequent have not exactly been solved.

I have a Masters degree in natural science, so I'm not against science in any way. But too often scientists forget about the Philosophy of science and act as if the discipline is self evident, which actually is a religious argument.

Also, ID, scientific creationism and biblical creationism are three completely different subjects, and should not be confused or used interchangeably.

/Two cents added/

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted February 16, 2012 07:26 AM

Lets pick of random one:
The problem with Creationism is not that its based on assumptions, all scientific theories start with that before they are put under scrutentiy, even Newton did it, but the fact that under scrutinity it lacks anything to prove its not bullsnow.
For example: If there is Intelligent design, why is there so many dead solar systems? Surely if there was a God who designed a way for live to be about in "our way", there would be more of us wouldn't there?
Even better: If water is the "life liquid" why is it lethal to humans in pure condition?

Or even better: If we humans are designed by something intelligent, why are we so extremely poorly designed?
For example: Lets say you have a minor allergy, that reacts with the skin, what happens to the skin? What one is allergic to is not poison, lethal, or even harmful, its just dust for the most. What happens is that the skin gets in worse and worse and worse condition. And lets say you scratch yourself, then you crack open the skin, and it results in even more scratching because you allowed  these small dust thingies to get even more inside, and your nails is most likely already coated in it. On the top of that scratching feels extremely good if you are doing more than simple scratching, it doesn't hurt until you are almost bleeding.

Another example: Lets say you get depressed. What happens? Your brains chemistry changes. But lets say whatever caused the depression is removed, what happens? You are still depressed because changing the brain chemistry is more or less really hard. Profit: You are still severely depressed, and it might go over by itself in over half a year later if you are lucky, and the depression doesn't just cause more depression.

What about body fat? Simple diseases? Etc?
Our body is not "well designed", its merely that the conditions of nature means that its only advanced enough and functioning enough for us to start breeding in the first place, anything worse than that never got the chance because it died trying.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Bad-mannered
Legendary Hero
Everywhere and nowhere
posted February 16, 2012 07:36 AM

I second what Brukernavn said. Everyone should read that first.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 16, 2012 07:58 AM

What Brukernavn says, doesn't change the fact that the concept of "intelligent design" is based on "selective rating": it is first looking at isolated existing facts, disregarding TIME completely, and then RATES them, by declaring them as "complex", and "too complex to be possible without an intelligent designer at work".

It is also selective, because it disregards the "dumb designs".

Remember, science is a METHOD, and it's not working that way.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Bad-mannered
Legendary Hero
Everywhere and nowhere
posted February 16, 2012 09:04 AM
Edited by Drakon-Deus at 09:04, 16 Feb 2012.

Darwin was a Christian, Gregor Mendel was a monk. Science and faith are not enemies.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shyranis
Shyranis

Hero of Order
posted February 16, 2012 09:06 AM
Edited by Shyranis at 10:01, 16 Feb 2012.

ID is a great argument from a religious standpoint. However Scientifically it has no legs to work on to prove or disprove its findings. Can it be taught in school that something intelligent like a God, Gods or Aliens created us? It can according to some states, but IMHO that's the sort of thing that parents should teach in the home because it is not actually science. The only exception would be religious schools that make students take a mandatory "religion" class every year. This isn't to knock ID, which as I see it is actually complimentary to evolution (meaning, it is a viewpoint that fits snugly with the ideas in the theory of evolution and is not incompatible with it) but it has it's place. If you want your kid to learn ID, do your job as a parent instead of using government to force a wholly unnecessary course down the throats of everybody who should instead be learning proven scientific principles. Or send them to a Catholic school.

In the case of ID. What can be done by a parent in the home in 5 to 20 minutes for free can take up an entire period to multiple periods and waste taxpayer money on copies and testing. I am for ID as an idea, it is a fine belief. It just doesn't have a proper place in school.

I mean, Intelligent Design is also a very vague concept. It even validates the belief perhaps of some rabid Discworld fans that we're an experiment by the Mages of Ankh-Morpork's Unseen University =p

Or that our world was hatched from a turtle that hold elephants on its back that support our world.



ID isn't science, and it doesn't add anything to the conversation that shouldn't have been taught by the parents anyway.

It's not like kids are also taught "in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." as evolution. That's a completely different kettle of fish.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted February 16, 2012 09:22 AM

Quote:
Darwin was a Christian, Gregor Mendel was a monk. Science and faith are not enemies.
The point is that a scientist's discoveries are not made because of his religion or lack of religion. You can just as well compose a list of atheist scientist, however their discoveries are not a direct result of their atheism. I.e. the two things are generally unrelated and putting them in direct relations results in logical fallacies.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 16, 2012 09:27 AM

@Shyranis
Quote:
(meaning, [ID] is a viewpoint that fits snugly with the ideas in the theory of evolution and is not incompatible with it)

Surely you jest.  ID is about as incompatible with the Theory (and Facts) of Evolution as oil is with water.
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 7 pages long: (1) 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0743 seconds