|
| Thread: Intelligent Design / Creationism |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
posted February 27, 2012 02:58 PM |
|
|
|
Of course religion is not and never has been limited to Christianity, but at least on HC "religion" is most of the time synonimous with Chr.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 27, 2012 03:36 PM |
|
|
|
... which is of course terribly wrong and short-sighted. The typical westerner almost universally thinks with the notions of the Abrahamic religions and constantly forgets (or never realizes) that there is a huge amount of people out there who view the world differently.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted February 27, 2012 04:52 PM |
|
|
|
I guess it's especially because we do not have any Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim members, none that I know of... so the main discussions are always between Christians and Atheists/Agnostics/Deists.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted February 27, 2012 10:18 PM |
|
|
Buddhism... now there is a religion that deserves respect! Badass peaceful warrior monks, little or no shameful history and stuff like meditation that can even make boring atheist westerners feel spirtual and healthy. Crusader knights are badass too but they were evil or misguided(Arn not included, he is awesome in any way).
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 28, 2012 12:08 AM |
|
|
I like the buddhist way to think, although it can be hard to follow, experimented buddhists have a quick wit.
the christian way of thinking is admirable in its own way but seems to rely more on beliefs than on logic and true facts even though it seeks to achieve a similar goal.
both apparently produced admirable people, or at least we are told so.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 28, 2012 02:11 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:36, 28 Feb 2012.
|
Quote:
Theistic evolution and atheistic evolution? Will we next have theistic gravity and atheistic gravity? Or maybe theistic relativity and atheistic relativity?
Theistic evolution is a rather common phrase. I suggest you do a little research. Theistic evolution is evolution in which God is involved to some degree in the process, as if I had not explained it well enough. Atheistic evolution would be a denial that God was involved in the process.
Quote:
Short summary: Science try to get closer to "the thruth" with every discovery while religion merely change their story.
Your slams of theism are unfounded. Oh, and science and theism are not at odds. If anything, atheism and science are at odds.
Of course the words of the Bible have remained constant. As Christians are truth seekers, unlike certain others, Christians have been willing to acknowledge that some of their understandings of what some passages are saying were wrong.
Of course materialistic atheists are totally ignorant of the spiritual side of human nature and absolutely deny that it exists. They are oh so very far removed from the truth and reject even the possibility that the human spirit/soul exists along with being dogmatic about the non-existence of God. I certainly would not describe atheists as people who are open minded or committed to the search for truth. 
Also, certainly scientists have proven they are not above lying and deceit. Consider Climate Gate and a number of other instances where people with agendas to push have done so "in the name of Science", being willing to concoct or alter data.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
posted February 28, 2012 02:54 AM |
|
|
A good topic: creationism vs evolutionism! My hobby! News said Mleisa 1 has lived 260 meters length of the ancient elephant. I will wait for more futher news. However Bible doesn't lost. Later read more Mleisa 1.
____________
Fight MWMs - stand teach
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted February 28, 2012 03:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
creationism vs evolutionism!
On the contrary, I believe it would be more accurate to assume that the topic is more about creationism and evolutionism. (id est any hard scientific evidence for creation via an advanced life-form/ et cetera) I'm guessing the objective behind this is to find some common ground between the two sides.
Then again I've never understood how the theory of evolution counters the prospect of intelligent design.  I don't see how the two 'rub each other'.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 28, 2012 08:15 AM |
|
|
Let me quote Corribus for you:
Quote:
Darwin's genius was not in formulating a theory of evolution, but in formulating a theory of Natural Selection, and he WAS the first to develop this idea in rigorous scientific terms. The theory is supported by everything we know about chemistry and molecular genetics, and there has not been found a single piece of evidence that contradicts the idea of natural selection. Contrarily, Intelligent Design is not even the kind of thing that can be supported or contradicted by evidence, which is why it's inherently unscientific, why it's not supported by any accredited scientific body in the world, why it has been scorned by prominent scientists in just about every peer reviewed scientific journal, and why it has been deemed in federal courts to not be science and to be unconstitutional to teach to children in public schools.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted February 28, 2012 10:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Short summary: Science try to get closer to "the thruth" with every discovery while religion merely change their story.
Your slams of theism are unfounded. Oh, and science and theism are not at odds. If anything, atheism and science are at odds.
Of course the words of the Bible have remained constant. As Christians are truth seekers, unlike certain others, Christians have been willing to acknowledge that some of their understandings of what some passages are saying were wrong.
Of course materialistic atheists are totally ignorant of the spiritual side of human nature and absolutely deny that it exists. They are oh so very far removed from the truth and reject even the possibility that the human spirit/soul exists along with being dogmatic about the non-existence of God. I certainly would not describe atheists as people who are open minded or committed to the search for truth.
Also, certainly scientists have proven they are not above lying and deceit. Consider Climate Gate and a number of other instances where people with agendas to push have done so "in the name of Science", being willing to concoct or alter data.
A person who trully seeks the truth must be open minded of what the truth is and realize that NOTHING is 100% completly sure to be true/false. Such a person must decide what is most LIKELY to be true/false based on supporting evidence and be ready to change view. This is where religion fails. The basics of the world are already decided by humans who most of the times have an agenda or cause. For example, where is the supporting evidence of a god or gods? This is also where many scientist and truth seekers fail too because atheism does not make one less human. They too have agendas and causes. But science usually get along better with atheism because theism is set in stone and stands in the way of many probabilities. Atheism is the lack of that religious hindrance but does not of course stop other hindrances to stand in the way of truth. Theists are called "believers" who have "faith" for a reason.
Spirituality: I do not believe in a soul as in religion or fantasy because there is seemingly no evidence of it but I do think that spirituality is a fact. I am quite sure that I have experienced spirituality multiple times but there is nothing supernatural about it. It is most likely a mental biochemical thing. Feelings like sentimentality and nostalgia probably contribute to spirituality and try looking into a starry black night sky without getting that special feeling. I also doubt that the common atheist would reject spirituality so theists still win when it comes to not being open minded. And just to be clear, just being atheist does not make one open minded. There are plenty of non believers who are just as fanatic as the religious ones because of ideologies, causes or personalities.
I apologise if my texts are hard to read but I have very bad writing/talking and explaining skills which makes me a very bad story teller. I would love to clarify anything if necessary.
____________
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted February 29, 2012 02:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A good topic: creationism vs evolutionism! My hobby! News said Mleisa 1 has lived 260 meters length of the ancient elephant. I will wait for more futher news. However Bible doesn't lost. Later read more Mleisa 1.
Wrong! It was footprint, ok?
____________
Fight MWMs - stand teach
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 07:21 PM |
|
|
In debating this point, we have to keep in mind that people are governed by their presuppositions. Corribus, for example, places his belief only in what humanity can see and observe in the natural world, dismissing everything else as superstition. I realize that, thanks to such presuppositions, I can't just come in and claim religion is true and expect a sweeping response without providing something to dislodge presuppositions that the universe is solid all the way through. You have to remember, though, that religion is founded on faith, which works in the heart without need of the head to interject. We could debate until the end of time (and 'we' as collective humanity probably will) without solving anything because we approach the question from two radically different perspectives.
Since I don't think a question like this can be conclusively answered to the satisfaction of everyone involved, I'm simply going to explain where I and perhaps the other like-minded people are coming from when we argue that the proof of science does not stack against us. It's true that proponents of intelligent design and particularly Creationism can't show evidence of their position, but isn't that rather the point of faith? If God (or whatever supernatural force you may or may not believe in) were to inject evidence into each facet of His created work, then where would there be room for the kind of doubt that makes faith meaningful? It's also dangerous to tread the other ground and accept all scientific inquiry as ultimate fact and dismissing religion as completely incompatible with the things we know to be true about the physical world.
Yet, there is a real danger that we may, in seeing science and religion as compatible, overreconcile the two as well. No one who really thinks about evolution can deny that changes within a species occur, and most Christians I know wouldn't dream of doing so. The problem of overreconciliation occurs when Christians subvert the clear authority of the Bible to theories postulated by science. Take evolution for example: scientists readily accept macroevolution involving transitions between species as fact, but Darwin himself stated a profound weakness in the theory that, as far as I can tell by the cursory research I did on Google has never been satisfactorily resolved. In The Origin of Species, Darwin admitted that the lack of intermediate chains cast credible doubt on his theory of evolution: "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
I understand and appreciate the value of science in teaching us about the world, and it's idiotic for fanatic Christians to decry the field altogether. All I'm positing is that the people backing spontaneous life without intelligent design should look at their assumptions and make sure they aren't dismissing ID based on presupposition that scientific findings up until now are infallible and wholly inconsistent with the notion of intelligent design or even creation. If you feel I've made an oversight or erred in any way in coming to this conclusion, I'd be happy to discuss it more and answer any questions. I'm back in HC Town for the week, it seems. 
____________
>_>
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 07:40 PM |
|
|
In the end, we all place our faith in the darkness of the unkown. Be it in the words of scientists, or the words of the premordial architect of the stars. Knowledge comes from experience; this world will always hold treasures that will warm the body and make your heart leap for the heavens.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 08:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You have to remember, though, that religion is founded on faith, which works in the heart without need of the head to interject.
Yes, but such discussions rarely have anything to do with faith as such. If a religious person believes strong enough in what his religion teaches, he doesn't need to find material evidences all the time just to keep his/her faith, on the contrary - the faith is an end in itself, it's self-sufficient. However, the western religions (which are, for some reason, regarded as THE religions in this forum, especially the Christianity) have never really been all about the spirituality, partially because of their historical evolution. And the main problem is the presence of an incontrovertible Truth (capital "T", yes) written in some holy book. There's nothing to discuss about the Bible's content, it's true and that's that, end of story, the end, period. If the science says that the content of the Bible is partially or fully incorrect, then the science is wrong so it can only prove that the content is correct. Which obviously doesn't work because science is not supposed to prove pre-defined "truths" (this makes no sense logically in the first place), that's against its method. This is the border of the reconciliation mentioned by you and it will never be crossed as long as the (western) religions remain religions and the science remains science. In the end, a religious person does not really need a scientific evidences for the credibility of his/her religion and a scientific person does not need a guidebook to what the universe should "correctly" look like. Unfortunately though, peaceful co-existence is not so simple due to the regular human being's various feats.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 08:13 PM |
|
|
@Shadowcaster
I hope you'll forgive me for modifying your text:
Quote:
Corribus, for example, places his belief only in what humanity can see and observe in the natural world, dismissing everything else as superstition not science.
That's really the point of the thread, which asked for "scientific arguments in support of ID". Not meaning to be flippant, but one might as well ask for scientific arguments in support of magic. If nothing else, once you have scientific arguments for it, it is no longer magic.
Quote:
All I'm positing is that the people backing spontaneous life without intelligent design should look at their assumptions and make sure they aren't dismissing ID based on presupposition that scientific findings up until now are infallible and wholly inconsistent with the notion of intelligent design or even creation.
No scientist that I know of has ever hypothesized "spontaneous life" - in fact the only view that backs such a notion is the religious one.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 08:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
he doesn't need to find material evidences all the time just to keep his/her faith,
Actually in Hindu, the supreme god-head teaches the opposite, he knows that the faith of man wavers, so he manifests to rejuvenate man's faith when the last gasp of faith flutters from this world. (every aprox 5000 years)
So please don't generalise religion under one catagory, as much as you might think that they are the same, they are infact very different.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 08:16 PM |
|
|
|
I believe that in every religion there is some wisdom to be gained from, especially the Asian ones. Not necessarily by embracing them .
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
[So please don't generalise religion under one catagory, as much as you might think that they are the same, they are infact very different.
In fact I know that the religions are very different, I'm talking mostly about the western religions above (and I think that's more than implied). If you go east, a huge number of things changes. Atheistic religions can be encountered for example (no, Elodin, not the communism) and whatnot.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 08:34 PM |
|
|
|
stalinism isn't an atheistic religion
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted March 06, 2012 08:40 PM |
|
|
Just to set the record straight, atheism is the absence of belief in gods, which is not the same as being religious. So Zenofex is correct.
I don't think stalin and adolf were religious men but they weren't really the nicest guys in the 1940's...
|
|
|
|
