|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I have to admit that the idea of Flying Spaghetti Monster being the creator of all things is pretty far fetched but it just can't be any more far fetched than the idea that we and this universe came into being by some cosmic accident.
Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
All I'm saying is that the idea that the obvious design in this world came about without any outside intervention requires more faith than I am able to muster.
I am not a YEC and don't have enough knowledge of biology to have any kind of informed opinion on evolution. I'm not saying that ID is science, as a matter of fact I would say that it isn't, but the non scientific evidence for ID is in my view overwhelming. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
My understanding of the theory of evolution is that it occurred due to genetic mutations. Speciation has been shown to work and the theory is that even macroevolution is just a whole lot of speciation occurring over time.
It would seem logical that evolution would occur gradually but consistently over time. However, most of it seems to have occurred during the relatively short Cambrian period which strikes me a somewhat strange if there is nothing other than natural causes for evolution. These genetic mutations could have occurred as you would say by natural selection. I think it is far more likely given the design involved that these genetic mutations were either designed initially or guided throughout the process by an external intelligence. Given human consciousness and our sense of right and wrong, love and hate etc, I find it extremely difficult to believe that it too just evolved naturally. It seems so much more likely to be a part of a much larger design, designed by a much larger, (metaphorically speaking), designer. I contend that with all the complexity and beauty of the science and math of QM and GR that they scream out the fact that there is obviously design involved. None of this is scientific as such. To me it's just obvious and as I said to believe that all of this and more happened without any outside intelligence being involved, requires a great deal more faith than I am capable of. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
crashfrog writes: Mutations happen; they're not designed or preprogrammmed. Mutations happen; they are designed or preprogrammed. Neither of us can make those statements and prove that they are true. Neither statement is scientific. It is scientific to say that mutations happen but to say why they happen is not. You have looked at the world and come to one conclusion and I have come to another. I just think that your position stretches credulity more than mine does but that isn't scientific either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ReverendDG writes: how are you convinced? whats your basis for this belief? To me there is no evidence of design, if there is design its so suble to the point that it doesn't look designed There is design everywhere you look in this world. Man has never designed anything approaching the complexity of your own body. Actually I've actually already covered this in post 25 of this thread. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Supernintendo writes: GDR, don't go there. You probably want to take this to another thread because you are about to get shredded (I've seen it happen to many before you). The first question will be "how do you measure complexity?...and it will get worse from there. The second will be "how do you define and recognize design".... I've never seen anyone come up with a good answer for either question. Good advice. We are outside the realms of science and crashfrog and others just bog the whole discussion down in scientific details. My point is simply the point that Paley made regarding the human eyeball hundreds of years ago. Dawkins may very well be able to demonstrate how it could have happened naturally. Because it could have doesn't mean that it did. I still agree with Paley that the eyeball was designed rather than just occurring randomly in a meaningless universe. It ain't science. The eyeball exists and it is either designed or it isn't. It can't be proven either way. No matter how much detail crash goes into he can only suggest how something happened, he can't tell me definitively why the eyeball or anything else exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
SuperNintendo Chalmers writes: The universe simply exists. There is no concept of "before" the universe because time is a property of the universe. Ask cavediver if you don't believe me. Cavediver points out that there was a point of T=0. We don't know why the clock started ticking.
crashfrog writes: Eyes exist because seeing is useful. That's a perfectly scientific answer to a perfectly scientific question. I mean how hard is that? Why is it that you two insist on taking perfectly answerable, scientific questions and acting like the answers are somehow beyond the scope of human knowledge? I mean, did you two really need me to tell you what to do with your eyes? Reading books with them would be my first suggestion. Sure eyes are useful. Maybe that's why an intelligent designer felt they were a good idea and made them part of the evolutionary process. I don't see how that's germane. Science is agnostic. It doesn't answer the question of why there is anything. Maybe there is an intelligent designer and maybe there isn't. We just disagree on the answer. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
EZScience writes: Most of us working in biology would not agree with this. When you say 'given the design involved' you are making a huge leap of inference that is not supported by any evidence. It is merely an impression precipitated by your incredulity of the complexity you are observing. Absolutely correct. I would add though, that there is no evidence that supports the notion that there is no intelligence behind our existance. It is only opinion as well. Everything about the universe, the world, human and non-human life is incredibly complex and in my view anything that complex very strongly indicates a designer.
EZScience writes: Where is the evidence of the designer, or even evidence of any 'guidance' in the process of evolution? There is none. Postulating guidance is a dangerous first step on a path toward a teleological interpretation of life. It's just simply not needed - an unnecessary adddition that doesn't improve or enhance any aspect of the theory. I agree it's not needed. Biology is a science and science deals with things as we find them. Science does not answer the question of why is there anything at all. We all look at the complexity of our existence, and if we don't ignore the issue all together come to our own conclusions of whether there is intelligent design or not.
EZScience writes: To scientists it isn't obvious at all. I read about science as a hobby and I envy scientists their knowledge of things scientific, but I don't agree that they are necessarily better able to answer philosophical or theological questions than anyone else. Thanks for the reasoned reply. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
crashfrog writes: The evidence is the lack of any evidence that supports the notion of intelligence behind our existence. Lack of evidence is not evidence.
crashfrog writes: If literally everything is complex, then how do you recognize complexity? If there's no simplicity in the universe, what makes you think that it's even possible for something to be simple? There are certainly degrees of complexity. The human body is relatively complex compared to a rock.
crashfrog writes: Questions about how living things then became the living things we have now are not philosophical or theological, they're biological. I agree, but I'm talking about why living things became what we have now, not how. The why is philosophical and/or theological. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
EZScience writes: A lack of evidence *against* an idea that has no evidence *for* it is hardly a compelling reason to espouse it, or even justification for considering it. But this is true from either of our positions. There is a lack of evidence for there not being an external designer as well. As I said earlier science is agnostic. Why the natural world exists as all is not a question that science deals with. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
crashfrog writes: If even a stupid rock can be complex, what makes you think you need intelligence to have complexity? What, God hand-made every single rock? The Flying Spaghetti Monster. What else?
crashfrog writes: The "why" is because, if they didn't become that, they wouldn't have survived. And a lot of organisms haven't. Your answer is always about what science can discern from the natural world. I'm talking about why a system that is designed to support the evolutionary process you describe exists at all. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
parasomnium writes: No offence intended, GDR, but when you look at that statement from a logical point of view, it makes no sense. Logically there can be no evidence of the absence of anything. This morning, a flying saucer did not land in my backyard. I know this, because I was there all morning. But my neighbour, who was out all day, is not so sure. "There's no evidence that supports that a flying saucer did not land in your backyard this morning", he keeps telling me. The trouble is that you, like crash, keep giving examples from the physical world. We can test and examine things in the physical world with the scientific method. Anything outside of the physical world can not be tested that way. Using the scientific method, (or any other method that I know of), you cannot prove to me that the metaphysical does not exist and I can't prove to you that it does.
parasomnium writes: Let me make it obvious by replacing 'intelligence' in your original statement with erm... well, with the IPU, why not. As mythical creatures go, the IPU is as good as any. So, we get: "there is no evidence that supports the notion that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn behind our existence." If it sounds just a tiny bit strange to you, then perhaps you'll understand why I find the original a bit strange too. That's because it's just not logical. Absolutely. If you want to belive in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Sphaghetti Monster, then I can't prove to you that they don't exist. My own reasoning would lead me to believe that you are wrong. If you want to compare your example though to the idea that there is intelligence behind the natural world then you are free to do so, but I think that it makes your argument look just a little silly.
parasomnium writes: That's because you look at it from a designer's point of view. If you were a sloth, you'd think the ground was the sky. You're right, and maybe that is why that the more science learns about our creation the more radically different it is as compared to what it seems. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
