You Don't Know God -- How Sad
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
what do you think it means to "know God"?
While I don't subscribe to anyone's dogma, I do believe there is enough physical evidence to support our little universe being the work of an intelligent Creator. Having said that, I'll also say this: We're more likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best-case scenario, or a stain in a petri-dish in the worst case. God (for lack of a better name) created man, but man created religion. Just my opinion.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I do believe there is enough physical evidence to support our little universe being the work of an intelligent Creator.
Such as?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Such as?
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it. My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it. Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence. This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst. As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident." Anyway, you asked. :)
XAlan Burkhart
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Such as?
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it. My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it. Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence. This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst. As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident." Anyway, you asked. :)
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it.
My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it.
Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence.
This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst.
As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident."
Anyway, you asked. :)Say this conscious, intelligent being, in the unimaginable vastness of it's creation, created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it.
My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it.
Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence.
This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst.
As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident."
Anyway, you asked. :)Say this conscious, intelligent being, in the unimaginable vastness of it's creation, created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a
MatthysDT wrote:
...created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a creator not be extra fond of this part of his creation?
If that's the case, then it's entirely possible. But we don't know that just yet. Who's to say at this point whether there is other life out there? If even one of the UFO "sightings" is true, or if (snickering derisively) Whitley Strieber[^] really was abducted, then we are not alone in the universe. I'd say that given the size of the universe and the number of stars, odds are that other civilizations exist.
XAlan Burkhart
-
MatthysDT wrote:
...created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a creator not be extra fond of this part of his creation?
If that's the case, then it's entirely possible. But we don't know that just yet. Who's to say at this point whether there is other life out there? If even one of the UFO "sightings" is true, or if (snickering derisively) Whitley Strieber[^] really was abducted, then we are not alone in the universe. I'd say that given the size of the universe and the number of stars, odds are that other civilizations exist.
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
If that's the case, then it's entirely possible. But we don't know that just yet.
Fair enough. This world probably has an equal amount of nutcases as it has cover-ups. Also remember, that, although relatively small, the part of the universe that mankind has explored via telescopes (etc) includes hundreds of thousands of planets (please forgive my lack of a more precises estimation), and in all that, not a single planet capable of supporting life has been discovered (to my knowledge). But come the end of your life, say 30 - 50 years from now (or tomorrow), and the truth still remains obscured from you, would you not tend to lean toward the existence of God, rather than scientific coincidence, knowing that it is in fact possible that you possess a soul, and that its fate could well be determined by what you believed? Is it worth the gamble?
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
If that's the case, then it's entirely possible. But we don't know that just yet.
Fair enough. This world probably has an equal amount of nutcases as it has cover-ups. Also remember, that, although relatively small, the part of the universe that mankind has explored via telescopes (etc) includes hundreds of thousands of planets (please forgive my lack of a more precises estimation), and in all that, not a single planet capable of supporting life has been discovered (to my knowledge). But come the end of your life, say 30 - 50 years from now (or tomorrow), and the truth still remains obscured from you, would you not tend to lean toward the existence of God, rather than scientific coincidence, knowing that it is in fact possible that you possess a soul, and that its fate could well be determined by what you believed? Is it worth the gamble?
MatthysDT wrote:
Is it worth the gamble?
First, I cannot imagine how one could simply say, "Given the current situation, I think I shall believe such and such." What we believe (or not) is based upon what we experience as we go thru life. I cannot simply tell myself to believe in an immortal soul because there might be a Hell. Hell by the way is a myth based upon a garbage dump outside Jerusalem. Sad but true. That said, I do embrace the possibility of an afterlife. There is some evidence here and there of those who persist after physical death. But if this is the case, it would be a natural thing. There is no "supernatural" side of existence, and I rather doubt that even the most vile criminal would be consigned to a "Lake of Fire" for all eternity. These are tales conjured up thousands of years ago to scare people into good behavior.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it.
My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it.
Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence.
This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst.
As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident."
Anyway, you asked. :)Say this conscious, intelligent being, in the unimaginable vastness of it's creation, created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a
MatthysDT wrote:
Say this conscious, intelligent being, in the unimaginable vastness of it's creation, created only one single planet with life of infinite complexity and creatures with intelligence. Would such a creator not be extra fond of this part of his creation? On scales of creation, would this fondness not translate to love for the minuscule self-aware creatures residing on this planet, especially considering that they have no prove whatsoever that another planet like their own exists. Would such a creator not be able, or even likely, to purposely, in the infinite complexity of the creation of this single planet create it's most intelligent occupant in his own image?
Your example ignores the possibility that although there is only one planet in this case that being has 100 billion test tubes where each each tube has a universe with one planet which has intelligent life. Also completely ignores the point that if such a entity is able to create life, intelligence and a universe to contain it all that it isn't necessarily the case that the ability of creation is special. After all a 4 year old thinks that driving a car is 'special' but most commuters stuck in 3 hour traffic jams are unlikely to think that driving itself is 'special'.
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
If that's the case, then it's entirely possible. But we don't know that just yet.
Fair enough. This world probably has an equal amount of nutcases as it has cover-ups. Also remember, that, although relatively small, the part of the universe that mankind has explored via telescopes (etc) includes hundreds of thousands of planets (please forgive my lack of a more precises estimation), and in all that, not a single planet capable of supporting life has been discovered (to my knowledge). But come the end of your life, say 30 - 50 years from now (or tomorrow), and the truth still remains obscured from you, would you not tend to lean toward the existence of God, rather than scientific coincidence, knowing that it is in fact possible that you possess a soul, and that its fate could well be determined by what you believed? Is it worth the gamble?
MatthysDT wrote:
But come the end of your life, say 30 - 50 years from now (or tomorrow), and the truth still remains obscured from you, would you not tend to lean toward the existence of God, rather than scientific coincidence, knowing that it is in fact possible that you possess a soul, and that its fate could well be determined by what you believed? Is it worth the gamble?
So you claim there is absolutely no cost at all associated with the belief? No financial cost, no intellectual cost, no emotional cost? And yet there is some negative to not believing? If there is in fact some negative then that would seem to suggest that this entity, which did in fact create everything, is rather...petty. Which certainly wouldn't seem like a positive characteristic.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Such as?
I tend to believe that the Big Bang theory is at least a somewhat accurate description of how our existence began. However, while we've been able to theorize with a reasonable degree of certainty on what happened immediately after the BB, we're still clueless as to what went on before it. My thinking is that if the universe began with the massive explosion of a super-dense object, that object also must have an origin. If we someday explain the origin of that object, then we must also try to explain the origin of the matter that became said object. At some point, there must be a "first" entity of some sort - someone / something that existed literally before anything else existed. By definition, such an entity would be eternal because it exists in spite of having no origin. It would exist outside of time as we know it. Such an entity would necessarily be static. It did not and does not evolve. The BB required that an object be in a state of constant change, collapsing in on itself until it blew itself apart. But with an entity that does not change such a spontaneous event would be impossible. Logic demands therefore that a conscious act on the part of the static entity was required to begin the process of creation. Such an act requires intelligence. This being could be called a god, or creator, or something similar. Probably not supernatural in the traditional sense, but sufficiently beyond us that it/he/she would appear as such. As to those who fantasize about a loving, all-knowing God that miraculously looks just like us... I have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I think we're likely akin to fish in an aquarium in the best case, or a stain in a petri dish in the worst. As to physical evidence, the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design. Virtually all life on the planet appears to be based upon one of several models. It is not that much of a stretch to think that the DNA in all living things was engineered to change over time and lead to the development of new species as required by changing environments. And it's certainly no more of a stretch than to say it all happened by "accident." Anyway, you asked. :)
XAlan Burkhart
Sorry for the late reply; while there are some pretty glaring problems with your mental arithmetic (for example, you ascribe the ability to be some ill-defined 'entity' to be eternal without granting the same possibility to the universe itself) but I'll stick mostly to what I happen to know really well:
Alan Burkhart wrote:
the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design.
There is absolutely no reason to hang all of evolutionary theory on the fossil record when ample DNA evidence exists for change over time, DNA/RNA studies of homology are consistent with evolution, chemical components of RNA self-assemble under proper initial conditions, laboratory examples of speciation exist, examples of speciation found in the wild that are consistent with the timeframe required for drastic evolutionary change. All of these are far more consistent with an evolutionary explanation than one for a traditional argument for intelligent design - which would suggest we should both find structures and organisms that are inconsistent with evolution AND are clearly suited to some intelligent purpose - which would also require a characterization of the 'intelligent designer' in order to test that hypothesis, something that intelligent design proponents can't/won't do. Empirical evidence simply does not support a case for intelligent design.
- F
-
Sorry for the late reply; while there are some pretty glaring problems with your mental arithmetic (for example, you ascribe the ability to be some ill-defined 'entity' to be eternal without granting the same possibility to the universe itself) but I'll stick mostly to what I happen to know really well:
Alan Burkhart wrote:
the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design.
There is absolutely no reason to hang all of evolutionary theory on the fossil record when ample DNA evidence exists for change over time, DNA/RNA studies of homology are consistent with evolution, chemical components of RNA self-assemble under proper initial conditions, laboratory examples of speciation exist, examples of speciation found in the wild that are consistent with the timeframe required for drastic evolutionary change. All of these are far more consistent with an evolutionary explanation than one for a traditional argument for intelligent design - which would suggest we should both find structures and organisms that are inconsistent with evolution AND are clearly suited to some intelligent purpose - which would also require a characterization of the 'intelligent designer' in order to test that hypothesis, something that intelligent design proponents can't/won't do. Empirical evidence simply does not support a case for intelligent design.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Empirical evidence simply does not support a case for intelligent design.
Yes it does. :) There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion. Remember - I'm not referring to a divine entity. I'm referring to another natural entity far older and more intelligent than you or me. Human scientists set processes in motion every day in labs all over the world and watch the results of those processes. There is no reason to think we are not the result of something similar, though on a much larger scale.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Empirical evidence simply does not support a case for intelligent design.
Yes it does. :) There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion. Remember - I'm not referring to a divine entity. I'm referring to another natural entity far older and more intelligent than you or me. Human scientists set processes in motion every day in labs all over the world and watch the results of those processes. There is no reason to think we are not the result of something similar, though on a much larger scale.
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion.
There is also no evidence against the theory that I have an invisible, undetectable unicorn sitting next to me who telepathically helps me code. That is not the same as saying there is evidence that supports it is there, though.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Empirical evidence simply does not support a case for intelligent design.
Yes it does. :) There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion. Remember - I'm not referring to a divine entity. I'm referring to another natural entity far older and more intelligent than you or me. Human scientists set processes in motion every day in labs all over the world and watch the results of those processes. There is no reason to think we are not the result of something similar, though on a much larger scale.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Yes it does.
Oh, okay. Such as?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There is no reason to think we are not the result of something similar
Except that there's absolutely no evidence for it?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Except that there's absolutely no evidence for it?
I mentioned in another thread that it reminded me of usenet... this thread is a nearly word for word reproduction of countless discussions on talk.origin.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion.
There is also no evidence against the theory that I have an invisible, undetectable unicorn sitting next to me who telepathically helps me code. That is not the same as saying there is evidence that supports it is there, though.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
David Kentley wrote:
There is also no evidence against the theory that I have an invisible, undetectable unicorn sitting next to me who telepathically helps me code.
I'd have to say neigh to that.
David Kentley wrote:
That is not the same as saying there is evidence that supports it is there, though.
I know. I was simply being a bit contrary in my last comment. There isn't enough room here for me to fully explain why I believe what I believe and I doubt any of us would ever sway the other. But it's generally a fun topic as long as no one starts pounding on their King James.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Yes it does.
Oh, okay. Such as?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There is no reason to think we are not the result of something similar
Except that there's absolutely no evidence for it?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Oh, okay. Such as?
Already expounded on that in an earlier reply.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Except that there's absolutely no evidence for it?
As I said earlier (at least I think I did ;)), the fact that it is apparent that all life forms are based upon one of several prototypes is evidence that someone sat down and sketched all this stuff out.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion.
There is also no evidence against the theory that I have an invisible, undetectable unicorn sitting next to me who telepathically helps me code. That is not the same as saying there is evidence that supports it is there, though.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
I knew there had to be an explanation for your code!
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Oh, okay. Such as?
Already expounded on that in an earlier reply.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Except that there's absolutely no evidence for it?
As I said earlier (at least I think I did ;)), the fact that it is apparent that all life forms are based upon one of several prototypes is evidence that someone sat down and sketched all this stuff out.
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Already expounded on that in an earlier reply.
Okay. We have a difference of opinion as to what "evidence" means. To me, it means something useful, testable, and falsifiable that can pragmatically direct opinion. To you, it means... thought experiment?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
the fact that it is apparent that all life forms are based upon one of several prototypes is evidence that someone sat down and sketched all this stuff out.
You keep saying this, but you offer no evidence for it. What are these prototypes? What is the evidence that these 'prototypes' are inconsistent with evolution from a common ancestor? You can't just say that it's 'apparent' - because to someone like me, who has a degree in and has studied biochemistry and molecular biology, it's not.
- F
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Already expounded on that in an earlier reply.
Okay. We have a difference of opinion as to what "evidence" means. To me, it means something useful, testable, and falsifiable that can pragmatically direct opinion. To you, it means... thought experiment?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
the fact that it is apparent that all life forms are based upon one of several prototypes is evidence that someone sat down and sketched all this stuff out.
You keep saying this, but you offer no evidence for it. What are these prototypes? What is the evidence that these 'prototypes' are inconsistent with evolution from a common ancestor? You can't just say that it's 'apparent' - because to someone like me, who has a degree in and has studied biochemistry and molecular biology, it's not.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
You keep saying this, but you offer no evidence for it. What are these prototypes? What is the evidence that these 'prototypes' are inconsistent with evolution from a common ancestor? You can't just say that it's 'apparent' - because to someone like me, who has a degree in and has studied biochemistry and molecular biology, it's not.
I don't have a degree in anything, although I have delivered building materials to a few universities while they were under construction. That probably doesn't count. I never said that the concept of prototypes I mentioned is inconsistent with evolution. What I'm saying is that if you look at the various life forms, from single-cell life to humans, whales and so on you'll see a number of "basic designs" that many species share. Some are adapted for swimming, some for flight, etc. One would never mistake a Yugo for a Ferrari, but both are based upon the same concept (4 wheels, headlights in front, tail lights behind, etc). And yes, this is the result (life, not the Yugo) of a long and ongoing process of evolution. I have no dispute with that. Where we differ is that I believe the process itself is by design. Can I point to a peer-reviewed study on the topic? No. But neither can I accept the notion that the universe and all the life within it exists purely by chance. Anyway, we could debate/discuss forever and probably neither of us would sway the other. But it's been fun. :)
XAlan Burkhart
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
You keep saying this, but you offer no evidence for it. What are these prototypes? What is the evidence that these 'prototypes' are inconsistent with evolution from a common ancestor? You can't just say that it's 'apparent' - because to someone like me, who has a degree in and has studied biochemistry and molecular biology, it's not.
I don't have a degree in anything, although I have delivered building materials to a few universities while they were under construction. That probably doesn't count. I never said that the concept of prototypes I mentioned is inconsistent with evolution. What I'm saying is that if you look at the various life forms, from single-cell life to humans, whales and so on you'll see a number of "basic designs" that many species share. Some are adapted for swimming, some for flight, etc. One would never mistake a Yugo for a Ferrari, but both are based upon the same concept (4 wheels, headlights in front, tail lights behind, etc). And yes, this is the result (life, not the Yugo) of a long and ongoing process of evolution. I have no dispute with that. Where we differ is that I believe the process itself is by design. Can I point to a peer-reviewed study on the topic? No. But neither can I accept the notion that the universe and all the life within it exists purely by chance. Anyway, we could debate/discuss forever and probably neither of us would sway the other. But it's been fun. :)
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Where we differ is that I believe the process itself is by design.
When you started this you said that the fossil record is compatible with "intelligent design" and evolution and now you say that it's completely consistent with evolution. So we agree that evolutionary process is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth. Now it seems the problem is that since your concept of "design" seems to be based on fuzzy feelings and is so vague and unspecific (since if life arising by the process of evolution is evidence of design, ostensibly anything else would qualify) that as a concept it also loses all utility - if your idea of life by design is empirically indistinguishable from life by evolution, really, what's the point of insisting that it must be by design and that you just CAN'T accept it's not all by chance?* *characterizing evolutionary processes as "chance" is also a pretty egregious misrepresentation.
- F
-
MatthysDT wrote:
Is it worth the gamble?
First, I cannot imagine how one could simply say, "Given the current situation, I think I shall believe such and such." What we believe (or not) is based upon what we experience as we go thru life. I cannot simply tell myself to believe in an immortal soul because there might be a Hell. Hell by the way is a myth based upon a garbage dump outside Jerusalem. Sad but true. That said, I do embrace the possibility of an afterlife. There is some evidence here and there of those who persist after physical death. But if this is the case, it would be a natural thing. There is no "supernatural" side of existence, and I rather doubt that even the most vile criminal would be consigned to a "Lake of Fire" for all eternity. These are tales conjured up thousands of years ago to scare people into good behavior.
XAlan Burkhart