The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[CaliNORML]

In review of the theories of Creationism and Intelligent Design and the exact premise both are founded upon I have started to see a huge gap between these two theories.

Creationism states that "God" created us in a specific manner, no evolutionary process just poof. Man.

Intelligent design states that in evolution Mankind is hard wired to be smarter via access to the frontal brain region. Evolutionary evidence and modern science back up this assertion with physical evidence.

The brow or forehead region in the evolution of humans has seen a significant growth in that region of the skull. Leading evolutionists outside of Creationism to agree to this theory as well.

The main difference is in these two statements:

1. Man was made by God to have higher thinking.

2. Man is physically evolving into a higher thinker.

The first is creationism, the second intellignet design, as we are designed to be more intelligent.

I also take into consideration the scientific evidence. For instance did you all know that the Frontal Brain region of the boys with Autism are larger than their peers? And that skull identification as to that of being male or female was based on the forehead size or brow region as close as the 1800's?

What this shows is a physical movement in a certain part of our physiological condition, and yes it affects our physological one as well due to the nature of the area it resides in. The problem with the self inversion condition of Autism is that suffers are lacking in almost every aspect of humanity this region contains.

After all isn't that which we see physicaly growing in our natural form a link to evolution?

We are today able to determine with great accuracy the evolution of other species. What if we applied those standards to the facts we currently have in evidence about humans to human evolution? Why wait for far future generations?

Why shouldn’t we look at the concrete evidence we have now? What good use is observation and science if we do not apply it? Is not their very origin meant to be used to help humankind make a better future for our species?

I see these facts:

1. The basic shape of human’s skull and the functions shown to be provide from the frontal brain are in direct correlation to each other. The staggering statistics of frontal brain disorders in children born today coupled with learning disabilities, social and emotional disorders, and almost every other area this region is used for is skyrocketing at an alarming rate, with new ones such as Pandas discovered almost yearly.

2. The nature of this region is mainly emotional, abstract, metaphorical, communication, language and non-violent behaviors. Religion does preach all of these things, yet so to does psychiatry.

3. Lie detectors measure a bad effect on one's body; a random act of kindness causes a positive effect not only to those performing one but also to those who witness one. That tells me that doing such actions make us healthier. Evolution states only the healthy and smartest survive.

Looking at all of the evidence, observation rules of scientific principles state that they should be explored, if only to rule them out. Why not do so, and put reasoning back into religion?


KMS

 

[libertarian_knight]

A scientific conclusion based on absolutely no data is not science! Lack of data is not data! A good scientist would never come to a conclusion when no data exists! Ex. Can scientists "scientifically" answer this question: Do planets exist beyond the universe that we have absolutely no way of detecting? To say, "No!" because we have no way of detecting them is not coming to a conclusion based on evidence, but based on total and complete ignorance on the subject! A good scientist should say the question is moot and unanswerable because their is no evidence/data to apply to the question (by definition) other than total and complete ignorance!

Creationism and Atheism are not science not matter how you try to make them science! They both try to form a conclusion based on not having data! In Creationism since we can't explain how the Universe was created as a fact, god must have done it! In Atheism since we can find no proveable facts proving there is a god, there must be no god! Poor logic and not science! Lack of proof neither confirms or denies anything! We simply don't know! If atheism scientifically proves there is not god, show me the proof instead of telling me you have no proof! You can't prove a true negative!

It doesn't hurt that much to just say, "We don't know the answer!" Try it!

actually, lack of substaniating evidence is a scientific reason to reject something. Now, as Carl Sagan said "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence." The thing may or may not exist or be true. However, the world does not function on things that may or may not exist or be true. The world and universe functions on things that do exist and are true, and all the evidence supports it.

Cold fusion was dismissed, because there was a lack of evidence, extra nuetrons. That is validly scientific to do, because the hypothesis was that a signature of cold fusion, would be extra nuetrons.

Mind you I do believe in God, but I would never be foolish enough to put God up against science. Therefor I modified my believe in God, and rejected the boxes religions tried to put God in. Religion in general is very very blasmephous. Think about it, men in robes and hats telling the world what God does and thinks as if they are directors and God is a pet on stage. Making demands on God. "God will send you to hell." People say that all the time, and they do it in a tone that similar to "God, eat your vegetables." If there is a hell (and I don't believe there is, but I do believe in an afterlife) it's God's choice to send me to hell. God is not a robot or a machine keeping score, sending people with +10 to heaven, +9 to -9 to purgatory, or -10 or greater to hell. All decisions of Gods are Gods, and God is not boxed in by any rule in any book, no matter what any man ever said, says, or will say.

God in not bound to "play by the rules." God makes the rules, therefor God can make execptions, God can change Gods' mind, God can make new rules and change those.

God is not something to be put in a box by men in hats or suits standing on a stage. Religion is something man controls, and only man controls, and all revealation is PERSONAL. All revealation from God is what God chooses to reveal to that person, becuase I am in no doubt, that God could easily reveal the same messgae to all people, at all times, perfectly. Because I know that men alter and corrupt things (all things, even revlealations) that God would know this as well.

If God does not appear to Confrom to science, or science does not appear to conform to God, the MOST LIKELY EXPLAINATION is that your concept of GOD IS WRONG.

Religion, really is Faith in what other men have said or written, not faith in God. (particularly men in positions of power, and often enough, drunk)

I can easily believe the bible is fiction, and still hold strong faith in God. I can believe Gerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, the Pope, the Mullahs, Priests, monks, Shamen, Rabbis, and all authors of all works, including religous works, are just men. Men subject to passions, jealousies, corruption, lust and power.

One of the ideas behind Christianity, is there was only one "Perfect Human," (for lack of a better term) Jesus the Christ. That should tell you, even people TRYING TO BE CHRIST LIKE can not be, as they are simply Human. If they are subject to Sin and error, Vice and power, then absolute faith in anything they write, should not be given. There is very little claimed to be written by the hand of God (in the bible only the ten commandments), and little to nothing in most other religions as well. IT'S ALL WIRTTEN BY FAILABLE MAN.

Religion is Man's Construct, not Gods'. What most men want, then is faith in you believing what they say. What most religous leaders want, is absolute faith in what they say.

I have faith (and a hell of a a lot of Hope) that I am correct, and when I an in the Presence of God it will be true, because I have faith in God. I DO NOT SUBSITUTE MY FAITH IN GOD FOR FAITH IN MAN.

Science is the appropriate tool for humans to dicover truths about what people say about the world. Because, like all people, scientists are often wrong. The difference though, science does not demand obedience, but requires skepticism

Religious leaders simply use fictional concepts about God as if God is their Bully, the enforcer of Man's will, to compel people into faith of the religious leader.

God has NEVER excommunicated ANYONE. God has NEVER labeled anyone a heretic. ONLY MEN DO THIS. (of course, it doesn't mean that God can not, but of course, God has no need to do it through men. God is God afterall.)

Again, becuase writing this, I ahve had a bit of personal revealation.

Religion is faith in what Men have said, not God. There is a HUGE difference.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Atheism is not science. A physicist can examine the Universe and make just as much argument for the existance of a God as one can make for the non-existance of one. I know physicists who are Christians. No, not at some Bible college but at one of the top research Universities in America. Some physicists argue that because it's so hard for amino acids to form into complex chains, that there must have been some kind of guidance. There have been many leading physicists that have argued the existance of a god for various reasons, many of which are beyond my expertise to explain. It's a scientific conclusion based on fact. Actually, it's just an opinion but to say there isn't a God is also just an opinion. The truth is, nobody knows yet. You can't compare the idea of a god or an intelligent creator to that of the Easter Bunny or something because the idea of a god is fundamentally different from those rather silly, fantasy creatures. The idea of a god is far more rational than a dragon, a unicorn, etc. Because like I said, the idea of a god can be a natural conclusion of scientific analysis of the Universe. If you actually look at science communities throughout Universities, the overwhelming majority are not atheists. Most of the great scientists in the past have not been atheists. Most of my friends who teach science at the University level have said that most science Professors are either really strong atheists or really strong theists.

Yeah, and where religion enters the answer, science dies. Just because Einstein had religious objections to quantum mechanics doesn't mean God exists.

I think it is foolish for anybody to discount the possiblity of a god unless they themselves have studied physics and math in depth.

Well, there ya go. I know enough physics and math to satisfy that requirement.

To give you an example of what I've stated-consider the pyramids. Nobody as of yet can determine a solid explanation of how they were built, leading many to conclude that they were created by extraterrestrial life. There is not direct evidence to prove this but does that mean we should just rule the possiblity out? Should we just dismiss it and toss it aside?

Yes. To do otherwise detracts from the success of the men who built the things. It's an insult.

To do so would be just as foolish as saying that humans must have built the Pyramids, just because we don't have proof otherwise.

You're one of those people that think OJ is innocent, and not just "not guilty", right?

This is the analogy and this is why agnosticism makes much more sense than atheism does.

Agnosticism is suitable for people with minds that won't accept hospital corners. They can't be made up.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

In review of the theories of Creationism and Intelligent Design and the exact premise both are founded upon I have started to see a huge gap between these two theories.

Creationism states that "God" created us in a specific manner, no evolutionary process just poof. Man.

Intelligent design states that in evolution Mankind is hard wired to be smarter via access to the frontal brain region. Evolutionary evidence and modern science back up this assertion with physical evidence.

No, "Intelligent Design" claims that evolution is a guided process with a set goal. The fossil record proofs that evolution is a random process without goal. Your claim that science backs up the religious quackery now called ID is false.

The main difference is in these two statements:

1. Man was made by God to have higher thinking.

2. Man is physically evolving into a higher thinker.

Neither claim has a shred of evidence to back it up.

The first is creationism, the second intellignet design, as we are designed to be more intelligent.

Both are variants of creationism. ID is merely creatism dressed up to look slightly less kooky, since the overt religion of creationism has been cast out.

I also take into consideration the scientific evidence. For instance did you all know that the Frontal Brain region of the boys with Autism are larger than their peers? And that skull identification as to that of being male or female was based on the forehead size or brow region as close as the 1800's?

So autistics have deformed brains, and men and women are different. This is evidence of God?

After all isn't that which we see physicaly growing in our natural form a link to evolution?

Don't know what you mean here, but since ID is wrong, it's got nothing to do with that.

Evolution states only the healthy and smartest survive.

No, it doesn't. I've seen far too many healthy females attracted to really stupid but muscular males that do drugs and get drunk.

Looking at all of the evidence, observation rules of scientific principles state that they should be explored, if only to rule them out. Why not do so, and put reasoning back into religion?

Because religion is the antithesis of reason.

 

[Engimo]

1. The basic shape of human’s skull and the functions shown to be provide from the frontal brain are in direct correlation to each other. The staggering statistics of frontal brain disorders in children born today coupled with learning disabilities, social and emotional disorders, and almost every other area this region is used for is skyrocketing at an alarming rate, with new ones such as Pandas discovered almost yearly.

2. The nature of this region is mainly emotional, abstract, metaphorical, communication, language and non-violent behaviors. Religion does preach all of these things, yet so to does psychiatry.

3. Lie detectors measure a bad effect on one's body; a random act of kindness causes a positive effect not only to those performing one but also to those who witness one. That tells me that doing such actions make us healthier. Evolution states only the healthy and smartest survive.

You really don't understand what Evolution actually is. Evolution says that, by means of random mutations and filtered by Natural Selection, there are genetic changes that occur to species over time. It says nothing about how the "healthy" or "smart" survive, and the fact of the matter is that Evolution is not noticable or even predictable when you're talking about modern humans (who are sentient and change their surroundings [as well as interfere with Natural Selection on a regular basis]) and any time period other than a couple million years.

Evolution takes a long time, and your arguments don't seem to understand that. Quite frankly, you need to read up a little on what Evolution actually is, as your arguments do not correlate with Evolution at all, and in fact misrepresent it entirely.

 

[libertarian_knight]

In review of the theories of Creationism and Intelligent Design and the exact premise both are founded upon I have started to see a huge gap between these two theories.

Creationism states that "God" created us in a specific manner, no evolutionary process just poof. Man.

Intelligent design states that in evolution Mankind is hard wired to be smarter via access to the frontal brain region. Evolutionary evidence and modern science back up this assertion with physical evidence.

The brow or forehead region in the evolution of humans has seen a significant growth in that region of the skull. Leading evolutionists outside of Creationism to agree to this theory as well.

The main difference is in these two statements:

1. Man was made by God to have higher thinking.

2. Man is physically evolving into a higher thinker.

The first is creationism, the second intellignet design, as we are designed to be more intelligent.

I also take into consideration the scientific evidence. For instance did you all know that the Frontal Brain region of the boys with Autism are larger than their peers? And that skull identification as to that of being male or female was based on the forehead size or brow region as close as the 1800's?

What this shows is a physical movement in a certain part of our physiological condition, and yes it affects our physological one as well due to the nature of the area it resides in. The problem with the self inversion condition of Autism is that suffers are lacking in almost every aspect of humanity this region contains.

After all isn't that which we see physicaly growing in our natural form a link to evolution?

We are today able to determine with great accuracy the evolution of other species. What if we applied those standards to the facts we currently have in evidence about humans to human evolution? Why wait for far future generations?

Why shouldn’t we look at the concrete evidence we have now? What good use is observation and science if we do not apply it? Is not their very origin meant to be used to help humankind make a better future for our species?

I see these facts:

1. The basic shape of human’s skull and the functions shown to be provide from the frontal brain are in direct correlation to each other. The staggering statistics of frontal brain disorders in children born today coupled with learning disabilities, social and emotional disorders, and almost every other area this region is used for is skyrocketing at an alarming rate, with new ones such as Pandas discovered almost yearly.

2. The nature of this region is mainly emotional, abstract, metaphorical, communication, language and non-violent behaviors. Religion does preach all of these things, yet so to does psychiatry.

3. Lie detectors measure a bad effect on one's body; a random act of kindness causes a positive effect not only to those performing one but also to those who witness one. That tells me that doing such actions make us healthier. Evolution states only the healthy and smartest survive.

Looking at all of the evidence, observation rules of scientific principles state that they should be explored, if only to rule them out. Why not do so, and put reasoning back into religion?


KMS

A few things. IIRC Neanderthals, our predacessors, were "smarter" than us, and had a larger frontal lobe. Homo Sapien Sapien has better communication abilities, and this they suspect is why they died out, but we survived.

It means, in all likelihood, neanderthals were smarter, and thus higher thinkers, individual. Why did God Kill off the Neadnerthals?

The Human brain has changed virutually imperpectably since ancient times. The Ancient Druids who built Stone Rings, and the Egyptians, and everyone was as Human then, as we are today. We just invented writing and science, which are huge time savers in the acquisition and sitribution of knowledge.

1. huh?
2.so?
3. no, maybe and no it does not.
Lie detectors detect CHANGES in the body, not necessarily "bad effects." In fact, if a person starts out lying during a baseline reading, they lie detector can not work. That's why they ask known truths, name, age, hair color, and odd truthful questions, is purple a color, is music sound, whatever, to get a baseline "truth" reading. Then a lie shows as alterations, not necessarily "bed effects," but changes from the known truthful baseline. Which is also why lie detectors are fallable, because a person who can control their mind and body show a steady, unchanging, signal while lying about night being day.

An act of kindness may have positive effects (the question then is whether they are socially taught or innate in human physiology), and even if they are innate, so what we are social animals after all. As social animals, it's understandable that socially beneficial behavior would evolve within our species.

Evolution by means of Natural selection DOES NOT say that only the healthiest and smartest will survive. That is grossly wrong. Mere survival is irrelivant to evolution, without breeding. Evolution by means of natural selection states that those healiest, most suited to their environement (those best fit to live in the environment, aka fittest), and "smartest," are more likely to survive, and thus more likely to breed, and pass on beneficial genes.

 

[CaliNORML]

So evolution just pops up for no natural reason? It is indeed a process which adapts a species to their enviorment, by physical change.

You all make it so random, when physical evidence is in your eye sight.

As I said Principles of Science say this area needs to be looked at, if only to prove it wrong.

Did I say "God" made us this way? Perhaps nature did.

Either way no sentence I printed above is in any way related to "God." Why should looking at physical science be disreguarded because of a bias?

Equated to that destruction brought by a large storm, science says water heated in the ocean, and caused a storm cell to hit the town, some say "God" did it, are the results any less obvious?

Saying that were are developing a larger frontal brain, and God is making our frontal brain grow, what's the difference if it is indeed growing? That is a fact, not religious, purely science.

KMS

 

[MrFungus420]

In review of the theories of Creationism and Intelligent Design and the exact premise both are founded upon I have started to see a huge gap between these two theories.

Neither is a theory. They are both, essentially, just religious stories.

Creationism states that "God" created us in a specific manner, no evolutionary process just poof. Man.

Intelligent design states that in evolution Mankind is hard wired to be smarter via access to the frontal brain region. Evolutionary evidence and modern science back up this assertion with physical evidence.

I have no idea of where you're getting your definitions. Creationism is just saying that God made everything.

Intelligent Design is saying that life is too complex to have evolved naturally, and was, therefore, created and guided by an outside intelligence.

 

[Engimo]

So evolution just pops up for no natural reason? It is indeed a process which adapts a species to their enviorment, by physical change.

No, Evolution pops up for reasons that are entirely natural. Because of random mutations that occur (and are observed all the time - this is the reason for antibiotic resistance) and selective pressures that are the result of a species environment (predation, climate, etc.), species change over time. This is because those that are best fit to live in their environment can reproduce more and become the dominant members of their species. It's all rather common sense.

You all make it so random, when physical evidence is in your eye sight.

As I said Principles of Science say this area needs to be looked at, if only to prove it wrong.

Did I say "God" made us this way? Perhaps nature did.

This is all based upon a misunderstanding of Evolution. There is no randomness in Natural Selection outside of the mutations that provide genetic variety. The selective pressures are anything but random, but they are not intelligent and there is no design.

Equated to that destruction brought by a large storm, science says water heated in the ocean, and caused a storm cell to hit the town, some say "God" did it, are the results any less obvious?

What? We can study and test the effect of temperature and pressure differences on the creation of storms - we cannot test the idea of God doing it. The two approaches are not equal.

 

[libertarian_knight]

So evolution just pops up for no natural reason? It is indeed a process which adapts a species to their enviorment, by physical change.

You all make it so random, when physical evidence is in your eye sight.

As I said Principles of Science say this area needs to be looked at, if only to prove it wrong.

Did I say "God" made us this way? Perhaps nature did.

Either way no sentence I printed above is in any way related to "God." Why should looking at physical science be disreguarded because of a bias?

Equated to that destruction brought by a large storm, science says water heated in the ocean, and caused a storm cell to hit the town, some say "God" did it, are the results any less obvious?

Saying that were are developing a larger frontal brain, and God is making our frontal brain grow, what's the difference if it is indeed growing? That is a fact, not religious, purely science.

KMS

Evolution is pretty random, especially any evolution that results from random mutations. Much of evolution is generally a slow process involving slight varation in existing genes, but random genetic mutation is the primary mechanism for the creation of new genes.

I think because of some of the errors in your statements I mistook you for an IDer or Creationist, as generally, they have been the ones making such statements (evolution being about survival, and not breeding). (It is entirely possible for even "unfit" or "lesser fit" individuals to breed and pass on genetic information.)

Science is not disinterested observation, but also looking for causes and relationships. It's not a specialized branch of physical accounting, but a system for relating that which is counted (measured, observed, etc).

The results of a storm or the frontal lobe increasing, may not be any different if attributed to God or some other cause, but simple recognition that something happened or something is does not advance understanding of the thing at all. What's more, attributing a thing to God, often enters the possiblity of attempting to defy God through preparation and prevention.

People thought God did things for a reason, and therefor refused to treat disease. During this period of European History, medical advancement in Christian countries was abysmal, and hospitalis were not places to treat disease, but extentions of Churchs, essentially places for people to die; and treating pain was looked at as defiance of God, and the dying and sick must suffer all the pain of their disease. Modern hospitals are places where people are treated in order that they live, or that should they be dying or sick, are made more comfortable. Here, you can really see the difference in outcome attributing events to God or using science to understand causes and relationship.

 

[MrFungus420]

Atheism is not science.

True, but at this point, religion is scientifically unsupportable.

A physicist can examine the Universe and make just as much argument for the existance of a God as one can make for the non-existance of one.

How do you figure that? There is no evidence to support the contention that there is a god.. As our knowledge increases, there is continually less that we don't understand. We find more and more natural explanations that explain things that used to be entirely the providence of dieties. The movement of the sun, the movement of the moon, tides, disease, lightning, thunder, fertility, and having a good crop yield are all things that used to be thought to be the result of the intervention and actions of gods.

I know physicists who are Christians.

So. Or are you trying to say that you know physicists who use God to explain everything instead of science?

No, not at some Bible college but at one of the top research Universities in America. Some physicists argue that because it's so hard for amino acids to form into complex chains, that there must have been some kind of guidance.

Ah, you are...

There have been many leading physicists that have argued the existance of a god for various reasons, many of which are beyond my expertise to explain.

Which physicists?

It's a scientific conclusion based on fact. Actually, it's just an opinion but to say there isn't a God is also just an opinion.

Which is it? Conclusion or simple opinion? Do you also say that it is just an opinion to say that there is no evidence to support the notion of the existence of a diety?

The truth is, nobody knows yet. You can't compare the idea of a god or an intelligent creator to that of the Easter Bunny or something because the idea of a god is fundamentally different from those rather silly, fantasy creatures.

How is it fundamentally different? Assume for a moment that it is certain that there is no diety. If that was a given, then it would be obvious that there were no real difference between it and Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, dragons or unicorns, all are just mythical constructs.

Let's put it a different way. Do you think that it is a rather silly, fantastic idea that Thor is responsible for thunder?

The idea of a god is far more rational than a dragon, a unicorn, etc. Because like I said, the idea of a god can be a natural conclusion of scientific analysis of the Universe.

The existence of a diety can only be a scientific conclusion if there is evidence to support it. There is none for a god.

If you actually look at science communities throughout Universities, the overwhelming majority are not atheists.

Irrelevent. That may be their personal belief, but they aren't generally using that as an explanation.

Most of the great scientists in the past have not been atheists.

Well, considering that for the better part of the last 2 millennia there was no choice in the matter, that to disagree with the Church risked death, it's no surprise that the majority of previous scientists were not atheists. You can even narrow that down and say that they were mostly Christian.

It's amazing that we've had any scientific advancement considering the risks from going against the Church's explanations.

Most of my friends who teach science at the University level have said that most science Professors are either really strong atheists or really strong theists.

I think it is foolish for anybody to discount the possiblity of a god unless they themselves have studied physics and math in depth.

Don't you think that it is more foolish to assume the existence of a diety in the absence of any evidence of it's existence?

To give you an example of what I've stated-consider the pyramids. Nobody as of yet can determine a solid explanation of how they were built,

That may be, but there are several possible explanations.

leading many to conclude that they were created by extraterrestrial life.

I wouldn't say "many". A few crackpots, maybe, but not many people...

There is not direct evidence to prove this but does that mean we should just rule the possiblity out? Should we just dismiss it and toss it aside? To do so would be just as foolish as saying that humans must have built the Pyramids, just because we don't have proof otherwise.

Except, we have no evidence of extraterrestrials visiting this planet. We have no evidence for extraterrestrial, period. We have several explanations that are all feasible, that can be done, that can be tested to see if they could have been done with the resources and technology available at the time.

So, we have a totally unsupported story about aliens building the pyramids versus explanations that could have been done by people at the time, explanations that can be tested for feasibility.

So, it is reasonable to discount the story about extraterrestrial intervention as mere speculation.

This is the analogy and this is why agnosticism makes much more sense than atheism does.

Why do you feel that it makes more sense to say that there is no meaningful answer to the existence of god instead of not believeing in a god because there is no evidence of one?

 

[Mr. D]

Why do you feel that it makes more sense to say that there is no meaningful answer to the existence of god instead of not believeing in a god because there is no evidence of one?

To believe anything with "no evidence" is to believe in faith! It is perfectly logical and scientific to say, "I see no evidence there is a god, so I have no reason to believe there is a god!" On the contrary, to say, "I see no evidence there is a god, so I therefore I know and believe there is no god!", is to form an opinion and set a belief based in faith not fact! "I see no evidence of a god, so I am unable to speak to the issue!" God may exist, but I have no evidence to form an opinion either way! Beliefs based on absolutely no data/fact are beliefs of faith/religion! Absence of evidence or factual explanation supports no belief, even Creationism!
:2wave:

 

[Engimo]

To believe anything with "no evidence" is to believe in faith! It is perfectly logical and scientific to say, "I see no evidence there is a god, so I have no reason to believe there is a god!" On the contrary, to say, "I see no evidence there is a god, so I therefore I know and believe there is no god!", is to form an opinion and set a belief based in faith not fact! "I see no evidence of a god, so I am unable to speak to the issue!" God may exist, but I have no evidence to form an opinion either way! Beliefs based on absolutely no data/fact are beliefs of faith/religion! Absence of evidence or factual explanation supports no belief, even Creationism!
:2wave:

This is a false dichotomy. Atheists, by and large, do not say "I see no evidence there is a god, so I therefore I know and believe there is no god!"

Weak atheists, which comprise the vast majority of atheists, do not make any positive assertions about the existence of God - they do not say that there definitively is not a God, they simply say that there is no reason to believe in him based on a lack of evidence. What you say as agnosticism being the right "middle ground" is simply wrong, and flies in the face of the burden of proof.

Should you be wary of disbelief in invisible unicorns from Saturn? An a-unicornist would not say that there are definitively no invisible unicorns from Saturn, they would simply refuse to believe in unicorns until evidence is presented - which is logically sound and consistent. The burden of proof falls on those asserting.

 

[steen]

So evolution just pops up for no natural reason? It is indeed a process which adapts a species to their enviorment, by physical change.

It pops up when there is a change, so it is neither popping up, nor for no reason

As I said Principles of Science say this area needs to be looked at, if only to prove it wrong.

That was already done.

Did I say "God" made us this way? Perhaps nature did.

"perhaps" doesn't cut it. The evidence is what matters.

 

[Mr. D]

This is a false dichotomy. Atheists, by and large, do not say "I see no evidence there is a god, so I therefore I know and believe there is no god!"

Weak atheists, which comprise the vast majority of atheists, do not make any positive assertions about the existence of God - they do not say that there definitively is not a God, they simply say that there is no reason to believe in him based on a lack of evidence. What you say as agnosticism being the right "middle ground" is simply wrong, and flies in the face of the burden of proof.

Should you be wary of disbelief in invisible unicorns from Saturn? An a-unicornist would not say that there are definitively no invisible unicorns from Saturn, they would simply refuse to believe in unicorns until evidence is presented - which is logically sound and consistent. The burden of proof falls on those asserting.

Are we defining the terms in the same way?

(atheism |?????iz?m| noun - the theory or belief that God does not exist.)

(agnostic |ag?nästik| noun - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I accept everything you said, except the atheists I hear speak claim to be that there is no god! What you say "weak" atheists believe is logical and what I have come to call being an agnostic! I don't claim anything about agnostics as being right or a middle ground! I guess I have no dissagreement with you! Maybe we just define the terms differently!
Have a good day!
:2wave:

 

[Engimo]

Are we defining the terms in the same way?

(atheism |?????iz?m| noun - the theory or belief that God does not exist.)

(agnostic |ag?nästik| noun - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

I accept everything you said, except the atheists I hear speak claim to be that there is no god! What you say "weak" atheists believe is logical and what I have come to call being an agnostic! I don't claim anything about agnostics as being right or a middle ground! I guess I have no dissagreement with you! Maybe we just define the terms differently!
Have a good day!
:2wave:

Indeed. Agnostics and Weak Atheists are often considered the same thing - it is a shame that semantics often come between people understanding eachother.

 

[CaliNORML]

Many scientists have said.

"You do not have to accept God, to back intelligent design," also in there was; "but it helps."

The definitons may be wrong but what is the difference in saying this is occuring, whether "God" wanted it to or not?

KMS

 

[Mr. D]

Indeed. Agnostics and Weak Atheists are often considered the same thing - it is a shame that semantics often come between people understanding eachother.

I found in 20 yrs. of collective bargaining negotiations that some times during a disagreement you need to stop and "define the terms" to make sure everyone is on the same page!

:2wave:

 

[CaliNORML]

Ancient men were smaller than modern man, thus the overall size of the frontal lobe is smaller.

Communication, language and all that make us "advanced" comes from the frontal brain. It is increasing in size and function.

Frontal Lobe.

Brain studies on Impulsive violence.

Brain sizes of Autistic Boys.

Psychopathology of Frontal Lobe Syndromes


Sex Differences in Brain Gray and White Matter in Healthy Young Adults: Correlations with Cognitive Performance

Violent Changes in the Brain

Women Have More Frontal Lobe Neurons Than Men

Oppositional Children Similar To OCD on SPECT: Implications for Treatment

Brains.org

Evidence of evolution of the Brain.

Brain Physical

The function of the Human Brain

Say with all of this evidence we took the symbol of the Catholic Burning Heart of Compassion, and all religious truths and put them where they physicaly lie.

Some Eastern Religions have put a dot to mark the spot. It is happening and it does affect the spritual concepts religion is based on within our physical beings.

Telling a lie causes your heart to race, thus increasing blood pressure, constriction of blood vessels, and increrased sweating with a rush of chemicals as you do this act. This stress causes inflammation and is indeed unhealthy.

Call it a virus, call it the plauge, say,"God did it" whichever you so chose: it is becoming highly visible to the scientific community that this is indeed the path we are on.

KMS

 

[Engimo]

Some Eastern Religions have put a dot to mark the spot. It is happening and it does affect the spritual concepts religion is based on within our physical beings.

Telling a lie causes your heart to race, thus increasing blood pressure, constriction of blood vessels, and increrased sweating with a rush of chemicals as you do this act. This stress causes inflammation and is indeed unhealthy.

Call it a virus, call it the plauge, say,"God did it" whichever you so chose: it is becoming highly visible to the scientific community that this is indeed the path we are on.

KMS

Seriously, man, you need to read up on what Evolution actually says. What you're claiming is entirely untrue and I think that you'd be hard pressed to find any legitimate science supporting it.

 

[steen]

Many scientists have said.

"You do not have to accept God, to back intelligent design," also in there was; "but it helps."

Your claim is flase. prove it.

The definitons may be wrong but what is the difference in saying this is occuring, whether "God" wanted it to or not?

You better first prove your claim.

 

[steen]

Ancient men were smaller ....

Your ENTIRE post was utterly irrelevant.

 

[CaliNORML]

A Brain for Intelligent Design
A new scientific concept for biological evolution


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boris Zlotin and Alla Zusman

Ideation International

Southfield, Michigan

1985 -- 2000

Translated by Alla Zusman1

Foreword

The discussion about Intelligent Design -- fed by political controversy -- is heating up, as evidenced by recent editorials in USA Today ("Faith, science complement each other," August 16, 2005, and "New school year, new battle over evolution," August 26, 2005). Yet a solution exists that can pacify the frenzy.

The main question of the discussion is the following: Is Intelligent Design a science or religion? Unfortunately, today it is both.

The science part: It is a scientific fact that normal evolution through haphazard mutation and selection could not have created certain complex biological structures in the available timeframe. A possible explanation for this paradox is that the evolution of a species is not random but is subjected to guidance (intelligent design) that streamlines the evolutionary process. This explanation appears scientific -- with calculations, formulated discrepancies in the existing theory, and a possible direction that resolves these problems.

But now comes the difficult part: Who is this intelligent guide capable of influencing evolution? So far, the only candidate for this role is an almighty God, and this is not a scientific solution. (The existence of God is a matter of faith rather than scientific proof.) At the same time we have no reason to believe that Little Green Extraterrestrials are responsible. If we could only find another plausible candidate -- one with a physical rather than imaginary nature -- we could keep things in the realm of science and take religion out of the equation.

The authors are specialists in technological evolution. In the mid-1980s we conducted in-depth studies of biological evolution theory for the purpose of identifying useful analogies between natural and technological evolution. We were surprised by the numerous discrepancies in the theory of natural evolution (the "intelligent design" problem is just one of more than a dozen). In the process of seeking a solution to explain the discrepancies, we developed a theory that explains intelligent design without God's involvement. In 1986 we reported and discussed our findings with evolution specialists; they were outraged, yet could offer no scientific objections to the theory. For the next 20 years as we worked on other matters we kept our eye on the subject, and it still looks promising (additional data accumulated over the last two decades supports our view).

This paper is a result of applying the TRIZ approach to the process of solving scientific problems and generating new scientific concepts.2

The processes for solving scientific problems and generating new scientific concepts are based on the same approach -- problem inversion. The essence of this approach is simple: instead of asking, "How can a certain phenomenon be explained?" we ask "How can this phenomenon be created under the given conditions?" The problem then becomes a typical inventive problem and can be attacked using existing TRIZ tools such as the Innovation Principles, ARIZ, System of Operators, etc.3 Based on this approach, a process was developed for building new scientific concepts (see the Appendix).

To test the usefulness of the problem inversion approach for generating new scientific concepts, the authors applied it to several areas, including organization theory and biological evolution. This paper describes the process and results of our efforts to invent a new concept of biological evolution. The process/results were first presented in 1985 at the TRIZ Congress in Petrozavodsk, Russia.4 The hypothesis was revisited in 1988 at a TRIZ seminar conducted by Boris Zlotin and Dr. Gafur Zainiev at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics at the Siberian division (Novosibirsk) of the Soviet Union Academy of Science.


Found here. Link

HERE most recently.

Here

First, let's get rid of the idea that ID (intelligent design) is a form of sly creationism. It isn't. ID is unfairly confused with the movement to teach creationism in public schools. The most serious ID proponents are complexity theorists, legitimate scientists among them, who believe that strict Darwinism and especially neo-Darwinism (the notion that all of our qualities are the product of random mutation) is inadequate to explain the high level of organization at work in the world. Creationists are attracted to ID, and one of its founding fathers, University of California law professor Phillip Johnson, is a devout Presbyterian. But you don't have to be a creationist to think there might be something to it, or to agree with Johnson when he says, "The human body is packed with marvels, eyes and lungs and cells, and evolutionary gradualism can't account for that."

LINK

All of these reports and Science findings are from recent years. This shut down of Intelligent design is like tossing out the baby in the bathwater. Some of the evidence is true and yet under this umbrella of anti religion is being totaly ignored.

KMS

 

[steen]

A Brain for Intelligent Design....

More "just because I say so" postulation full of lies. So what?

 

[Engimo]

The most serious ID proponents are complexity theorists, legitimate scientists among them, who believe that strict Darwinism and especially neo-Darwinism (the notion that all of our qualities are the product of random mutation) is inadequate to explain the high level of organization at work in the world.

Ahh, and therein lies the fundamental flaw in the logic. The idea that flaws in another theory provide evidence for the theory is nonsense. A lack of understanding in one theory does not mean anything about any other theories.

Even if Evolutionary Theory were proven to be entirely invalid, that would not provide any evidence for ID. At the root of ID lies this appeal to ignorance that is not scientific in the slightest.