Creation vs Evolution

Started by Emperor Ashtar221 pages

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please define "Young earth creationist".

Isn't the name self explanatory, they are creationist who believe the earh was created 7000-10,000 years. There arguments is that the age of the earth was made synonmous with the age of the sun.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Isn't the name self explanatory, they are creationist who believe the earh was created 7000-10,000 years. There arguments is that the age of the earth was made synonmous with the age of the sun.

OK, so they take the bible literally?

And were do they get the idea that the sun is only 7000-10,000 years old? 😆

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
You know the theory of Evolution does not contradict Creationism. . .I don't see why put them at odds.

I might be able to reconcile the idea of a god with evolution, but intelligent design is actually a directed evolutionary process, explained by some unknown intangible intelligence. Natural Selection, meanwhile, has no guiding intelligence, and is defined by the interactions of the organism with the environment. Thus, a polar bear developed its thick coat of fur to survive and thrive in the arctic environment. If we take ID at face value, then that polar bear is warm and toasty because some intelligence designed it in that way.

Here we are.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, so they take the bible literally?
Not all creationist are Judeo Christian

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

And were do they get the idea that the sun is only 7000-10,000 years old? 😆

No, they believe that chronologist wrongly attributed the age of earth with the age of the sun.

Originally posted by Ymir
I might be able to reconcile the idea of a god with evolution, but intelligent design is actually a directed evolutionary process, explained by some unknown intangible intelligence. Natural Selection, meanwhile, has no guiding intelligence, and is defined by the interactions of the organism with the environment. Thus, a polar bear developed its thick coat of fur to survive and thrive in the arctic environment. If we take ID at face value, then that polar bear is warm and toasty because some intelligence designed it in that way.

Here we are.

But there is an intelligence involved: the polar bear is behind it. The need to survive is an intelligence in the most fundamental way.

Originally posted by Ymir
I might be able to reconcile the idea of a god with evolution, but intelligent design is actually a directed evolutionary process, explained by some unknown intangible intelligence. Natural Selection, meanwhile, has no guiding intelligence, and is defined by the interactions of the organism with the environment. Thus, a polar bear developed its thick coat of fur to survive and thrive in the arctic environment. If we take ID at face value, then that polar bear is warm and toasty because some intelligence designed it in that way.

Here we are.

But, how does that contradict evolution?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But there is an intelligence involved: the polar bear is behind it. The need to survive is an intelligence in the most fundamental way.

Shaky is right, the Polar bear's body is behind it, though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But there is an intelligence involved: the polar bear is behind it. The need to survive is an intelligence in the most fundamental way.

You believe that the organism itself directs its own evolution? Is that what you're implying?

Anyhow, the need to survive is an instinct, not an intelligence. Can an instinct really be called intelligence? If so, then we must greatly broaden the scope of the definition of intelligence.

How does ID explain the Origin of Species?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But there is an intelligence involved: the polar bear is behind it. The need to survive is an intelligence in the most fundamental way.

The polar bear's body is an intelligence now? All that the body is doing is modifying itself to fit to the changing environment. It would be an attribute. Would you call the ability to feel pain when hit an intelligence? Reaction is not necessarily the same as intelligence.

As for ID and Evolution, Evolution takes place without any outside interference. The only interaction, as stated is between the organism, and the environment. ID (to my knowledge) states that a grand intelligence composes it all, a la a great Wagnerian Opera.

Originally posted by Ymir
The polar bear's body is an intelligence now? All that the body is doing is modifying itself to fit to the changing environment. It would be an attribute. Would you call the ability to feel pain when hit an intelligence? Reaction is not necessarily the same as intelligence.

Sure, why not, feeling pain let's the organism know somethings wrong. The fact that the Body reacts to change implies intelligence.

Originally posted by Ymir

As for ID and Evolution, Evolution takes place without any outside interference. The only interaction, as stated is between the organism, and the environment. ID (to my knowledge) states that a grand intelligence composes it all, a la a great Wagnerian Opera.

Well, ID does not have a name or an explanation for this mechanism. So, it just translates to "God did it."

Originally posted by Ymir
The polar bear's body is an intelligence now? All that the body is doing is modifying itself to fit to the changing environment. It would be an attribute. Would you call the ability to feel pain when hit an intelligence? Reaction is not necessarily the same as intelligence.

As for ID and Evolution, Evolution takes place without any outside interference. The only interaction, as stated is between the organism, and the environment. ID (to my knowledge) states that a grand intelligence composes it all, a la a great Wagnerian Opera.

Please define intelligence.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
You failed to distinguished Creationist from Young earth creationist.
No, you moron, I did not.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Sure, why not, feeling pain let's the organism know somethings wrong. The fact that the Body reacts to change implies intelligence.

Well, ID does not have a name for or an explanation mechanism. So, it just translates to "God did it."

The definition of intelligence.

Intelligence is the capacity to reason. Reacting to pain would not show intelligence. It would show that your nerves are all in perfect working order, and you would not need intelligence to feel pain. Don't animals feel pain? Would you classify them as intelligent?

Anyhow, I have to go. Have fun, all of ya.

Is anyone here actually supporting ID? If they are...I'll direct my rage at them and ignore the rest of you that either know:

A: Nothing about evolution
B: Nothing about ID
C: Nothing about thier interaction

Originally posted by Ymir
The definition of intelligence.

Intelligence is the capacity to reason. Reacting to pain would not show intelligence. It would show that your nerves are all in perfect working order, and you would not need intelligence to feel pain. Don't animals feel pain? Would you classify them as intelligent?

Anyhow, I have to go. Have fun, all of ya.

1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

All things can and do learn. Those that do learn, survive: Those who do not, die. Species, over time, show a natural ability to adapt. That is no different then a single animal (like a man) using reasoning to adapt. There is no need for an external intelligence in order for natural adaptation to work.

How do they contradict alliance?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How do they contradict alliance?

how does what contradict?

Originally posted by Alliance
how does what contradict?

Nevermind.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

All things can and do learn. Those that do learn, survive: Those who do not, die. Species, over time, show a natural ability to adapt. That is no different then a single animal (like a man) using reasoning to adapt. There is no need for an external intelligence in order for natural adaptation to work.

I'm Pro-Evolution, in case you're wondering. However, I'm just wondering, what point exactly are you making? That Darwin was right?

The adaptation of species that we are looking at, however, is due to genetics, not intelligence. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are if you don't have the right equipment to survive in a given environment. I'm really wondering how we got on that tangent because intelligence does not affect evolution. Genetics do.

Originally posted by Ymir
I'm Pro-Evolution, in case you're wondering. However, I'm just wondering, what point exactly are you making? That Darwin was right?

The adaptation of species that we are looking at, however, is due to genetics, not intelligence. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are if you don't have the right equipment to survive in a given environment. I'm really wondering how we got on that tangent because intelligence does not affect evolution. Genetics do.

All I am saying is an outside intelligence is not needed for natural selection to work. Also, I am suggesting that natural selection functions, over time, like an intelligence.