Do you believe in "aliens"

[Korskin]

(B) When did I prohibit talking about evolution? I've suggested time and again an invitation for something to debate yet we're still chatting about essentially nothing.

 

You didn't, you just said it was irrelevant. It started with this:

Guys, I appreciate some of this debate is someway relevant to aliens (abiogenesis etc.), but can we please leave the validity of evolution out of it?

 

© What is this point relevant to?

 

To Einstein versus Newton.

 

(D) Right, so even after presenting mechanisms for self replication, symbiotic relationships and self polymerization of inanimate matter and the fact the Crick himself stated the ideas of non-intelligent panspermia weren't strong thus there is a need to invoke a non-evidenced intelligence you see it as fair to consider his opinion on par with what I cited? Science is not a democracy - it goes with the weight of evidence.

 

 

 

Claiming uncertainty doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make it any better either. There are always degrees of uncertainty in science yet we still go with the weight of evidence. The thing about science is that it can change, so any theory, no matter how weak it is seen to be at the time, can be favored based on the weight of evidence only to be overtaken by another theory in the future if necessary.

 

 

 

Sorry, on this point I just thoroughly disagree with you.

 

I don't understand why it's necessary to be bound by science all the time. So basically if a theory is extremely weak and improbable we should cling on to it just because it uses scientific method.

 

(E) See (B). I can't help but comment why on earth this is an issue for you if you have nothing to say about what it is you don't want to be 'restricted' from saying. Firstly, no one's going to stop you. Secondly, you've got nothing to say, so why are you talking about this? Sorry I just don't get it. If you've got something to say about it, make a topic, PM me if you want, anything. It's your perogative. You do realise most of what we're talking about on this point is meaningless jibber, don't you? If you had something in mind that's topical now would be the time to save this conversation.

 

If there is no issue then let's stop the nonsense.

 

(F) How would an intelligence change evolution?

 

I'll start with wikipedias definition of intelligent design:

 

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. I think that "unintelligent science" (evolution/abiogenesis) offers no convincing theory of how life began and how life by natural selection suddenly became conscious.

 

 

 

Why is that a contradiction? Clearly, the most evolved and therefore best species is going to dominate all the other species.

 

Have we always been the most dominant species? Will we always be? Also would that justify that white people had black slaves because they were able to dominate them? Do you think humans are worth more than animals? If we're all just animals more or less evolved shouldn't we and other animals be treated equally? I have a difficult time to see the clear distinction.

 

Abiogenesis and Evolution occur on the same timeline, but their validity is not linked.

 

 

 

The Big Bang and the expansion of the universe occur on the same timeline, but if the Big Bang is proven false, that does not mean the expansion of the universe is also false.

 

I agree.

[kabookeyman4]

now i know i jusmped into this forum post late but i wud love to be involved and justy for the record i do believe in aliens.the reason y i believe in aliens is because at this camp i went to for a school field trip i saw a UFO.i told my grandpa about it and he said that it was prlly a plane.but... get this when my grandpa was in his like 30s early 40s he saw this "thing" fly across the horizon east to west and 5 minutes later appeared again going north to south... hmmm. either the goverment is doin somthing weird or it was a real alien space craft. what do u think? :idea: :ohnoes:

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

I'll start with wikipedias definition of intelligent design:

 

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. I think that "unintelligent science" (evolution/abiogenesis) offers no convincing theory of how life began and how life by natural selection suddenly became conscious.

 

Life by abiogenesis became conscious (not suddenly, but gradually) because God decided it should. The wikipedia definition you quoted applies to both Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution. However, since ID rejects science but Theistic Evolution accepts science, you should choose Theistic Evolution. Here is the wikipedia article you should read.

 

 

 

Edit: Your original quote said "Life by natural selection became conscious..."

 

Natural selection refers to something completely different. Creatures in natural selection are already conscious.

 

 

 

 

Have we always been the most dominant species?

 

No, but according to God we are the final most dominant species. This does not conflict with evolution.

 

 

 

 

Will we always be?

 

Yes, according to God. This does not conflict with evolution.

 

 

 

 

Also would that justify that white people had black slaves because they were able to dominate them?

 

No. The bible makes distinctions between humans and other animals, but not between one race and another. That is why domination by humans is okay, but skin color domination is not. This does not conflict with evolution.

 

 

 

 

Do you think humans are worth more than animals? If we're all just animals more or less evolved shouldn't we and other animals be treated equally? I have a difficult time to see the clear distinction.

 

Evolution does not state how animals should be treated. According to the bible, humans are worth more than other animals and should reign over them. This does not conflict with evolution.

 

 

 

 

Abiogenesis and Evolution occur on the same timeline, but their validity is not linked.

 

 

 

The Big Bang and the expansion of the universe occur on the same timeline, but if the Big Bang is proven false, that does not mean the expansion of the universe is also false.

 

I agree.

 

Then why do you continue to claim that errors in abiogenesis would imply errors in evolution?

[warri0r45]

I don't understand why it's necessary to be bound by science all the time. So basically if a theory is extremely weak and improbable we should cling on to it just because it uses scientific method.

 

 

 

Nice use of language. "itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s weak" and "we should cling to it". How did you manage to get that from "degrees of uncertainty" "favored" and "it can change"?

 

 

 

I suppose then, firstly, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll apply this firmly at Crick and his unevidenced and invoked alien intelligence?

 

 

 

Again, on this point, you seem to neglect how science works. It dosenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter in the slightest if a theory is weak ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ the weight of evidence is always the judge. By going with abiogenesis, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying to you itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s true or strong. Science dosenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t deal in absolutes nor do I. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m saying, as is science, that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the strongest theory we have. ThereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s no need to cling to anything; science is accountable and will "cling to" whatever other theory comes along and happens to be stronger by way of a greater weight of evidence.

 

 

 

I'll start with wikipedias definition of intelligent design:

 

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. I think that "unintelligent science" (evolution/abiogenesis) offers no convincing theory of how life began and how life by natural selection suddenly became conscious.

 

 

 

Again, this is of course your opinion and intelligent supernatural causes arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t science. Added to that, your definition of ID, indeed the whole ID movement, is based on this fallacious and dishonest definition. Natural selection is the antithesis of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâundirectedÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢.

 

 

 

The fact that youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d espouse this view is (a) a joke, slapping a whole field of science in the face by way of a grossly dishonest misrepresentation, and, (B) shows how little you know about science and/or how little you care about its integrity. Point one is that science is restricted in a methodologically naturalistic paradigm which streams into point two, that being that this basis allows for verifiability or falsifiability via test, a critical pillar of science. "God did X" or any variant thereof is not testable and fails to comply with the crucial pillar of testability. To claim any theory whose basis is on a supernatural untestable "intelligence" as science is being ignorant of what science is. And again, invoking this intelligence spits all over parsimony.

 

 

 

So, on this point, weÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re down to ID being your opinion of the best explanation of life. As paperclips said, in accepting ID youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re neglecting the science. You could just as easily be a theistic evolutionist and see god as working through evolution, which would answer my question by way of intelligence doing nothing to change evolution. But IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not holding my breath.

[Korskin]

Nice use of language. "itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s weak" and "we should cling to it". How did you manage to get that from "degrees of uncertainty" "favored" and "it can change"?

 

 

 

I suppose then, firstly, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll apply this firmly at Crick and his unevidenced and invoked alien intelligence?

 

 

 

Again, on this point, you seem to neglect how science works. It dosenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter in the slightest if a theory is weak ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ the weight of evidence is always the judge. By going with abiogenesis, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying to you itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s true or strong. Science dosenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t deal in absolutes nor do I. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m saying, as is science, that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the strongest theory we have. ThereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s no need to cling to anything; science is accountable and will "cling to" whatever other theory comes along and happens to be stronger by way of a greater weight of evidence.

 

Fine, you have explained how science works. However, I'm not trying to redefine science, I'm questioning the authority and the validity of science. I suppose it's reasonable to search for the easiest scientific explanation but sometimes science can't explain things. Of course science knows its boundaries and it doesn't claim to be able to explain everything. What I don't like is that people who rely heavily on science seem to disregard everything that isn't science. Perhaps they could consider the concept of a God but that's a stretch and God probably just triggered the creation and nothing more.

 

Again, this is of course your opinion and intelligent supernatural causes arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t science. Added to that, your definition of ID, indeed the whole ID movement, is based on this fallacious and dishonest definition. Natural selection is the antithesis of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâundirectedÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢.

 

How is natural selection the antithesis of undirected? Who's the director?

 

The fact that youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d espouse this view is (a) a joke, slapping a whole field of science in the face by way of a grossly dishonest misrepresentation, and, (B) shows how little you know about science and/or how little you care about its integrity. Point one is that science is restricted in a methodologically naturalistic paradigm which streams into point two, that being that this basis allows for verifiability or falsifiability via test, a critical pillar of science. "God did X" or any variant thereof is not testable and fails to comply with the crucial pillar of testability. To claim any theory whose basis is on a supernatural untestable "intelligence" as science is being ignorant of what science is. And again, invoking this intelligence spits all over parsimony.

 

The most frequent criticism of ID is that it's not science. It's basically just a mantra. In my world view right and wrong is not equal to science and not science. Saying that it's not science is perhaps sufficient for you but it's not for me.

 

So, on this point, weÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re down to ID being your opinion of the best explanation of life. As paperclips said, in accepting ID youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re neglecting the science. You could just as easily be a theistic evolutionist and see god as working through evolution, which would answer my question by way of intelligence doing nothing to change evolution. But IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not holding my breath.

 

I haven't shut the door for theistic evolution but at the moment I have problems with the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. It also just seems like the easy way out to try and keep your credibility on the scientific field.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

I haven't shut the door for theistic evolution but at the moment I have problems with the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. It also just seems like the easy way out to try and keep your credibility on the scientific field.

 

You have talked about "problems with compatibility" in numerous posts, but you have never shown us any of those problems. What, exactly, is wrong with theistic evolution besides your personal bias against it?

 

 

 

Before you reply, please read this post. It is related to your concerns for compatibility: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=534 ... t=#5349599

 

 

 

Edit: If you have no problems with theistic evolution besides your personal bias, then please describe your bias (i.e. what about evolution makes you feel uncomfortable) so I can address it.

 

 

 

I suppose it's reasonable to search for the easiest scientific explanation but sometimes science can't explain things.

 

Sometimes religion can't explain things either. That is why you need to combine both.

 

 

 

Science explains how we are made. Religion explains why and by who. There is no overlap.

 

 

 

Science + Religion = Correct Viewpoint

 

Evolution + Creation = Theistic Evolution

 

 

 

 

Of course science knows its boundaries and it doesn't claim to be able to explain everything. What I don't like is that people who rely heavily on science seem to disregard everything that isn't science.

 

Disregard doesn't mean disprove. Biologists don't bring religion into their work simply because it is outside their field of study. In the same way, biologists wouldn't bring astronomy or nuclear physics into their work.

 

 

 

 

How is natural selection the antithesis of undirected? Who's the director?

 

God.

 

 

 

The most frequent criticism of ID is that it's not science. It's basically just a mantra. In my world view right and wrong is not equal to science and not science. Saying that it's not science is perhaps sufficient for you but it's not for me.

 

The most frequent criticism isn't that it's not science. The most frequent criticism is that it's wrong science.

[henman888]

I strongly belive they do exist.

 

There is billions of stars that have loads of solar systems.

 

So there could easily be a planet like earth

 

Things i do NOT belive:

 

Who said aliens are super inteligent?

 

An alien is a creature doesn't come from earth.

 

So they could easily be small microbes.

 

Aliens could be inteligent but not the way movies make it look like.

[warri0r45]

Nice use of language. "itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s weak" and "we should cling to it". How did you manage to get that from "degrees of uncertainty" "favored" and "it can change"?

 

 

 

I suppose then, firstly, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll apply this firmly at Crick and his unevidenced and invoked alien intelligence?

 

 

 

Again, on this point, you seem to neglect how science works. It dosenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter in the slightest if a theory is weak ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ the weight of evidence is always the judge. By going with abiogenesis, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying to you itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s true or strong. Science dosenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t deal in absolutes nor do I. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m saying, as is science, that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the strongest theory we have. ThereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s no need to cling to anything; science is accountable and will "cling to" whatever other theory comes along and happens to be stronger by way of a greater weight of evidence.

 

(1) Fine, you have explained how science works. However, I'm not trying to redefine science, I'm questioning the authority and the validity of science. I suppose it's reasonable to search for the easiest scientific explanation but sometimes science can't explain things. Of course science knows its boundaries and it doesn't claim to be able to explain everything. What I don't like is that people who rely heavily on science seem to disregard everything that isn't science. Perhaps they could consider the concept of a God but that's a stretch and God probably just triggered the creation and nothing more.

 

 

 

Again, this is of course your opinion and intelligent supernatural causes arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t science. Added to that, your definition of ID, indeed the whole ID movement, is based on this fallacious and dishonest definition. Natural selection is the antithesis of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâundirectedÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢.

 

(2) How is natural selection the antithesis of undirected? Who's the director?

 

 

 

The fact that youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢d espouse this view is (a) a joke, slapping a whole field of science in the face by way of a grossly dishonest misrepresentation, and, (B) shows how little you know about science and/or how little you care about its integrity. Point one is that science is restricted in a methodologically naturalistic paradigm which streams into point two, that being that this basis allows for verifiability or falsifiability via test, a critical pillar of science. "God did X" or any variant thereof is not testable and fails to comply with the crucial pillar of testability. To claim any theory whose basis is on a supernatural untestable "intelligence" as science is being ignorant of what science is. And again, invoking this intelligence spits all over parsimony.

 

(3) The most frequent criticism of ID is that it's not science. It's basically just a mantra. In my world view right and wrong is not equal to science and not science. Saying that it's not science is perhaps sufficient for you but it's not for me.

 

So, on this point, weÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re down to ID being your opinion of the best explanation of life. As paperclips said, in accepting ID youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re neglecting the science. You could just as easily be a theistic evolutionist and see god as working through evolution, which would answer my question by way of intelligence doing nothing to change evolution. But IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not holding my breath.

 

(4) I haven't shut the door for theistic evolution but at the moment I have problems with the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. It also just seems like the easy way out to try and keep your credibility on the scientific field.

 

 

 

(1) What am I supposed to rely on? An ignorant bronze age creation myth or tests which people actually perform to test the feasibility of their ideas rather than holding to them like dogma? Your questions of the validity of science are yet to have basis. The fact that you don't like that people rely on science rather than arguments from ignorance (ID's claim to fame is that it explains what we don't know by way of invoking something we can't possibly know and which, for whatever reason, dosen't require explanation) and belief is your prerogative yet I still disagree with you. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not telling you everything science posits is correct and everything else is incorrect (a lot science has to say is actually wrong, which is the reason for being accountable and not dogmatic), itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s just my opinion that knowing is better than believing. If you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t like that, I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help you. Just my opinion.

 

 

 

(2) Nature is the director (or god, as paperclips suggested, if you like). If you don't meet the requirements of nature, you're out of 'life' and you lose. That means your mutations must work. The fact that the IDists either donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know or neglect that natural selection is directed means they are ignorant and/or driven by agendas which seek to discredit the opposition in any way possible even if it means using a woeful misrepresentation. I vote number two. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve seen, heard and read enough to know the religious undertones of ID and the unbridled motivation to discredit evolution because of it.

 

 

 

(3) Mantra? I'm telling you the way it is. I'm not telling you science = right and everything else = wrong (no, that's most definately not the way I see things - as I said, science can most definately be wrong and other ideas may well be right, but other ideas are irrelevant to me when discussing issues of science), I'm telling you why ID is not science, because it's always proffered as science when it's not. If you thought I'd just keel over without mentioning it when it's such a relevant issue given the nature of the beast then you thought wrong. I'll say it again, the idea that ID explains life better than evolution is not science, but your opinion, but, I don't suppose you should have any problem with that seeing as you question the validity of sciene in the first place, presumably in favour of your chosen belief (presumably only when something contradicts it). By the way, the fact that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not science is miniscule compared to the fact that it explains nothing and ignores masses of evidence, and is essentially wrong.

 

 

 

(4) Yes, the compatability issue is your problem, not evolution's problem. If you think it's somehow noble to ignore a mass of evidence which your god made and clearly points to evolution as the only explanation then that's your prerogative. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve trifled through the papers for hours, trust me. This is no passing fad or appeal to science. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve studied biology on the cell and molecular level. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve seen how unbelievably well evolution explains the genome and how it leaves ID looking like one of the most foolish ideas ever. The whole notion that some supreme intelligence made the genome is blown out of the water with one word: pseudogene. Thus, you're down to being of the opinion that "not so intelligent design" is a better expanation than evolution, which in itself is a somewhat "not so intelligent design", driven by the restraints of nature and restricted to the genes that came before.

[Korskin]

Life by abiogenesis became conscious (not suddenly, but gradually) because God decided it should.

 

So your saying that science doesn't know how life became conscious. Instead it was actually God who did it. That's not very satisfying if you're an atheist.

 

 

 

No, but according to God we are the final most dominant species. This does not conflict with evolution.

 

So evolution has stopped?

 

 

 

No. The bible makes distinctions between humans and other animals, but not between one race and another. That is why domination by humans is okay, but skin color domination is not. This does not conflict with evolution.

 

I'm asking from an evolutionary perspective. What says that the "strong" shouldn't rule over the weak among our own race as well as other weaker animals?

 

 

 

Evolution does not state how animals should be treated. According to the bible, humans are worth more than other animals and should reign over them. This does not conflict with evolution.

 

The only thing you seem to prove is that you should listen to the Bible. So basically we need the Bible since the theory of evolution offers no distinction between animals and humans.

 

 

 

Then why do you continue to claim that errors in abiogenesis would imply errors in evolution?

 

I don't think I've done that.

 

 

 

You have talked about "problems with compatibility" in numerous posts, but you have never shown us any of those problems. What, exactly, is wrong with theistic evolution besides your personal bias against it?

 

 

 

Before you reply, please read this post. It is related to your concerns for compatibility: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=534 ... t=#5349599

 

 

 

Edit: If you have no problems with theistic evolution besides your personal bias, then please describe your bias (i.e. what about evolution makes you feel uncomfortable) so I can address it.

 

You make it sound like personal bias is just rubbish. As long as the Bible doesn't say "God didn't use evolution" or "God used evolution" we will have an interpretation issue. Bias now comes down to favoring one of many interpretations. What I like about theistic evolution is that it allows us to move past the whole evolution-christianity controversy and focus on what's actually important. My problem with it is my interpretation of genesis and that I think evolution is not entirely correct. Theistic evolution is the most diplomatic answer but I'm not sure it's the truth.

 

 

 

Science explains how we are made. Religion explains why and by who. There is no overlap.

 

 

 

Science + Religion = Correct Viewpoint

 

Evolution + Creation = Theistic Evolution

 

I agree to some extent but sometimes science can't explain how and you might need God as an explanation. Example would be miracles and things that science won't be able to explain. Similar would also be the concept of irreducible complexity. Of course I'm aware that it's not proven yet.

 

 

 

Disregard doesn't mean disprove. Biologists don't bring religion into their work simply because it is outside their field of study. In the same way, biologists wouldn't bring astronomy or nuclear physics into their work.

 

Yes, but it's not wise to work under the premises that nothing is designed.

 

 

 

 

The most frequent criticism isn't that it's not science. The most frequent criticism is that it's wrong science.

 

I think you're wrong. Just a quick google search resulted in:

 

"intelligent design is wrong science" - 0 results

 

"intelligent design is bad science" - 1700 results

 

"intelligent design is not science" - 27,300 results

[warri0r45]

Life by abiogenesis became conscious (not suddenly, but gradually) because God decided it should.

 

So your saying that science doesn't know how life became conscious. Instead it was actually God who did it. That's not very satisfying if you're an atheist.

 

 

 

No, but according to God we are the final most dominant species. This does not conflict with evolution.

 

So evolution has stopped?

 

 

 

No. The bible makes distinctions between humans and other animals, but not between one race and another. That is why domination by humans is okay, but skin color domination is not. This does not conflict with evolution.

 

I'm asking from an evolutionary perspective. What says that the "strong" shouldn't rule over the weak among our own race as well as other weaker animals?

 

 

 

Evolution does not state how animals should be treated. According to the bible, humans are worth more than other animals and should reign over them. This does not conflict with evolution.

 

The only thing you seem to prove is that you should listen to the Bible. So basically we need the Bible since the theory of evolution offers no distinction between animals and humans.

 

 

 

I think youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re missing the point entirely, that being that evolution can be easily reconciled with the bible. What evolution predicts we will do (because it does not suggest we should do anything ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s social darwinism, not the theory of evolution, and itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s stupid in my opinion) isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a judge of itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s truth. Whatever warm fuzzies go out the door because you can conjure up the strong thumping the weak arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a determinant of the truth of the theory and I think itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s obvious weÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re past much of the instinct based animalism and up to social order in which you can easily choose what guidance for a pious life you want, be it the bible, your parents, the Dharma, your local politician (god forbid), a role model figure, etc, etc.

 

 

 

You have talked about "problems with compatibility" in numerous posts, but you have never shown us any of those problems. What, exactly, is wrong with theistic evolution besides your personal bias against it?

 

 

 

Before you reply, please read this post. It is related to your concerns for compatibility: http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=534 ... t=#5349599

 

 

 

Edit: If you have no problems with theistic evolution besides your personal bias, then please describe your bias (i.e. what about evolution makes you feel uncomfortable) so I can address it.

 

You make it sound like personal bias is just rubbish. As long as the Bible doesn't say "God didn't use evolution" or "God used evolution" we will have an interpretation issue. Bias now comes down to favoring one of many interpretations. What I like about theistic evolution is that it allows us to move past the whole evolution-christianity controversy and focus on what's actually important. My problem with it is my interpretation of genesis and that I think evolution is not entirely correct. Theistic evolution is the most diplomatic answer but I'm not sure it's the truth.

 

 

 

You don't think it's entirely correct? You're not sure it's the truth? That's fine. Tell me what it is you doubt and IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll provide a sample of evidence for your reading pleasure if you want to learn a thing or two.

 

 

 

Science explains how we are made. Religion explains why and by who. There is no overlap.

 

 

 

Science + Religion = Correct Viewpoint

 

Evolution + Creation = Theistic Evolution

 

I agree to some extent but sometimes science can't explain how and you might need God as an explanation. Example would be miracles and things that science won't be able to explain. Similar would also be the concept of irreducible complexity. Of course I'm aware that it's not proven yet.

 

 

 

If you like logically fallacious arguments from ignorance, then, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll say it again, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s your prerogative. Also, if you think evidence that evolution is false supports your premise that there must be a designer by way of a locically fallacious false dichotomy then again, this is your prerogative. If you at all imply that science should use such an argument from ignorance then I disagree with you because itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s of no use whatsoever. What do you think would happen if we all of a sudden used god to fill a gap and took him away when we figured it out? What purpose did that provide? None, except appeasing belief only to start controversy when the populousÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ favorite idea is suddenly out of the frame because science did itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s job. This is no different to using Thor to explain thunder. It doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain a thing. You only think it does because you don't think. For some reason people think it's a great explanation when they have no idea whether firstly thier designer exists, whether he can resolve the problem and if so, how. It's the very essence of a "goddidit" argument and they've got a horrible track record for being blown out of the water by actual science. Think about it, what does ID explain other than it thinks evolution is a weak theory? It invokes a supernatural concept to explain something without even explaining how it does this, we just assume it resolves the problem and are expected not to question by way of another logical fallacy, a special plead. It's a bunch of unneccessary assumptions built upon each other and is precisely why supernatural ideas are left out of science and kept to personal beliefs.

 

 

 

Disregard doesn't mean disprove. Biologists don't bring religion into their work simply because it is outside their field of study. In the same way, biologists wouldn't bring astronomy or nuclear physics into their work.

 

Yes, but it's not wise to work under the premises that nothing is designed.

 

Why? YouÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re yet to provide a reason so let me suggest to you that there is no reason in adding supernatural influence and no detriment that could come from removing supernatural influence from scientific premises. See above. Of course, hold your personal beliefs, many scientists do. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s just not the place of science to incorporate an untestable idea which explains nothing into premises.

 

 

 

 

The most frequent criticism isn't that it's not science. The most frequent criticism is that it's wrong science.

 

I think you're wrong. Just a quick google search resulted in:

 

"intelligent design is wrong science" - 0 results

 

"intelligent design is bad science" - 1700 results

 

"intelligent design is not science" - 27,300 results

 

 

 

You use a google search as your judge of knowledge? ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s bad science precisely because it contradicts and/or ignores known science. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll gladly show you some evidence for evolution which lays waste to ID because no intelligence that created everything as is, 6000 years ago, would (a) make anything faulty or useless (again, this would bump ID down to "not so intelligent design" which is essentially what evolution is as it builds upon past materials by the hand of natural selection - does it even impact on your way of thinking that somone with such a feeble mind as mine can think up ways that life could be more intelligently put together?), and, (B) make it look as if we had evolved, unless you like the idea that the designer is a trickster who delights in nothing more than confusing us poor mortals. Cite a source which isn't biased by religion which credits ID as good science. Here's one which lays waster to ID as having "significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts." And you can honestly judge this as in any way good science based on a google test? Give me a break. [1]

 

 

 

What I'm banging on about isn't new. Science has long rejected ID because it's a dishonest, religiously motivated idea which explains nothing (unless you think invoking an assumption which itself isn't justified, validated in any way or explained is an explanation), advances science in no way whatsoever and whose sole purpose is to undermine a long establish and overwhelmingly accepted theory of evolution.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

So your saying that science doesn't know how life became conscious. Instead it was actually God who did it. That's not very satisfying if you're an atheist.

 

It obviously isn't satisfying to atheists. But we aren't talking about atheists. We're talking about science. I think you wrote that bolded sentence because you're still associating evolution with atheism even though they are completely unrelated.

 

 

 

 

So evolution has stopped?

 

No, but we'll always be the most dominant specie in the evolutionary race.

 

 

 

 

I'm asking from an evolutionary perspective. What says that the "strong" shouldn't rule over the weak among our own race as well as other weaker animals?

 

Because different skin colors do not automatically provide different physical advantages. I.E. black people as a whole are not stronger or smarter than white people, but humans as a whole are stronger and smarter than dogs.

 

 

 

 

The only thing you seem to prove is that you should listen to the Bible. So basically we need the Bible since the theory of evolution offers no distinction between animals and humans.

 

Sure. You can use the Bible, the Quran, any other religious text, or just your own common sense to realize that humans are better than animals. Once you accept why we are better (e.g. God said so), you'll start asking how we became better. That's when you'll need evolution.

 

 

 

 

You make it sound like personal bias is just rubbish.

 

Personal bias is rubbish. Some people in Copernicus' time didn't like the fact that the Earth isn't the center of the universe, but their bias didn't change the facts.

 

 

 

 

As long as the Bible doesn't say "God didn't use evolution" or "God used evolution" we will have an interpretation issue.

 

The Bible has instances of people falling down and dropping things, but it didn't state that these instances happened because of gravity. Does that mean gravity is an interpretation issue?

 

 

 

 

Bias now comes down to favoring one of many interpretations.

 

You can favor any interpretation you want, but only one interpretation is scientifically correct.

 

 

 

 

 

My problem with it is my interpretation of genesis and that I think evolution is not entirely correct.

 

That's what I was asking you. What exactly is wrong with evolution and why does it not fit your interpretation of genesis?

 

 

 

 

Theistic evolution is the most diplomatic answer but I'm not sure it's the truth.

 

It's not a matter of diplomacy. It's a matter of combining the correct scientific viewpoint and the correct religious viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

I agree to some extent but sometimes science can't explain how and you might need God as an explanation. Example would be miracles and things that science won't be able to explain.

 

Sometimes. But not in this case. In this case there is a clear, scientific explanation filled with evidence along with a biblical story that matches the science. Evolution isn't trying to replace the miracle of genesis. Evolution is the miracle.

 

 

 

 

Similar would also be the concept of irreducible complexity. Of course I'm aware that it's not proven yet.

 

There's no such thing as irreducible complexity.

 

 

 

Disregard doesn't mean disprove. Biologists don't bring religion into their work simply because it is outside their field of study. In the same way, biologists wouldn't bring astronomy or nuclear physics into their work.

 

Yes, but it's not wise to work under the premises that nothing is designed.

 

You still don't understand. Disregard doesn't mean disprove. If you ask a class of students to look at this image, some of the students may think "God did this," other students may think "This happened independently." But either way, it is their personal opinion and does not affect their work, which is to study the scientific aspect of the picture.

 

 

 

 

I think you're wrong. Just a quick google search resulted in:

 

"intelligent design is wrong science" - 0 results

 

"intelligent design is bad science" - 1700 results

 

"intelligent design is not science" - 27,300 results

 

Actually, "wrong science" might as well be "not science." They mean the same thing.

[Revenga]

I'm thinking that out of the bajillion other planets out there, the possibility that there is a civilization in more then one of them sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

 

 

Anyone else?

[darkforaster]

I definetely think there is more life out there. It's probably smarter than us, since humans in general are quite stupid.

 

 

 

But over all, the chance of there not being any alien life out there is so remote I'll bet my life savings that there is some out there.

 

 

 

Whether we find out about them or not is a different story.

[rushrock]

Hell yeah. It's "mind-bottling" <----- (lol movie quote) to think otherwise. The universe is insanely huge, maybe even infinite (which is really hard to picture or think about), and I can't think of a logical solution to a universe with only one intelligent species. I bet that species is also super intelligent or something.