| Welcome to Hyrule Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Intelligent Design vs. Evolution; What is right? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 26 2007, 09:51 AM (111 Views) | |
| Panther III | Dec 26 2007, 09:51 AM Post #1 |
Meow!
|
The age old argument returns... What is right? Intelligent Design vs. Evolution |
Remember... Capitalization is the difference between "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse.." and "I had to help my uncle jack off a horse.." | |
 |
 
|
| Mr. Storm | Dec 26 2007, 09:58 AM Post #2 |
Child of Dust
|
*sigh* Neither theory fits the definition of science as the subject has to be observable and repeatable. Let's see you do that with either theory. As for what I think is right, design. |
 "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei | |
|
|
|
| Link_of_animals | Dec 26 2007, 01:51 PM Post #3 |
Master of Cows, MASTER..OF THE WORLD!
|
Wait..Which evolution? |
 | |
|
|
|
| Mr. Storm | Dec 26 2007, 05:10 PM Post #4 |
|
Child of Dust
|
I'm assuming he means traditional Darwinian Evolution. Meaning, macroevolution. |
|
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei | |
|
|
|
| Naoko | Jan 1 2008, 12:55 AM Post #5 |
.
|
I wish people would attempt to understand what a "theory" is. Religion is not a theory. A theory is something that has an enormous amount of proof, but cannot be made a law because it cannot be recreated. If it can be proven/recreated, then it can become a law. For example, even gravitation is a theory. It's simple. Evolution is science, religion belongs in a culture or history class. If you want to teach creationism, you have to teach all forms of religion, not just Christianity. Evolution is a theory, Creationism is not. Please, learn what a dictionary is. Evolution is SCIENTIFIC, religion is a BELIEF. They're two different things. You don't have to believe in evolution, I don't care, that's not my point. My point is that they're two different things, that's all. I'm all for teaching religion in school, but it must be in a cultural/historical class, and we must learn about Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and whatever else.
There have been many experiments performed. Not to mention... Uh, bacteria and viruses? What do they do? Technically, they evolve. Very quickly, I might add. You know what happens when you have a prescription of antibiotics and you quit taking them because you feel better, even though you haven't finished the prescription? That's a major way that bacteria builds up an immunity. This is a basic function of evolution, is it not? Well, you might not call it evolution, but we sure as hell observe that, or else we would never get new diseases. Speaking of this, I recall a comic where the doctor told a patient he couldn't prescribe the medicine, because the medicine was for a "new strain that had evolved," or something like that. Hah. Not to mention that there was an experiment performed where the scientists recreated the supposed makeup of the beginning of the Earth in an enclosed space. Similar elements and conditions, blah. It began to form proteins. Pretty cool, eh? I'm not trying to say evolution is right. But still, I think everyone should read Darwin and understand evolution before judging it, because the main reason it is widely rejected is that people don't understand it in the first place. Also, Creationism and Evolution can work together if you don't translate the Bible literally. If you've read Inherit the Wind (story recreation of the Scopes Trial), you'll remember the argument that perhaps time is different to God than it is to us - maybe a day for God is a thousand years for us. Which, personally, I'd say that's extremely plausible. Personally, I believe deeply in God/religion, I always have, and I believe in Evolution. I'm not going to say I believe in intelligent design, because it's just a silly attempt to get religion into science. Religion is wonderful, but it's not science. That's kind of why we call it faith. |
| |
|
|
|
| Negasquid | Jan 1 2008, 04:43 AM Post #6 |
Why am I still here?
|
I, along with 15% of America (according to a gallop poll or something) believe in evolution. And I can say this after being forced to watch an hour long show about intelligent design in a sneak attack bible study (I was just told it was a party). |
|
|
|
| Mr. Storm | Jan 1 2008, 08:37 AM Post #7 |
|
Child of Dust
|
I pity you Negasquid. XD As for Naoko. Scientific terminology complicates things. When I said theory there, I meant idea. I usually clarify by saying "scientific theory" if I mean the specific scientific term, for future reference. Evolution is science, religion isn't. Correct. But inside religion is scientific ideas. The water cycle, for example, was described in the book of Ecclesiastes. Does that mean that it's not science, it's religion? Of course not, that'd be silly. Just as within any story, chronicle, fable, or tale, it says certain things are a certain way because that's how things in the world work. The Bible supports the idea of gravity, do you classify that as religion? No, only the theories which disagree with popular opinion, that dare to make things uncomfortable, those are the ones that are classfied as "religion." Also note that Intelligent Design, in and of itself, is not exclusive to any religion. Islam believes God created things just as much, if not more, than Christians. Regarding bacteria, basic genetics kind of shoot your macroevolving bacteria idea in the foot. The ONLY way new genetic material is made is through errors in the copying process of the DNA, that's called mutation. Mutation has never been observed doing anything positive. So, I would say if we constantly observe bad stuff happening when mutation occurs, instead of good things, it would be good science to assume that evolution doesn't happen. What happens with bacteria is entirely different from evolution. Creatures have all kinds of deactivated DNA/RNA that isn't in use. No new genes are produced, merely old genes are re-selected. One of the following happened in your example: A previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved. A mutation reduced the binding ability, regulatory function, or transport capacity of certain proteins. A damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more. A few resistant bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated. The experiment you refer to was quite an interesting experiment, no doubt. If it was the one I recollect, however, they used some advanced materials that wouldn't have been there at the "beginning" to create the amino acids. If you remember the name of the study, could you give it to me so I can research it again? I understand evolution rather well, I believe. My first big science assignment I had was to write was a large essay, 2500 words minimum, about which theory I subscribed to and then to support my belief. I was required to research all the major theories, as a result. Evolution looks good until you start examining it closely, especially DNA. Then Darwinian Evolution kind of falls apart. The old-earth argument isn't detrimental to the Bible or to Christian beliefs. It is actual evolution that does it. There was a quote, let me find it. "If evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam’s sin, then sin is not the cause of death—so we do not need a Savior." Therefore, if Evolution is true, we have no need for Jesus' death, burial, or ressurection. Thus, Christianity is destroyed. Hope I clarified things well enough. 
|
|
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic Discussion · Next Topic » |
