- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Evolution vs intelligent design question.
Posted on 3/18/14 at 9:03 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Posted on 3/18/14 at 9:03 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
I don't think he is arguing it has to be made by a creator, unless I'm understanding him wrong.
Looks to me he is just trying to understand how te evolutionary side of it explains where DNA came from.
Thank you.
The OP is not a religious argument.
The point of the OP is that evolutionists cite DNA and mutations to explain evolution, which I think is 100% accurate but they never touch the origins of DNA which is the fundamental question.
In regards to the poster that asked what I meant by DNA being more complex than the biology it creates, why is this laughable as this poster seemed to suggest?
This post was edited on 3/18/14 at 9:06 pm
1
Posted on 3/18/14 at 9:11 pm to Scoop
quote:DNA is actually a vastly advanced society. Life as we know it is nothing more than the tools they created for their own advancement
DNA is more complex than any biological entity it creates.
This post was edited on 3/18/14 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 3/18/14 at 9:59 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I am arguing THIS idea...that the complexity makes the Creator plausible.
You're arguing against PLAUSIBILITY? Think about that for a second.
The rational arguments for God's existence (note: I am using the word rational in the TECHNICAL sense) are inherently plausible by way of valid logical structure and meeting certain standards of soundness.
How could you say Scoop's conclusion isn't rational?
Talking philosophy can be so frustrating at times when most people don't fully comprehend the most elementary principles of logic and philosophy, like basic terms and concepts.
This post was edited on 3/18/14 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 3/18/14 at 11:49 pm to Scoop
quote:
My stance is that I completely agree with the theory of evolution.
The phrasing of this statement makes it seem like you don't understand it.
quote:
but the origin of DNA is what makes Intelligent design a plausible thing.
How so?
Posted on 3/18/14 at 11:52 pm to Cosmo
So god starts with DNA, ATP, NAD, etc.......then nature take over with evolution?
This post was edited on 3/18/14 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 3/18/14 at 11:58 pm to Scoop
quote:
It is more complex than the life it creates.
It's composed of 4 nucleic acids. Granted a strand in humans may be 6 feet long and it's amazing. How is it more complex?
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 12:00 am
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:00 am to Scoop
quote:
In regards to the poster that asked what I meant by DNA being more complex than the biology it creates, why is this laughable as this poster seemed to suggest?
You are actually merging two different people.
And still didn't answer the question.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 12:02 am to Upperaltiger06
And if you want to take it from a technical chemical context, DNA is less "complex" than RNA.
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 12:03 am
Posted on 3/19/14 at 5:18 am to theunknownknight
quote:
You're arguing against PLAUSIBILITY? Think about that for a second.
No! I am arguing the flaw in the LOGIC provided:
Example -
Some Poster: "Apples are healthy to eat because they are not purple
BHP: "horseshite is not purple. So, PURPLELESSNESS is not a good reason for "healthy to eat"
theunknownnight: "You are saying apples are NOT healthy food?"
My argument is one cannot say "that is TOO complex....so it suggests a MORE COMPLEX explanation"
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 5:20 am
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:03 am to Scoop
Man's biggest perplexity
per·plex·i·ty
p?r'pleksite/Submit
noun
1.
inability to deal with or understand something complicated or unaccountable.
is 'My God, how did he do that?'
Many a man has spent a lifetime trying to prove they can make life and it did not come from God. Psychiatrist would deem this denial in most parts of our existence but it is twisted to truth seeking when in terms of the Art of Science. The truth is not seen and right in front of us but many do not see.
per·plex·i·ty
p?r'pleksite/Submit
noun
1.
inability to deal with or understand something complicated or unaccountable.
is 'My God, how did he do that?'
Many a man has spent a lifetime trying to prove they can make life and it did not come from God. Psychiatrist would deem this denial in most parts of our existence but it is twisted to truth seeking when in terms of the Art of Science. The truth is not seen and right in front of us but many do not see.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:11 am to League Champs
quote:
We try envisioning Him as some sort of whole, made up of the parts that we can understand. That is why we fail.
The problem is that man has tried to explain life with God....and has been wrong every time. Yet so many humans are duped into believing that their particular church is right this time. It is unbeleivable how badly man desires to be duped.....
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:45 am to germandawg
quote:
It is unbeleivable how badly man desires to be duped.....
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:56 am to The Calvin
quote:are we still talking about mankind?
Evolution has proven itself time and again
and the universe? Are you not amazed by it?
how does the Earth magically rotate around the sun year after year, day by day, minute by minute?
can you explain gravity under the realm of "evolution" theories? you have to ask the big question, "how did all this get created and how was man able to discover the depths of it's wonder?
At some point, all man must accept we have an amazing creator. It's foolish to believe we are here by some link to evolution rather than by clear intent.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 6:57 am to germandawg
quote:
The problem is that man has tried to explain life with God....and has been wrong every time. Yet so many humans are duped into believing that their particular church is right this time. It is unbeleivable how badly man desires to be duped.....
My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.
-14th Dalai Lama-
Not all religions feel this way
Posted on 3/19/14 at 7:07 am to ApexTiger
quote:
At some point, all man must accept we have an amazing creator. It's foolish to believe we are here by some link to evolution rather than by clear intent.
Why should I accept it. I accept that I am alive. I accept that life has undergone changes over millions of years. Why because there is evidence of it.
But to look at something and be mesmerized by it doesn't necessarily mean I have to come to the conclusion that a supreme being created it. I take it for what it is, beauty and mystery.
This is the same line of thinking that lead to witch burnings in the past. We can't explain it so it must be black magic or some sort. Don't blindly accept what a book or someone says. Find your own truth and never stop searching.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 7:13 am to Upperaltiger06
quote:
So god starts with DNA, ATP, NAD, etc.......then nature take over with evolution?
No, God starts with nature itself.
The Bible states that God is beyond space and time. If an entity is beyond space and time, it doesn't change. It can seemingly be everywhere at once. It doesn't 'think', it is not 'intelligent'. It doesn't plan.
...yet, it still has to go looking in the Garden for Adam.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 7:21 am to mindbreaker
quote:
Don't blindly accept what a book or someone says. Find your own truth and never stop searching.
quote:
If analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. [-14th Dalai Lama-
So don't follow things in a book or what other people say unless it is Buddhism?
Posted on 3/19/14 at 7:25 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
...yet, it still has to go looking in the Garden for Adam.
You think that when God was calling out to Adam in the garden that he didn't know where he was? God calling out to Adam was a way for God to let Adam know that his sin was discovered. Adam had broken fellowship with God by his actions and God's calling out to him was symbolic of this.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 7:31 am to Revelator
quote:
Don't blindly accept what a book or someone says. Find your own truth and never stop searching.
Considering this is a Buddhist teaching yes. Buddhism is about bettering yourself and finding your own path. You are the author of your own destiny. Even if it contradicts current teachings. That is the nature of the belief it is set in the now not in the past. It adapts it evolves. Unlike so many other religions that hold on to dogmas created in a different age thousands of years ago.
My point being to the OP. We shouldn't just accept that well I can't figure it out so it must be a creator as our argument. And in essence does the existence of a creator really matter. If you need that assurance and backing to be a better person you are doing it wrong.
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 7:32 am
Posted on 3/19/14 at 7:36 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
No! I am arguing the flaw in the LOGIC provided:
Example -
Some Poster: "Apples are healthy to eat because they are not purple
BHP: "horseshite is not purple. So, PURPLELESSNESS is not a good reason for "healthy to eat"
theunknownnight: "You are saying apples are NOT healthy food?"
My argument is one cannot say "that is TOO complex....so it suggests a MORE COMPLEX explanation"
Aside from the fact your example has nothing to do with what he said...
Your argument is not against his VALIDITY. You are arguing against his SOUNDNESS. You believe he didn't meet your criteria.
Others disagree.
Therefore his statements were technically rational. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.
This post was edited on 3/19/14 at 7:39 am
Page 3 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News