- 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: The Scientific Establishment Is Finally Starting To Take Intelligent Design Seriously
Posted on 5/20/22 at 6:25 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 5/20/22 at 6:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That is quite an ironical statement, given various other posits in this thread.
None of my statements are in conflict. You're just throwing crap against the wall seeing if it'll stick.
It's also my experience that people... Christians, religious folk, etc., identify with their belief system. So if criticisms are leveled at the belief system, they tend to interpret it as a personal attack. Not my intent.
1
Posted on 5/20/22 at 7:08 am to Herooftheday
quote:
God created the earth and sky and everything in it in 7 days, resting the 7th. In scripture it says a day is like a thousand years to the Lord. So around 7000 years to create, including man, in his image, never to evolve from His image (if you can find in the bible where he allowed man to evolve let me know. There was only one change he made to man and that was to limit his lifespan from thousands of years to 120 years). Given 7000 years to create, limiting the lifespan of man to 120, we only have a few generations before we get to the birth, life, and death/resurrection of Jesus. And then 2022 years since. We looking at 10,000 years or so.
Safe to say the geologic record is a little more reliable than your interpretation of the Bible. Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? The rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon are nearly 2 billion years old (they are pre-Cambrian, meaning they existed before life ever formed on earth and contain no fossils).
quote:
The oldest known rock in Grand Canyon, known as the Elves Chasm Gneiss, is located deep in the canyon's depths as part of the Vishnu Basement Rocks and clocks in at an ancient 1.84 billion years old.
This post was edited on 5/20/22 at 7:13 am
Posted on 5/20/22 at 7:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
What is the chance that advanced extraterrestrial life exists in the universe?
What is the chance that advanced life is a 'mere' two million years ahead of our own?
What do you think the chance is that in the next million years, we figure out interstellar travel?
Perhaps wormhole travel?
We already know how to do GOF genetic work. A million years from now, if we came across a planet of the apes, could we tinker with the ape genome and set up 2° "human" evolution??
Would that be intelligent design?
No. William A. Dembski. Intelligent Design.
I don't know what you're arguing with your response. But I'll reiterate... you're posting irrelevant "snippets" and obfuscating... none of it being germane.
This post was edited on 5/20/22 at 8:22 am
Posted on 5/20/22 at 8:01 am to aubie101
Won’t believe me but Stephen Meyer and John Lennox’s phone numbers are in my contacts. And spoke with David Berlinski last year.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 8:02 am to aubie101
quote:
The Scientific Establishment Is Finally Starting To Take Intelligent Design Seriously
God and the Bible are still undefeated
Posted on 5/20/22 at 8:03 am to aubie101
quote:
The Scientific Establishment Is Finally Starting To Take Intelligent Design Seriously
No. No, it isn’t.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 8:51 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
if you people knew anything about these systems
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/GettyImages-695204442-b9320f82932c49bcac765167b95f4af6.jpg)
Well, Scooter, then explain it to me like I'm 5: What advantage does any of these individual components offer to an organism before the entire eye is complete?
And we if assume any of a number of abiogenesis theories that do NOT specify or imply an intelligent designer, then where does the genetic information come from for these components?
Posted on 5/20/22 at 8:54 am to Guntoter1
quote:
In fact all of the evidence (so far) has shown that life can not begin randomly.
A) Not true
B) Even if true, doesn't point to a supernatural creator - just that we haven't yet found the right explanation for abiogenesis.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:00 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
explain it to me like I'm 5: What advantage does any of these individual components offer to an organism before the entire eye is complete?
Evolution of the eye - many steps, each advantageous over the previous, all observed
Where do you want to move the goal posts to now?
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:02 am to aubie101
Simulation theory has been a thing for a long time now, and would require someone or something to design it.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:06 am to the_truman_shitshow
quote:
But why even promote a belief system in which there is even the remote possibility that an "intelligent designer", i.e. God, can be an explanation, when it's better in their mind, to eliminate that possibility altogether? i.e. evolved primordial soup from cosmic dust/Big Bang over billions upon billions of years...
If we are living in a simulation, whoever pressed the button to start it is effectively God. Intelligent design being outright confirmed or even the confirmation of God's existence and its creation of the earth doesn't mean that it would necessarily be the Christian God. People just jump all the way to that conclusion.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:14 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
Simulation theory has been a thing for a long time now
Simulation theory debunks evolution but in scientific terms, not religious terms.
Serious scientists are looking at simulation and calculate its odds as far more likey than the odds of evolution.
This post was edited on 5/20/22 at 9:15 am
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:17 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Serious scientists are looking at simulation and calculate its odds as far more likey than the odds of evolution.
What are the odds? Who is calculating this?
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:18 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Serious scientists are looking at simulation and calculate its odds as far more likey than the odds of evolution.
I do think you could characterize the word "simulation" in a way where it was all done by the Christian God though. In the Bible God usually doesn't just "do" things, like for instance feeding the 5,000. He had a base amount of food and multiplied it, but didn't just create it out of thin air either, i.e. there are building blocks or "code" similar to a simulation. I'm not saying this is what I necessarily believe, I just think its possible to make the argument.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:22 am to TrussvilleTide
Simulation theory really doesn't conflict with religion.
If you accept simulation, then religion just becomes a customized way for each culture to describe it.
If you accept simulation, then religion just becomes a customized way for each culture to describe it.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:24 am to aubie101
quote:
Yep, but science fears opening the door to something that they can't comprehend or quantify, or potentially point to a creator.
Isn't the bringing understanding to things we don't understand the purpose of science? Every serious scientist I've ever heard says start with the evidence and see where that leads.
By definition, that's not faith. If you feel that your faith gives you a deeper understanding of the world or a sense of purpose, fine, but that's not the role of science.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:24 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Serious scientists are looking at simulation and calculate its odds as far more likey than the odds of evolution.
Which? Name one and show their work.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:45 am to BamaAtl
It's the science of math.
Simulation odds: 50-50
Evolution odds: 1 in billions
You are a science person, right?
Simulation odds: 50-50
Evolution odds: 1 in billions
You are a science person, right?
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:46 am to MNCTigah
quote:In conflict? No.
None of my statements are in conflict.
Dead wrong? Yes.
e.g.,
• ID need not have a thing to do with religion. ID can in fact maintain as an atheistic premise
• Evolution necessitates no atheistic premise, and need not be exclusive of religion at all.
• Man did not evolve from bonobos.
Posted on 5/20/22 at 9:52 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Who created God? ...
This question assumes God is bound by time.
Our universe is bound by time as time only began at the “Big Bang”. If there is a multiverse it would also bound by time.
A creator of space/time would not require another creator for its existence.
Page 11 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News