WARNING! Controversial poll ahead,...

[Lauren]

Inbreeding. Seriously. I know they have geneologies in the bible, but they did not include all children in these geneologies.
This says it better than I could.

 

[Section10]

Well...... Genesis 5:4. Adam had many children and Cain's wife was undoubtedly a close relative. Also Gen. 3:20.

 

[Mike K.]

I'll accept that...

So in the beginning God created Adam and Eve. As a Christian I believe that.
And everyone else was a descendent of Adam and Eve. Okay, I believe that too.
Hmmm, so where did all that variation among humans come from?
Sounds like adaptive radiation, i.e. Homo sapiens evolved since the creation.

 

[Lauren]

I think it would be silly to say they didn't- but early on I said I believed of adaption within a species- people adapt to their environments due to weather, nutrition, and someone much more adept can tell you more than I can- through travelling and seeing the differing heights in doors, studying costume history and seeing the changes in sizes, I've seen it firsthand.

 

[Lincsong]

What does everyone have against Apes anyway?

I think that in the jungle right now a similar debate is taking place amongst apes;
Ape 1 "you may think you're descended from those tail-less creatures but I'm not. There is no way my ancestors acted like that"

Ape 2 "But, don't you think that a higher being created all the animals both in and out of the jungle?

Ape 3 "isn't it possible that our ancestors were bestial like the tail-less ones and we've evolved into our present state"


lol lol lol

 

[otterhound]

Very interesting discussion so far. I guess my own opinion is a terribly pragmatic one.

Given the fact that I'm nearsighted, pot-bellied, flat-footed and suffer from excruciating sciatica, there's no way I could be anything but an accident. An intelligent designer couldn't possibly do such a slipshod job.

Lizzie, that is the most endearing post in this thread. You're a doll.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Lizzie, that is the most endearing post in this thread. You're a doll.

Awww,...I'm glad that this unsolvable question I have raised has been the catalyst for a little conviviality. I definately think we need more of this in the world today.

So now I must ask all those doubters out there,...how could you possibly completely discount even the possibility of the Divine?
Think of it,... if we were merely animals, born to just reproduce and die and then turn to dust. Then why do we bother with it all? After all this great drama of life,...then nothing??? Why then do we attempt,(some of us anyway) to live by the moral absolutes that are so firmly etched upon our hearts? All life in it's extraordinary complexity and diversity is most assuredly not for nothing!

Almost forgot,... please don't forget to cast your vote. I fear I might be going off topic on my own topic.

 

[Raegan]

To have even a simple single celled animal, with all it's many components, simply "evolve" without a design, is tantamount to placing the parts of say,....a Swiss watch in a box. Then shaking those parts around for millions, even billions of years. Those component parts will never just work themselves together into a working watch. There must be some force in action to logically assemble the parts.

This is off topic, but you wouldn't happen to be a Mark Lowry fan would you?

 

[nightandthecity]

'Twas Voltaire in one of his more well known attacks on the establishment and thinking (largely Descartes-inspired) of his time:

"If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him"

bk

....and let's not forget Bakunin's famous retort: "if God existed it would be necessary to destroy him"

 

[nightandthecity]

I have a complete and total inability to ascribe to any notion of supernatural powers. Therefore creation is out (i know, people will argue that God is a natural power). I also have issues with the soul, and any postulated meaning for life. It smacks of man trying desparately to drag himself out of the animal kingdom. Life is life. Nothing more. You live, then you die. no reason for it. Just like all other living things.

I'm an evolution man. Total, random, accidental evolution.

bk

spot on as usual!

The meaning of life is life itself. Forget life after death, I'll opt for life before death.

 

[ITG]

I believe in God, but find His ways bafflingly inconsistent. My belief has given me no sense of security whatsoever.


.

Hmm, or maybe you believe there's a God, not necessarily believe in him (two different things). If you believed in him, I'm not so sure you'd be second guessing God and his ways.

 

[Section10]

Hmm, or maybe you believe there's a God, not necessarily believe in him (two different things). If you believed in him, I'm not so sure you'd be second guessing God and his ways.

I think I can partially relate to what M C is saying. God's ways are often baffling and I find myself second guessing him freqently. I am often at odds with God regarding how I percieve his actions and his apparent inconsistencies. I do have faith that ultimately it will all work out for the best, but in the nuts & bolts of daily living I have more questions now than I've ever had. Believing in the existence of God and trusting in the leadership of God are two different things, yet the one must preceed the other. God is extremely independent and he never chose to make us his consultants, but he has given us some information and I think it is not wrong to reason and question what we see unfolding in history and in ourselves. God is not afraid of our challenges and I think he even welcomes them since the man who does not care and does not think is the most unreachable and the most lost.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

This is off topic, but you wouldn't happen to be a Mark Lowry fan would you?

[huh] Name sounds familiar,...but I don't know who he is.

 

[Pilgrim]

This was an easy poll for me.

Science communicates to me and informs me. Ideology does not, when it comes to answering questions such as evolution vs. intelligent design.

And the agendas behind those two points of view are VASTLY different - which makes a big difference to me as well.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Does this also apply to global warming? That weather patterns are "total, random, accidental evolution"?

Sorry, i'm a bit late replying to this one (no internet at home any more).

I don't believe that evolutionary theory holds for non-living systems (not strictly - see 'viruses' below). I'm betting, i think realistically, that you're not a subscriber to living earth (Gaia) hypotheses. So, weather systems and climate can be affected by evolution (let's say, all the plants simultaneously evolved to stop producing oxygen) but cannot themselves evolve.

Evolution, as i understand it, is reserved for entities (existents if you will - a climate cannot truly be said to exist; It merely IS. Whereas viruses (non-living) exist and most certainly evolve, weather systems simply change).

bk

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

This was an easy poll for me.

Science communicates to me and informs me. Ideology does not, when it comes to answering questions such as evolution vs. intelligent design.

And the agendas behind those two points of view are VASTLY different - which makes a big difference to me as well.

I take both with a grain of salt.
There are some "scientists" in all fields of research, that are only in it for the cash grants and the fame. They are inspired by materialism and egotism.
Also there are "religious people" that are misguided by the same forces.
I have always been very interested in gaining as much knowledge of life and the universe as I can in this life, so I've looked into both areas for truth.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Creation? Divine Design? 24 27.91% Evolution? Accidental design? 36 41.86% A combination of both ideas? 27 31.40% No opinion? 2 2.33%

Above are the current (1135 EDT, Sat 15th July) standings. Evolutionists have a lead, but what surprises me are the number of ID people (combination). For such a new idea, it has so many adherents. Interesting.

bk

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Creation? Divine Design? 24 27.91% Evolution? Accidental design? 36 41.86% A combination of both ideas? 27 31.40% No opinion? 2 2.33%

Above are the current (1135 EDT, Sat 15th July) standings. Evolutionists have a lead, but what surprises me are the number of ID people (combination). For such a new idea, it has so many adherents. Interesting.

bk

A new idea!? lol Baron, you flatter me! lol
I had really no intention of creating a new idea. It is in my mind, the only truly logical idea, and I think that there must surely be others that have thought of this before me. Einstein was convinced by his study of the universe that there simply must be a creative intelligence behind it all.

 

[Briscoeteque]

I take both with a grain of salt.
There are some "scientists" in all fields of research, that are only in it for the cash grants and the fame. They are inspired by materialism and egotism.
Also there are "religious people" that are misguided by the same forces.
I have always been very interested in gaining as much knowledge of life and the universe as I can in this life, so I've looked into both areas for truth.

I really don't know any scientists that are in it for the money. Maybe I'm in the wrong field, but every last one I know is pretty broke, and the ones who aren't have wives that are doctors and lawyers. With all of the money spent on schooling and training, it doesn't seem like a career path chosen for profit at all. All are deeply passionate about what they do, however. Egotism, maybe, but really. For a scientist to be accepted, they've got to publish in peer-reviewed journals, where other scientists in their field do their damnedest to rip apart the assertions. They'd have to diliberately fool a huge amount of people, and even then, to just be smug and at the same time know that they are false? I haven't met a single biologist with those motivations yet.

To believe in Intelligent Design is a dead end, scientifically. Science isn't about dead ends. Evolution opens up whole new perspectives that can be independantly tested using NATURAL observations. ID, what else is there to say but 'God did it' and then start thinking about God's motivations. There is no way to use natural observations to assert a supernatural presence without a leap of faith. Again, power to you, but it's a leap of faith, not logic. Just because you can't picture a Godless existance doesn't mean that its not possible, and not probable.

My own personal faith is quite simple. I think that there is a divine. But I also think that a supreme being is secure enough to not demand people worship and think about him all of the time. Cause, it's kind of supreme. If I was a supreme being, I would want everyone to enjoy the life and universe that I gave to them. I would just chuckle at those who didn't believe, but if they live well and treat others well, I would still admire that resolve in such a harsh world. Whether they say my name and think about me all of the time would be pointless, I don't need my ego boosted. I would just love watching them try and resolve the incredibly complex puzzles that have been placed before them, and would certainly not want them giving up and saying 'This is not for me to understand and simply the work of a higher being'.

 

[Samsa]

ID, what else is there to say but 'God did it' and then start thinking about God's motivations. There is no way to use natural observations to assert a supernatural presence without a leap of faith. Again, power to you, but it's a leap of faith, not logic. Just because you can't picture a Godless existance doesn't mean that its not possible, and not probable.

It is not necessarily a leap of faith. While it is true that most people who believe in God do so out of faith, one can study metaphysics and Natural Theology and come to believe in God through logic. Most people simply don't have the time to do so, or the motivation.

From Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Question II:

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.​

I have never seen anyone come up with an intelligent rebuttal to this, except to dismiss it offhand by mentioning infinite regression (addressed by Aquinas elsewhere). These proofs as quoted are just general outlines made for the beginner; the proofs are dealt with much more extensively in Summa Contra Gentiles. Read those sections, and you will find your earlier assertion about natural observation challenged.