Evolution and intelligent design

[Meem]

Is it irony that "man" hopes to disprove creation by the evolution of various intelligent designs of our own? How intelligent is that?

[Graybeard]

Is it irony that "man" hopes to disprove creation by the evolution of various intelligent designs of our own? How intelligent is that?

Creation doesn't have to be disproved .... Creation is a proposal, a hypothesis ...

Since when do Hypothesis become fact and need disproving ??

If you believe in Santa Claus and Ghosts its not up to any one to disprove your belief ... its up to you to prove it

'He who asserts, must prove'

cool bananas ... greg

[Meem]

I'm not sure what I have asserted or attempted to prove here. That's the way irony works. On the same hand however, the majority of science circles cringe at the idea that science should be allowed to freely investigate the possibility that there is a creator or creation. Most seem to agree that evolution has already disproved that.

I would say he who that asserts evolution must prove that there is no creation or creator, must prove what it cannot.
regardless of being a two-street.

statement- I believe in God.
reply-Then it is your burden to prove god.

statement- I believe evolution disproves god.
reply- Then it is your burden to prove it.
statement- No, it is your burden to prove evolution is wrong.
reply- I wasn't aware evolution said there is/was no creation nor creator.
statement- That is what it implies.
reply- I thought that is what you implied it implies.
statement- You don't understand.
reply- You're right about that.

statement- could we start from the begining.
reply- what do you mean?
statement- how did evolution start?
reply- when amino acids combined somehow to form the first forms of life.
statement- You don't understand, evolution takes time, so the begining of evolution was not the moment in which amino acids combined but when time began.
reply- Well, we need to define what time is in order to explore your thought.
statement- Then let us say, time is ... space-time or as most would say, the universe is spacetime. So, if evolution is a step by step process, where is the first step?
reply- I don't know we are looking.
statement- funny, that's what you don't seem to understand when you say where is your god, and I say I don't know, but I'm looking.
reply- I suppose that's irony.

[Graybeard]

statement- I believe in God.
reply-Then it is your burden to prove god.

statement- I believe evolution disproves god.
reply- Then it is your burden to prove it.
statement- No, it is your burden to prove evolution is wrong.
reply- I wasn't aware evolution said there is/was no creation nor creator.
statement- That is what it implies.
reply- I thought that is what you implied it implies.
statement- You don't understand.
reply- You're right about that.

statement- could we start from the begining.
reply- what do you mean?
statement- how did evolution start?
reply- when amino acids combined somehow to form the first forms of life.
statement- You don't understand, evolution takes time, so the begining of evolution was not the moment in which amino acids combined but when time began.
reply- Well, we need to define what time is in order to explore your thought.
statement- Then let us say, time is ... space-time or as most would say, the universe is spacetime. So, if evolution is a step by step process, where is the first step?
reply- I don't know we are looking.
statement- funny, that's what you don't seem to understand when you say where is your god, and I say I don't know, but I'm looking.
reply- I suppose that's irony.

I understand your line of logic .... and its sound ....

But Evolution says nothing about God or Creation .... it describes a random process call Natural Selection.

This process is self supporting within a system, and requires no God, nor mention of a God. It accounts for all past events, and makes predictions about the future of life and cosmic procession.

It is, in the main, a verifiable account of the Cosmos. It has been satisfactorily proved in as much as gravity has been proved.

cool bananas ... greg

[Meem]

Still, it avoids that first step. The moment cosmos began to evolve into what it is today. We hope to understand every moment from now to seconds just after the "bigbang," but we should give up the idea that there is a moment just before?

[Graybeard]

Still, it avoids that first step. The moment cosmos began to evolve into what it is today. We hope to understand every moment from now to seconds just after the "bigbang," but we should give up the idea that there is a moment just before?

I don't think there was a moment, just a change.

But why should we give up on trying to understand ??

cool bananas ... greg

[Meem]

Does one saying I believe in god mean giving up on understanding?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence when the evidence is such that it should be there, that is, God being everywhere and intervening in everything.

Score:

The natural: umpteen

God: zero

[Meem]

You must have been around for a long time to be the one keeping score. Zero point energy? Never heard of it.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The score is in the last 50 pages or so of the 'Science vs. God' thread. You could also read back from the end, doesn't matter too much. Only the natural has been found, over and over, but no extra-natural.

I could even grant that the nature of God is invisible, but His effects would not be.