Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[evo]

There is an intangible factor at play in the complication of all energy. It is an inate awareness that pervades the Universe. It is physically immesurable (yet!).

.

Yet you're quite happy to speak about it without the least sense of irony as if it exists.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

It has more to do with fitness, which is survivability and fecundity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

There was a 96 year old Okinawan martial artist who defeated a 30 year old former champion boxer on national television. They rarely end up in nursing homes and are often very fit right until the end (they also have the highest rate of centurions in the world)

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Nick, I found a good article to read (not the same one I referred to earlier though)

The first two questions stem from a well-known “religiosity effect” on health: religious people are likely to live longer than non-religious people. But no one can prove whether this is because healthier people are drawn to religion, whether religious practice correlates with healthier living styles (like better diet or fewer indulgences), whether practicing religion itself reduces health risks through biological mechanisms (such as lowering heart rates and reducing stress) or whether there is divine intervention. And when it comes to the divine part, the nature of the charge – that God has something to do with it – can never be validated or refuted.

http://stats.org/stories/faith_health_mar27_06.htm

 

[Niximus]

Nick, I found a good article to read (not the same one I referred to earlier though)



http://stats.org/stories/faith_health_mar27_06.htm

The first two questions stem from a well-known “religiosity effect” on health: religious people are likely to live longer than non-religious people. But no one can prove whether this is because healthier people are drawn to religion, whether religious practice correlates with healthier living styles (like better diet or fewer indulgences), whether practicing religion itself reduces health risks through biological mechanisms (such as lowering heart rates and reducing stress) or whether there is divine intervention. And when it comes to the divine part, the nature of the charge – that God has something to do with it – can never be validated or refuted.

That's (bold) the data I want to see. I dispute that claim but cannot respond properly until I know what their evidence is.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

That's (bold) the data I want to see. I dispute that claim but cannot respond properly until I know what their evidence is.

Well you have two choices I guess:

Take that the term 'well known' means that it is widely acknowledged and well-established (the article was largely anti-religion as far as science goes, and rightfully so - but they have nothing to gain by making it up)

Do some research yourself and find the counter argument anyway?

The fact you already say 'I dispute that claim' even though you haven't seen the data either for or against it doesn't show me you have much of an open mind though.

No offense intended in that btw, I rate you as a poster and find you very reasonable to converse with.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

There was a 96 year old Okinawan martial artist who defeated a 30 year old former champion boxer on national television. They rarely end up in nursing homes and are often very fit right until the end (they also have the highest rate of centurions in the world)

How many children did she produce?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

How many children did she produce?

haha I got no idea.

 

[Niximus]

Well you have two choices I guess:

Take that the term 'well known' means that it is widely acknowledged and well-established (the article was largely anti-religion as far as science goes, and rightfully so - but they have nothing to gain by making it up)

Do some research yourself and find the counter argument anyway?

The fact you already say 'I dispute that claim' even though you haven't seen the data either for or against it doesn't show me you have much of an open mind though.

No offense intended in that btw, I rate you as a poster and find you very reasonable to converse with.

Not at all, I have seen much evidence to the contrary of your claim (Religion improves longevity).

I could spend hours gathering it all which I'm not going to do or I could look at the claim and if it has merit concede I was wrong or challenge the parts I disagree with.

It's perfectly fine if you don't want to go find it as really the outcome has zero impact on me whatsoever. Just if you do I'm happy to continue discussing it.

 

[FIGJAM]

Yet you're quite happy to speak about it without the least sense of irony as if it exists.

It is intangible in the sense that it is not provable via the primary senses. As such the modern scientific method dismisses it with prejudice.

It is the perpetual dance between the materialist physicist and the metaphysicist. The philosophical dane between the materialists (Marx/Arisotle) and the Maya set (Plato/Kant/Buddha).

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

haha I got no idea.

There is little doubt she has the survivability, but her fecundity (which is pretty much the number of offspring produced or that can be produced) is not known. If this was known then you could figure out or hazard a guess at the relationship between a belief in ID and fitness (which is the main variable in determining a change in gene frequency over time).

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Not at all, I have seen much evidence to the contrary of your claim (Religion improves longevity).

I could spend hours gathering it all which I'm not going to do or I could look at the claim and if it has merit concede I was wrong or challenge the parts I disagree with.

It's perfectly fine if you don't want to go find it as really the outcome has zero impact on me whatsoever. Just if you do I'm happy to continue discussing it.

Um, ok. Well, I've never seen anything to say otherwise - but I've shown you one link that references it as a long-held scientific fact, and I made reference to another article I read that said the same thing.

I don't really mind if you don't want to get a link for me (I think this culture of everyone asking eachother for links, as if links are somehow infallible, is ludicrous) but I would like to hear your opinion/learning on the matter in your own words.

 

[Niximus]

Um, ok. Well, I've never seen anything to say otherwise - but I've shown you one link that references it as a long-held scientific fact, and I made reference to another article I read that said the same thing.

I don't really mind if you don't want to get a link for me (I think this culture of everyone asking eachother for links, as if links are somehow infallible, is ludicrous) but I would like to hear your opinion/learning on the matter in your own words.

Ok well throughout the world there is a correlation between high standard of living and non-religiousness. With a few exceptions, generally the more religious a country becomes the lower their standards of living and life expectancy go.

I know you are talking about communities which is why I would need to see the data. Everything I have seen says non-religiousness results in better conditions and longer lives, I would like to know how that statistic can turn around and be the opposite on the small scale.

 

[placebo]

Back in the 1600's they believed that the laws of god were irrefutable, and they had entire schools devoted to using god/theology to explain every day things.

It isn't crazy to tihnk that perhaps down the track, many scientific principles we hold true will be shown to be misplaced or outright false, just as the prior justifications were in relation to god.

Not even close to a proper comparison with people who believe in evolution. Those people in the 1600's based their beliefs on faith, not on evidence, not on proof, not on fact. Evolution is based on all of those things, their beliefs in the 1600's were not.

Those prior justifications for God are nowhere near the same as the justification for evolution.

 

[placebo]

There is plenty of evidence to point to it, I can tell you first hand that I have experienced it.

This same argument is used to justify gravity, by the way. Nobody has ever observed gravity, yet because we can feel its effects we know it to exist.







I have never questioned the validity of evolution. Please try and read the entire thread.

What evidence? Your experience is not evidence.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Not even close to a proper comparison with people who believe in evolution. Those people in the 1600's based their beliefs on faith, not on evidence, not on proof, not on fact. Evolution is based on all of those things, their beliefs in the 1600's were not.

Those prior justifications for God are nowhere near the same as the justification for evolution.

Its more a comparison between the mindsets of the proponents of each.

There is definitely an element of blind following of science, just as there was of faith.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Your experience is not evidence.

Why not?

 

[Richo83]

A more intelligent entity needs to be designed

Not neccesarily.

before evolution decides to favor it.

Does evolution favor it? Does humanity exist because humanity itself coped better with the situations, and the situations allowed for existence? Humanity is hardly special, it coexists with many other organisms who have been able to cope with the situation.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Wouldn't national stats be more relevant. Larger sample size?

Regardless, Bogans are favored by evolution, you have 156 kids then theres a strong chance that you'll continue to pass on your genes. Doesn't make being a bogan 'more optimal'

There are two species that do not evolve normally at this time.

Humans.

Human pets.

 

[Hodgepodge]

There is definitely an element of blind following of science, just as there was of faith.

That is absolutely true, however, science changes all the time, gap in understanding are filled, and we are learning more every day.

Religion doesn't change. It's all belief, and it's all mindless.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I know you are talking about communities which is why I would need to see the data. Everything I have seen says non-religiousness results in better conditions and longer lives, I would like to know how that statistic can turn around and be the opposite on the small scale.

Ok the problem with those statistics (i.e. lack of religion = better living standards) is that the majority of devout nations are already third or second world nations, and their lower mortality rate has nothing to do with faith. Without seeing your stats I can't know for sure either, but I imagine its one of those macro level ones that just compares nations against levels of faith and spurts out a result without factoring in social conditions or eating habits?

Try googling 'faith effects on health' there appears to be a fairly substantial amount of articles in the affirmative, though every single one of them states it is more about positive thinking and positive behaviour than any godlike healing qualities (which is what Iw as suggesting by faith removing anxiety about death and giving a better self image).

From what I've seen and read, the medical fraternity seem fairly convinced that faith leads to better health.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Does evolution favor it? Does humanity exist because humanity itself coped better with the situations, and the situations allowed for existence? Humanity is hardly special, it coexists with many other organisms who have been able to cope with the situation.

Humanity exists because we imagined ourselves into existence. We are our own intelligent design.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

That is absolutely true, however, science changes all the time, gap in understanding are filled, and we are learning more every day.

Religion doesn't change. It's all belief, and it's all mindless.

Some religions have changed their stances on many issues over time, as social norms and evidence came to light.

Have a read about the current Archbishop of Canterbury, he's a very clever and reasoned man who thinks the bible is almost irrelevant when dealing with today's social issues.

 

[sherrinorburley]

There are two species that do not evolve normally at this time.

Humans.

Human pets.

We get examples everyday to prove this. Heres one such example today.

 

[placebo]

Why not?

1. It can't be proved.
2. It is not objective.
3. You haven't actually provided any evidence.
4. If I say I feel like there is a little Green Man inside me controlling everything I do? Is that proof, just because I feel it?

 

[placebo]

There is definitely an element of blind following of science, just as there was of faith.

Not when it comes to evolution. Evolution is a fact. It is true that some people believe anything science says, but that doesn't make evolution any less of a fact.