Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[Karl Pilkington]

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?

Ok but bringing proof into a metaphysical argument is pretty silly isn't it?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

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.

I agree. I have consistently stated through this thread that I agree evolution exists. I just don't think it explains everything as some seem to believe.

 

[placebo]

Ok but bringing proof into a metaphysical argument is pretty silly isn't it?

Exactly, so don't call it evidence. Call it what it is- belief.

 

[Richo83]

Ok but bringing proof into a metaphysical argument is pretty silly isn't it?

Are you serious? Metaphysics is half part logical proof, half part linguistics. To pretend that metaphysical arguments don't need arguments is foolish.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

There are some educators who believe that science is taught in a very dogmatic fashion. This has led to some believing that perhaps the 'controversy' should be taught as an alternative.

 

[placebo]

I agree. I have consistently stated through this thread that I agree evolution exists. I just don't think it explains everything as some seem to believe.

No, it doesn't explain everything, it does however, explain how life forms evolved and adapt and survive, which is all it has to do.

 

[FIGJAM]

Are you serious? Metaphysics is half part logical proof, half part linguistics. To pretend that metaphysical arguments don't need arguments is foolish.

Metaphysics is 100% obtaining actual proof by experience. You need to be your own metaphysician.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

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

Humans.

Human pets.

In many cases we have taken on the cognitive load of other animals (e.g. the difference in brain mass between domesticated and wild sheep).

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Are you serious? Metaphysics is half part logical proof, half part linguistics. To pretend that metaphysical arguments don't need arguments is foolish.

Richo, I think you've misunderstood me here - I was saying it doesn't need scientific proof. Like Figgy said, its about personal experience,

p.s. I've enjoyed your posts in this thread, keep it up

 

[sherrinorburley]

No, it doesn't explain everything, it does however, explain how life forms evolved and adapt and survive, which is all it has to do.

Haile Selassie and his bloodline for instance.

Some people believe it to be dated through to King Solomon. When its belief, it creates doubt.

Others Know the family tree is what it is and has survived.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Steve Jones, a prominent geneticist, believes that we (humans) may have reached the point of no longer evolving. I saw this guy in a public forum last week and he was very interesting.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece

 

[H2F]

A vast oversimplification of what we know about the human brain. You're attempting to widen the gaps, the better to fit your divine explanations.

Up until only 10 or 20 years ago the only studies of the brain were performed on post-mortem subjects only. Given the brain needs to be alive and functioning to be studied (how do you study a PC that is turned off) we are only just beginning to study it, much less understand it.

The physical cells in the brain also interact with the other chemical systems in the body. There are multiple angles of attack on finding out what the brain does and how it does it.

Of course they do. But I am more interested on what these multiple angles of attack in studying it might be? I read a book about the brain a couple of years ago and was astonished to find out that accident victims were bought up over and over again to highlight how damage to specific areas of the brain caused consistent behavioral damage so to speak in test patients.

Ground-breaking stuff ...

There may even be information storage at the muscular level. Our whole body may be capable of storing information, with brain cells being just the most evolved at this task - evolved to the point of efficient abstract thought. Some unexplained feelings may even be communication between brain and non-brain information storage.

It seems reasonable I guess, hypothesising about the gaps in our knowledge of science is at the core of what I have been trying to encourage in you. A big clap from me to you. Someone with your brain power would benefit greatly from opening your mind a little. I mean this in a good way

In any case, postulating a very specific "why" in relation to the physical properties of the universe is a huge, huge leap. And you've just said we don't know anything about the brain. Do you see the huge gap in your reasoning yet?

Let me walk you through another leap of faith.

15 Billion years ago there was nothing. NOTHING I TELL YOU. Just plain old run of the mill nothing.

Then in a nanosecond the first law of Thermodynamics was broken and all the matter and energy we have today appeared.

Then even though all this matter and energy appeared FOR NO REASON it expanded across 15 billion light years to create the known universe.

But all for no reason.

But hang on that's not even the beginning of your leap of faith.

Apparently hydrogen, helium and gravity was enough to pull together to form some stars. Then hang on because this one I love the most.

Hydrogen and Gravity caused fusion.

Stars exploded over time releasing heavier elements caused during the fusion that was going on, this matter came together with the help of accretion and made the planets. the Earth and of course our perfectly sized moon. By the way moons size, and then relative distance from the sun also perfectly eclipses our beloved warm friend too.

But the Earth was lifeless. Oh except that life then just suddenly appeared and once again that Thermodynamics thing, well we might just forget about that one for a minute too.

Oh and then evolution comes along and evolves male and females at exactly the same time, at exactly the same place, with all the organs, instruments and tools we need to get our ends wet.

WOW !!!

Now wouldn't you call that a leap of faith.

I love science as it is a great tool for figuring stuff out, but it requires extraordinary leaps of faith, with it's greatest one (as above) being the instrument you are using to condemn faith.

Do you see the huge gap in your reasoning yet?

This does not even make sense! You're running the entire gamut of logical fallacies here - begging the question for one.

Fair call. I was stuffed last night and didn't explain that one very well.

spiritual drive we have (that evolution cannot explain)

You know that the more Einstein studied the more he became convinced that the beauty and intricacy of the Universe required a higher power. I'm sure you already do, and I am even more sure you will somehow try and bring religious pressure of the times into this, but please do remember this man was a scientist. Not only a scientist, but the greatest one we have ever had.

The theory of evolution CAN explain it. We explore and search like just about any animal alive. We're just better at abstract thought, partly through a large brain to body mass ratio.

But how did we evolve the capacity to seek out the knowledge of the Universe, and why? The only logical reason is that we have a pre-programmed purpose to do so.

It has been said that if there were a species half way between ape and human alive today we'd have a hugely different perspective on what is "human" and what is "animal".

About 10,000 years ago something major happened to us. I don't know what. There appears to be a number of religious texts that offer a explanation, but I haven't read anything in those to suggest they are right. Perhaps it was lost in translation or something.

Most time? Compared to what? Compared to who? This is your main area of 'study'? Dream analysis?

No not dream analysis.

Sleeeeeeeeeeeep.

It is still a mystery to us why we sleep. There are a few major theories as to why we sleep, but given we do not know yet it is an area of science that fascinates me.

You don't even think biology covers the area of "human origins"? Chemistry?

I didn't say that. I said I have not studied biology. I was telling you this so you because you commented on my scientific knowledge.

I am so very very glad you have accepted your own emotional attachment to certain ideas. No idea why that would make me glad - one less bozo walking around completely ignorant of his own ignorance I suppose. And I mean that in a good way.

So you think I am a bozo. That's fair enough I suppose. I think you are highly intelligent but have a closed mind. Reckon we would have a ball at a nice restaurant with plenty of my vino. Hope we can make it happen arrapante.

The model goes from a tube worm in the Cambrian period to just about everything living animal you see around you. If by 'linear' you mean steady and unfaltering progression at a set rate towards perfection, well of course that is not the model. It hasn't been since about fifty years before Gould put pen to paper.

Well actually 'time' is the entire argument by evolutionists. Every time our
precious little evolutionary model is picked at (you and I both) bang out the whole, 'But it took millions of years line'

Glad we share this faith together Chief. Call it a cyberhug.

When talking about the Big Bang there isn't a "before" as we experience it. Anything could have happened, but creating a specific intelligent being out of your own imagination and accepting that model before exhausting more reliable methods is not the way to get closer to finding out.

Hang on a second. Your entire modus on this argument over and over again, contradicts your above statement. Which is it?

Was the universe created for no reason?

Or was there a reason?

You have admitted you don't even know where the gaps in knowledge are. Your own words show that. Yet you deride explanations that don't include divinity in these gaps. This is the source of my frustration.

No I haven't.

In fact take that last paragraph as an answer to any ID apologist out there. It is 1:30 AM and I'm outta here.

lol... you are very cute.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

It seems reasonable I guess, hypothesising about the gaps in our knowledge of science is at the core of what I have been trying to encourage in you. A big clap from me to you. Someone with your brain power would benefit greatly from opening your mind a little. I mean this in a good way

Very eloquently put. I agree Chiefy is a smart guy (not on our level, but pretty smart) with a pretty reasonable way of going about debate (a good skill to have when you run a forum I imagine) and good business nous - but his biggest (only?) flaw is the lack of an open mind and propensity to ridicule instead of understand.

 

[H2F]

Very eloquently put. I agree Chiefy is a smart guy (not on our level, but pretty smart) with a pretty reasonable way of going about debate (a good skill to have when you run a forum I imagine) and good business nous - but his biggest (only?) flaw is the lack of an open mind and propensity to ridicule instead of understand.

Let's work on him RJ. He is brute, but I suspect growing up in Queensland hindered his spiritual development a little, not being able to hang out with supermen like us and all as he grew up. He's opening up lately though and we need to attack him and connect him with his soul.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Let's work on him RJ. He is brute, but I suspect growing up in Queensland hindered his spiritual development a little, not being able to hang out with supermen like us and all as he grew up. He's opening up lately though and we need to attack him and connect him with his soul.

I shall not attack him, I will embrace him as a brother. (plus I don't wanna get banned)

 

[H2F]

I shall not attack him, I will embrace him as a brother. (plus I don't wanna get banned)

lol ... good call

the only down side is that when Chief joins us, we get all his minions by default and the last thing you and I need is some more Pied Piper followers around here

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Intelligent Design or Evolution? or Aliens?

 

[Mario the Lothario]

lol ... good call

the only down side is that when Chief joins us, we get all his minions by default and the last thing you and I need is some more Pied Piper followers around here

I'm going to throw up.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Intelligent Design or Evolution? or Aliens?

Aliens fall under intelligent design. Self-imagining does too.

I know the term "intelligent design' is used by the christian nutters in the US regarding schooling, I want to make it clear that nobody on this thread in favour of the consideration of ID is in that brigade.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Aliens fall under intelligent design. Self-imagining does too.

I know the term "intelligent design' is used by the christian nutters in the US regarding schooling, I want to make it clear that nobody on this thread in favour of the consideration of ID is in that brigade.

That maybe so Karl, but is that what people have in mind in this thread when they argue intelligent design or are they arguing from the religious point of view?

 

[Contra Mundum]

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

Bloody hell we have a savant Hegelian!!!

"In the beginning was the word"

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Bloody hell we have a savant Hegelian!!!

"In the beginning was the word"

I tell ya what shits me - its when you, Richo83 and Pawtucket Patriot start dropping names of philosophers and such who I have never heard of and start comparing my opinions to theirs - those bastards have stolen my ideas, travelled back in time and presented them as their own.

I'm sure I'll get to them in second year. I'll tell you then.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I tell ya what shits me - its when you, Richo83 and Pawtucket Patriot start dropping names of philosophers and such who I have never heard of and start comparing my opinions to theirs - those bastards have stolen my ideas, travelled back in time and presented them as their own.

I'm sure I'll get to them in second year. I'll tell you then.

If you believe in evolution mate "imagination" came second

Hegel is a boring as Neal Craig german philosopher believed in a philosophy called "dialetical idealism". The history of the universe has been marked by a struggle of ideas with the superior idea always winning - sounds like bullshit to me

 

[Richo83]

Metaphysics is 100% obtaining actual proof by experience. You need to be your own metaphysician.

No synthetic proofs? I have to disagree there, an understanding of reality must have some logical as well as scientific and observable proofs. If we let metaphysics to the domain of observation it is at risk to all the fallacies of observation. I mean how do I experience a lack of god? You can't experience a negative anyway. The answer is to apply logical reasoning. It has to be.

Hegel's okay in small doses, in large does he's just pure mindf**k. Philosophy if anything has to be accessable and logically coherent, Hegel for a large part is neither. Germany produces its fair share of thinkers, it has produced the most, yet Hegel is not one of their best.

 

[FIGJAM]

No synthetic proofs? I have to disagree there, an understanding of reality must have some logical as well as scientific and observable proofs.

Why?

If there are alternate planes of reality that are by their very definition not of the physical realm, then how can one subject these alternate planes of reality to objective scientific method?

There are certainly objectively proofs regarding the consistency of experience derived from OBE's.

Germany produces its fair share of thinkers, it has produced the most, yet Hegel is not one of their best.

The overwhelming majority of them were intellectuals and not worth entertaining. Hegel and his off-shoots are worthless. Focus on Kant. And one from left field, Beethoven.