0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
When I look out at the unimaginable beauty, wonder and glory of the universe, like some astronauts I am moved to believe there must be a great hand in the formation of all existence
Evolution simply can not create altruistic love
The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation.
But you must acknowledge that many many great scientists have not dismissed the possibility of an ID, and I like to identify myself with them
BenVMaybe you think this thread is over, but the question relating to this thread will never be over!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.htmlAlthough I have already stated I am areligious I think this article on ID (and I am not a Catholic and there is nothing wrong in being one)The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution should not have been dismissed and claimed it is compatible with the Christian view of Creation. By Chris Irvine Last Updated: 9:35PM GMT 11 Feb 2009Gianfranco Ravasi: Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church Photo: EPA Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages. Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans. Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said the "time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth approaches.Professor Leclerc argues that too many of Darwin's opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his theories are "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality".Earlier this week, prominent scientists and leading religious figures wrote to The Daily Telegraph to call for an end to the fighting over Darwin's legacy.They argued that militant atheists are turning people away from evolution by using it to attack religion while they also urge believers in creationism to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that now exists to support Darwin's theory.The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his "forgotten" work in his local parish, showing science and religion need not be at odds. Alan
It is difficult to imagine the universe popping into existence.
However, if you postulate that a god or "intelligent designer" created the universe, there's 2 things popping to existence, the God, and the universe.
Yes it takes real faith to believe your existence has no lasting meaning and in the end of it all nothing really matters
And unlike the great intellects on this thread who just continue to disagree without backing their argument's with positive facts and rebuttals of why it is/was impossible for something infinitely Greater than them to have created a universe suitable to sustain life
To my understanding everything has a reason and if we do not know the reason for it, then we should do our damnedest and go and find it
How did it get here? That is the biggest question in biology. A group of bacteria called mycoplasmas are, as far as we know, the simplest self-replicating organisms. Yet they are extraordinarily complex. One of them has recently had its entire genome sequenced: four hundred and seventy genes strung out along 580,070 DNA bases. Surely such a structure could not have arisen by the chance coming together of chemicals sloshing through the primordial soup? The astronomer Fred Hoyle has described the likelihood of random forces generating life as equivalent to the chances that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747. The world is just not big enough to evolve life if it relied entirely on chance. Finding plausible conditions that generate the biochemicals necessary for life is hard enough. Stringing those biochemicals together to make life is vastly more difficult. Yet nature seems to have accomplished this feat very early in our planet�s history.
Intelligent design is a framework of logical thinking based on the observable axiom that can be used to analyze scientific data. This site promotes intelligent design because it is in many ways superior to the theory of evolution.
Far better to open our minds and start out with the assumption that there is no reason, then as we learn a reason may develop.
And yes BenV the more questions we ask the more questions there will be.I am sure all the great scientists of our past never said don't ask that question it will only lead to more questions than it answers.
I would be lead to believe that everything has a reason it would seem pointless to have something with no reason for it.Have we ever found anything in science yet that has no reason?.
We have given you rebuttals, explained things with logic and objectivity, and you seem to have ignored them. In fact, I don't think anyone has said it's impossible - just that as it cannot be proven, has no evidence in it's favour and will add complication to the problem by creating more questions than it answers, it makes no logical sense to postulate it. We may just as well discuss the physical possibility of the matrix, or of us being the imagination of an author.
There is no evidence for one, it raises more questions than it answers, it requires one to make certain illogical assumptions that cannot be proved/disproved. There's three very good reasons for you there.It's illogical to postulate an intelligent designer, and this is one prefectly good reason to disbelieve it.If the universe was incredibly simple, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.If the universe is incredibly complex, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.I'll be locking this thread soon as it has gone very much off topic, and will soon descend into arguements, as these always do.
If an alternative mechanism, one that totally excluded any possibility of even considering an intelligent designer, but different to present day science, was proposed and backed up with a great deal of evidence, would you accept it?
BenVQuoteWe have given you rebuttals, explained things with logic and objectivity, and you seem to have ignored them. In fact, I don't think anyone has said it's impossible - just that as it cannot be proven, has no evidence in it's favour and will add complication to the problem by creating more questions than it answers, it makes no logical sense to postulate it. We may just as well discuss the physical possibility of the matrix, or of us being the imagination of an author.I will go back and reread all your posts to see if you have given even one logical reason why the idea of an ID is stupid. Even Einstein did not go this far and admitted there are things about the universe we will never understandAlanBen I have gone back and reread all your posts on this topic, and I am sad to say you have not yet given even one reason to disbelieve in the possibility of an IDAlan asked you!"Give me your one perfectly good reason to disbelieve in an ID?"BenV RepliedQuoteThere is no evidence for one, it raises more questions than it answers, it requires one to make certain illogical assumptions that cannot be proved/disproved. There's three very good reasons for you there.It's illogical to postulate an intelligent designer, and this is one prefectly good reason to disbelieve it.If the universe was incredibly simple, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.If the universe is incredibly complex, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.I'll be locking this thread soon as it has gone very much off topic, and will soon descend into arguements, as these always do.
This reads like one of Nostradamus prophecies totally ambiguous
Why do you continue to say you want to kill this thread??Ben you keep saying you want to lock this thread while it is still very much alive and generating great interest.
In computer jargon we call that a loop error and the only way to resolve it is by rebooting
QuoteIf an alternative mechanism, one that totally excluded any possibility of even considering an intelligent designer, but different to present day science, was proposed and backed up with a great deal of evidence, would you accept it?Ben of course I would accept that but alas alas alas I am still waiting for you to post even one logical reason why the idea of an Intelligent Designer could not be at least consideredAlan
I will go back and reread all your posts to see if you have given even one logical reason why the idea of an ID is stupid.
Even Einstein did not go this far and admitted there are things about the universe we will never understand
I will resist this as I have been a member of this forum as long as you have (and maybe, maybe I just might be as smart as you)
The astronomer Fred Hoyle has described the likelihood of random force[s generating life as equivalent to the chances that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747.
There's no reason why hydrogen atoms combine in a star, or water molecules evaporate and then condense again to fall as rain - there are causes, but no reason. Everything breaks down to chemistry and physics, where there may be causes, but there is no 'reason'.
Face it. Your entire argument is flawed, based on ignorance and bad logic. Please stop wasting your time and ours unless you can produce a more sophisticated argument
It's illogical to postulate an intelligent designer, and this is one prefectly good reason to disbelieve it.If the universe was incredibly simple, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.If the universe is incredibly complex, it would be made more complex by the idea of a designer.I'll be locking this thread soon as it has gone very much off topic, and will soon descend into arguements, as these always do.Alan - you may not believe it, but there are several good reasons not to believe in an intelligent designer in that quote above. You're having trouble accepting it because you want to believe in a designer