Are we still evolving? Cool new video for the doubters of evolution.

[s1k3sT]

Oh just the whole 'God probably did it anyway' and 'intelligent design' argument you outlined above.

Quote where I said "god probably did it anyway" or tried promoting intelligent design, until then please quit putting words in my mouth.

All I'm asking is why people think evolution disproves intelligent design.

(Although I would prefer to call it 'dumb design' because if I was a God, I could think of many better ways to design the Universe - and life in particular.)

Plenty of people have tried declaring themselves to be equivalent (or, in your case, superior) to "the creator"; I thought this was commonly considered insanity...

[jebus197]

My theory is that God existed, was the entirety of the universe, exploded outwards (Big Bang), and parts of him created life. Evolution was a by product of us becoming more like God over time. As someone/thing approaches God's infinite wisdom/space/mass, the cycle will start all over again.

I think that lumps Christianity, Aristotle, Buddhism, and Transcendentalism together in some ways.

Note: I don't believe any of that :laugh: But if you're going to give a god the role of prime mover, there are an infinite number of "logical" conclusions as to how we got where we are today. Also, it would follow, logically, that if it was god's interest to get us started, there would be some end point. You don't put the gears together just to have them spin. But, if he were omnipotent, he would know where that end point is. So why even go through the trouble, unless the process of getting from the beginning to the end was the important part. That said, once you start trying to figure out the rationalization of an omnipotent being, you realize it's no different the the rationalization of nothing/ pure chance, and in the end, it's simpler to just assume god doesn't exist.

Indeed if God exists then it seems that we and everything in the Universe are nothing more than a gigantic wind up toy set in motion for God's own amusement. But why would he bother? If he was God, surely he would have better things to do? And what would be the point of existing and knowing everything that had happened or that was about to happen? Why would you even set things in motion?

It seems that while God may not play dice, the current view of him is that he does play games. It just seems a very childish and pointless way for a god to behave. In effect it seems if God was real, we have been put here as a part in some gigantic soap opera, just so he can amuse himself? So what is God then, some kind of fat, omnipotent, megalomaniacal, couch potato/soap opera addict, who likes to screw around with people's lives just for his own amusement, and who messes things up on a fairly regular basis? That doesn't seem like a very useful concept to subscribe to to me.

[jebus197]

Quote where I said "god probably did it anyway" or tried promoting intelligent design, until then please quit putting words in my mouth.

All I'm asking is why people think evolution disproves intelligent design.

Plenty of people have tried declaring themselves to be equivalent (or, in your case, superior) to "the creator"; I thought this was commonly considered insanity...

No what I said was that there were just more efficient ways to design life. See the post by evn above. If you understood science or biology, you would realise that life is a very inefficient and wasteful process. Life is extremely imperfect. Someone as smart as a God could almost certainly think of a much more efficient way to do it. Many of his 'design decisions' are at least very questionable.

If god is infallible then he should also be incapable of error. But in every area we look at in life, error is a very large part of what we see.

[iamawesomewicked]

Oh just the whole 'God probably did it anyway' and 'intelligent design' argument you outlined above. (Although I would prefer to call it 'dumb design' because if I was a God, I could think of many better ways to design the Universe - and life in particular.)

Don't bother arguing with him. He goes in circles. Doesn't answer a question. Only answers in questions.

[s1k3sT]

Don't bother arguing with him. He goes in circles. Doesn't answer a question. Only answers in questions.

You have to ask "the right questions" to get "the right answers". Could the question sometimes be the answer?

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

Those statements (god triggered the big bang and set everything in motion) are just a final desperate attempt by creationists to have any relevance to science. Science has drastically changed our view of the world, and religion has had to evolve (pun intended) in order to survive. This is merely the continuation of that.

[jebus197]

You have to ask "the right questions" to get "the right answers". Could the question sometimes be the answer?

No.

[threetonesun]

No what I said was that there were just more efficient ways to design life. See the post by evn above. If you understood science or biology, you would realise that life is a very inefficient and wasteful process. Life is extremely imperfect. Someone as smart as a God could almost certainly think of a much more efficient way to do it. Many of his 'design decisions' are at least very questionable.

If god is infallible then he should also be incapable of error. But in every area we look at in life, error is a very large part of what we see.

Perhaps we're de-evolving from a higher state. I mean, bacteria are pretty invincible, if uninteresting to talk to.

I would argue the complete opposite of what you're saying. Life, as we know it, is incredibly specialized and often hyper-efficient. If you ever need an example of this, look at birds. Humans aren't even close to creating structures which are capable of what birds are capable of, and they're the result of millions (if not billions) of iterations of flying creatures. As they say in business, fail early and fail often. Essentially, we're continuously moving towards a more optimized universe.

When you throw an omnipotent being in the mix though, everything seems silly.

[iamawesomewicked]

You have to ask "the right questions" to get "the right answers". Could the question sometimes be the answer?

See what I mean?

No answer, just question. It's like talking to a brick wall.

[jebus197]

Perhaps we're de-evolving from a higher state. I mean, bacteria are pretty invincible, if uninteresting to talk to.

I would argue the complete opposite of what you're saying. Life, as we know it, is incredibly specialized and often hyper-efficient. If you ever need an example of this, look at birds. Humans aren't even close to creating structures which are capable of what birds are capable of, and they're the result of millions (if not billions) of iterations of flying creatures. As they say in business, fail early and fail often. Essentially, we're continuously moving towards a more optimized universe.

When you throw an omnipotent being in the mix though, everything seems silly.

Error is the main driving force of evolution. Also there's the small matter of entropy that argues over time disorder (and therefore error) will tend to increase.

But that's besides the point. Life is very wasteful. Only about 1% of everything that has ever existed in life is alive today. (Note that's not the same as saying that 1% of the earliest forms of life is still alive, just that only 1% of the total of life that has ever existed throughout time is alive at this point in time. All life prior to this 1% is now extinct. But this 1% still represents 100% of all of the life that's alive now.) Also almost all life that is born into the world dies before it gets a chance to reach maturity. The only way life flourishes is because it massively over-produces. Almost everything dies prematurely, but enough life is produced to ensure a sufficient number of individuals make it and can survive long enough to reproduce. And life on the cellular level is full of errors, this is what creates variation - which is later subject to natural and/or sexual selection. And then there's disease. Many diseases are caused by genetic errors.

The point being made was not how efficient or otherwise life was, but that an infallible omnipotent God would be unlikely to make these kinds of errors, or to allow them to exist. If he did then this would clearly mean he wasn't infallible, and if he wasn't infallible, how can he be said to know everything?

[Subject Delta]

You have to ask "the right questions" to get "the right answers". Could the question sometimes be the answer?

You know, for someone who supposedly claims to be non religious you seem to come down on the side of religion an awful lot. Are you a bad liar, or do you just like arguing with Atheists?