Metaphysics Progression Vs Design

Discussion in 'Metaphysics' started by tablet, Jan 30, 2005.

  1. tablet

    tablet Premium Member

    So many thread on this. Our discussion of Evolution and Creation scattered all over the place. Secondly I've been reading alot of creationish and evolution last night. And third Mizar has brought up about the debate thing (and I want to put it to the test) and last, I want to understand. So let's us questions.

    There's only two way for us to get here and it's either Design or Evolution. And both theory currently have a hole in it.

    Here's how I want it to work:
    Do research (basically, read) on both Evolution and Design as much as you can. And try not to be bias and try to be as neutral as you can. Don't take side... then come here and ask questions and we try to answer them. IF you're non-religious, then ask questions instead of bashing the religious and vice-versa.

    So, let's us pour as much questions regarding both Evolution and Design as much as we can. And step back and think about the questions and see what we can come up as an answer. *remember... we're here to understand.

    As of this writing: We have 11 religious, 13 open mind, and 11 non-religious

    (i notice that there's alot of you are interested in String Theory (kiwirobin is a big fan of it. :) )
     
  2. Mizar

    Mizar Premium Member

    For basic Info on what Creationisim and evolution is I quote from http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/basics/sld007.htm

    "Creation" or "Creationism" is based on the revelation from God as found in the first part of the book of Genesis in the Christian Bible Old Testament (or the Jewish "Torah"). The creation is described as taking place over a six-day period, after which God rested (and therefore no more creating has taken place since). Strict creationists believe that these were 24-hour earth days and that the earth is quite young, while others calling themselves creationists take these to be "long periods of time" (millions of years) and typically believe the earth to be very old (around 4.6 billion years as is commonly taught). The arguments in both camps are extensive. Some of the main points are:

    In favor of 24-hour days: the text seems to go out of its way to make sure each "day" is understood as a normal day through the use of the words "evening" and "morning" associated with each day; unless there are compelling reasons the text should be interpreted naturally (as actual days); given that God was doing the creating, the real question is "why did He take so long?". Also, as we know from the theory of relativity, it is possible that from the frame of reference of the earth six 24-hour days DID take place, while a much longer period of time may have elapsed in the rest of the universe (which could account for the time for distant starlight to reach earth). Also, the Bible says death entered the world with the fall of man, implying there was no evolutionary animal death before the appearance of man on the earth.

    In favor of long periods of time: a "day" CAN mean an indefinite period of time, and does mean this in some places in scripture; there is a lot of activity on day six (animals and Adam created, Adam lonely, Eve created, animals named); some scientific evidence seems to indicate the earth is old (such as radiometric dating of some rocks).

    _______________________________________________________


    The word "evolution" is commonly used as being synonymous with "naturalism", the idea that nature is "all there is". The "Theory of Evolution" as described by Darwin refers to biological evolution - the formation of new species through gradual change. The larger questions of how the first life was formed or how the materials of the universe came into being are part of naturalism but scientists do talk about the "evolution of the universe". Theories of how the universe came into being belong to a field known as "cosmology", while "abiogenesis" refers to theories of how the first life came about. Each field is very speculative.

    Scientists believe they can describe the formation of the universe back to a small fraction of a second from its beginning. They believe the "Big Bang" explosion (a rapid expansion of space) was "lumpy" (non-uniform) and gravity caused clumps of matter to condense into stars. The main proof of the Big Bang is the observation that the galaxies of the universe appear to be moving apart from each other (the Doppler shift). If the universe contains enough matter then the expansion would reverse itself (because of gravity) and the whole thing would (possibly) start again. Many people like this idea because it avoids there being "a beginning", but for now there is not enough known matter to cause this eventual contraction (which is why scientists speculate about the existence of so-called "dark matter" to provide the "missing" mass).
     
  3. Mizar

    Mizar Premium Member

    I highly recomend you do some reading on that site it has lots of great info in that slide show. I was directed there from an .org website so I'm going to say the info is ligit
     
  4. kiwirobin

    kiwirobin Premium Member

    Did God create man or man create God?

    If there is a God then what created God?

    But back to the issue, before I reply seriously to this a couple of questions please...

    To reaserce this debate which religions may I refference or are we keeping to the christian theme from Genisis?

    Do I need to use the text figurtifly or may I interperate scripture as a philisophical lesson?
     
  5. Mizar

    Mizar Premium Member

    Kwirobin said-
    "If there is a God then what created God?"

    I say

    If there is a universe what created it?
     
  6. tablet

    tablet Premium Member

    To reaserce this debate which religions may I refference or are we keeping to the christian theme from Genisis?
    There's two kind of god. Spinoza or Personal God. OF all the world religion, only the Christian teaches about a personal God.

    And to quote Einstein:

    "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
     
  7. kiwirobin

    kiwirobin Premium Member

    ToucheƩ Mizar

    And tablet I take that as a yes.
    Looking forward to the results.
     
  8. amantine

    amantine Premium Member

    A few questions to make sure you all understand what is meant by evolution (I know the answers and you should be able to find the answers to most of these questions on TalkOrigins and TalkDesign:

    - What is allopatric speciation?
    - What is gene duplication?
    - What are punctuated equilibria and how do they relate to the fossil record?
    - What is meant by the promiscuity of enzymes?

    A few questions for creationists/ID-proponents about the problems with their theories:

    - What is the definition of complex specified information?
    - How do you explain the false positives of design given by Dembski's explanatory filter?
    - How do you explain the similarity of the phylogenetic trees generated by non-coding genes like cytochrome-c, those generated by comparison of retrovirii in the DNA and those generated by morphological comparison?
    - How do you explain the observed instances of speciation?
    - How do you explain the imperfections in the 'design' of organisms? If your designer is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (like the Christian god), why do he/she make obvious mistakes (like the fact that humans are unable to synthesize vitamine C because of a broken gene)?