Evolution vs Intelligent Design

In the interests of starting a flamewar, let's have a fun discussion about evolution and intelligent design! :)

>>37
I'll prove the intelligent design is bs through reduction ad absurdum.

The Universe is like 13.7 billion years old. Lost the count of birthdays. With so many time on its hands an an intelligent design, ...

... WHY THE FUCK HASN'T IT GOT RID OF NIGGERS???

Therefore, the Universe does not feature intelligent design. Q.E.D.

>>37
There are absolutely no consequences, unless God decides to show himself (which he hasn't)

Either way, people get to debate and kill each other! :)

>>37
>>39
"If, and I emphasize the if, the universe is intelligently designed by some other being(s), then it would stand to reason that each and every little nook and cranny of the universe follows some type of logic, just waiting to be understood."

Cities are designed by intelligent beings. Not everything in them is necessarily logical.

>>43
because they are designed by beingS with a "S" if it was designed by a being the city would be 100% logical in one frame of reference (barring in mind that he dosnt make a mistake). then if this being created other beings that found this city also very logical they would then thrive and wonder why this world makes so much sense (exclude faggot teenagers). in short your rebuttle sucks

DETERMINISM PROVES GOD DOESN'T EXIST.
THE PROOF IS IN CUBICS TIME.

FREE WILL IS ILLUSION!
THE BELIEF IN GOD TAKES FREE WILL.
IF THERE IS NO FREE WILL, WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IN GOD IS ALREADY SET.
IF IT'S ALREADY SET, HE'S PUNISHING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU CAN'T CONTROL.

FREE WILL IS ILLUSION!
THE BELIEF IN GOD TAKES FREE WILL.
IF THERE IS NO FREE WILL, WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IN GOD IS ALREADY SET.
IF IT'S ALREADY SET, HE'S PUNISHING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU CAN'T CONTROL.


god does not care about you beliving in him, and he does not punish

>>46
This doesn't hold up because only a God-like entity could know what the future holds. You're still a human thus you cannot know your own future. Free will is still in existence for you right now....and now...now..and again now. You see where I'm going with this?

Now GTFO Fag.

god does not care about you beliving in him, and he does not punish

Have you read religion?
What's the point in worshiping him if he's completely ambivalent?

>>48

The religion you refer to are mostly of the western persuation... the whole concept of heaven / hell / judgement / apocalypse / etc etc.

Most eastern religions don't preach the "Believe or be forever damned" route.

>>34
I already answered that.
>none of [us] could ever truly know what that might have been without actually having been there when it happened
I was trying to pound out the post asap so that explains the grammatical issues but the statement applies to 'history' as well, not only is it pretty irrelevant since none of us experienced it, but also because what happened back that is not nearly as important as what is happening now and what will happen from here on in.

Don't bring up Religion when the topic is Science.
Don't bring up Science when the topic is Religion.
Thread Over.

>>49
I'm not sure about specifics but in most traditional Chinese beliefs you go to hell no matter what you do or believe in. Even so, somehow there's plenty of idiots who accepts these beliefs as the only truth rather than converting to a religion that doesn't guaratee you eternal suffering. Truly human stupidity in all it's glory.

>>52
I can't say I'm familiar with those traditional Chinese beliefs that you refer to. Having been raised in a Buddhist household, I distinctly recall being instructed in self-dicipline and some empathy 'training', but nowhere in the past twenty years of my life have I heard anything about being damned to hell regardless.

While there exists an equivilant of 'hell' in eastern religions, including Buddhism, the notion that you're damned to suffer for all eternity if you do not beleive in whatever diety is a distinctively Christian notion.

Quite frankly, in the context of most eastern religions, it doesn't matter what you do, you're essentially golden as long as you're not trampling on others.

That is vastly different from the core Christian notion that all heretics and/or non-beleivers are automatically damned... and even if you're a beleiver, you're still damned if you slip and step out of line of the horroribly out of date, archaic list of rules written by someone centuries dead. That scripture was probably written to prevent the then uneducated masses from killing eachother and really holds no real significance outside of sentiment today.

These are, however, only my views on the subject. If they agree with you, great. If not, I'm not open to the discussion of said topics. I used to talk about it before, but I inadverntly run into the same age old rhetoric.

>>44
But doodles are created by an intelligent being as well: and these aren't necessarily reasoned drawings.

If the universe is intelligently designed by one or more beings, then, yes, there should be much engineering or reasonable design that can be reverse engineered, thus producing unimaginable results. Come to think of it, is our engineering really reverse engineering in a way?

>>54
the aim of a doodle often has motives that are not rooted in reason

>>53
Very well said.  I thought I was the only one with those thoughts.

>>53,57

Same person

>>58

Yeah, anyone who agrees with a previous posts is -obviously- the same person. /eyeroll.

Hey! I agree with you 58! I must be you.

>>55

Stem Cell research is probably a step in that direction.

Plus, much of our modern marvels are modeled after working tidbits found in nature. Much of the principles of aviation, for example, were inspired and heavily modeled after flying animals. Modern Medicine has its roots in the variety of folk medicine and practices, which relied heavily upon herbal remedies... a large portion of modern pills are -mostly- extracts and purified forms of the active ingredients found in natural medicinal plants.

... and so on and so forth.

>>59
Actually the concept is this: Regardless of whetehr or not the posts are by seperate physical bodies, if the posts are in agreement then that means the thoughts are in agreement and since they are so similar they'd might as well be regarded as the same person as the possible minds (let's not forget it actually COULD be the same person, not saying its the case here, but we're talking generally) are essentially the same.

The only way to really avoid this is to not just claim agreement but either include more information to the discussion and/or cite the reason(s) why one agrees with the given statement.

>>61
only solution: be a namefag

>>61

And these "same person" posts offer oh-so-much to the conversation at hand, other than stating (by your defination) that those people share the same mindset...

... which would be blatently obvious to anyone who can comprehend English?

There's nothing wrong with voicing agreement with someone else... or do you -always- have something to add when you find yourself in agreement with another?

>>63
>And these "same person" posts offer oh-so-much to the conversation at hand, other than stating (by your defination) that those people share the same mindset...

Yes and thats why the people are refered to as various derogatory names, trolls, bfags and what have you.

>There's nothing wrong with voicing agreement with someone else... or do you -always- have something to add when you find yourself in agreement with another?

Oh there's nothing wrong with not adding to the discussion on a discussion board thread, unless you feel there's something wrong with posts that say same person. Because posts that merely agree and bring nothing more to the table will always result in those posts that say same person. It certainly helps explain WHY one posting agreement agrees with the post in better clarity while avoiding shitty one-line responses (and so too are the "I just agree" posts one-liners) and at the same time continuing to fuel active discussion.


But go ahead, post more one line agreements and complain two posts later when the next post says same person. If you ask me, such simple agreement posts would be better off unposted.

>>64
I find these views to be strongly in accordance with my own.

>>65
ROFL

It's surprising how this flamewar I started about ID/evolution evolved into bashing those who agree with previous commentators.  Apologies for being guilty of the said crime, but I did not realize that agreeing with previous posts was so looked down upon; occasionally one sees a commendable post, but is unable to add anything more to it.

In any case, it seems that the general consensus here is that most 4channers agree with evolution (not surprising, given how morally depraved other sections of 4chan can be).

hey guys this is >>74 here, just letting you know that here in the future, everyone realized that religion and science have two different roles in life, religion to get people to behave with civility and strive for enlightenment, and science to try to explain the world around us, which we decided doesnt really matter whether was created by what you're calling God or not.

Religion and science have two different roles. Science's role is achieving knowledge and development in the widest sense of both words. Religion's role is controlling the lambs and leech them off.

>>67

Yeah, and that's why people are so shocked and amazed when the choir boy or the priest goes off and kills a half dozen people and/or decides to molest underaged boys.

If you really think that religion gets people to behave with civility, you're in for quite the rude awakening.

"Godless heathens" can behave with as much civility as any other... it's got much more to do with the manner in which the person was raised as opposed to beleiving in any given religious dicipline.

>>66
>occasionally one sees a commendable post, but is unable to add anything more to it.

So tell me this, at what fucking point does it become logical to make another post if you are, AND I FUCKING QUOTE: >unable to add anything more to it.

>>67
religion knows and promotes enlightenment as much as i know and promote heterosexuality

"The Universe is too complex to 'just exist', it must have been created by God."

"So God 'just exists'?"

>>70

chill dude. You're being an ass over nothing.

People reply and express their agreement/disagreement with another all the time without adding anything useful.

You ever clap after something cool happens? Cheer something cool? boo and hiss at something crappy?

None of that offers anything to what you just witnessed, other than your approval or disapproval.

when u think about it is it pure coincidence how everything in the universe seemes to be so mathmatically accurate? justthe way that both science and math equaions are all linked in some way. for example joules, seconds, grams seem to bethe base units for everything imaginable, of course the others like degrees kelvin are important and that but most universal equations hav at lease one of those things in them...

>>73
I must not be understanding the point you're trying to make.

>is it pure coincidence how everything in the universe seemes to be so mathmatically accurate?

It works because our universe is a logical one, even if we haven't figured it all out yet.  Let's take an extremely simple example:  what if 1 and 1 didn't equal 2, but 1.93462138153290214514614614646454?  Or 2.8?  The universe would either be reduced to nothing almost immediately, or become infinitely huge and filled to the brim almost immediately.  And that's just one aspect, basically everything else about the universe would be taken to extremes within the short time frame of it's existance.

>justthe way that both science and math equaions are all linked in some way.

Are you retarded?  Of course the base units for energy, time and mass are going to be used a lot.  What, you're going to express velocity without a unit for time?  Gravity without mass?  It's not even an argument.

>>72
>You're being an ass over nothing.
Posting just for the sake of it without adding shit is what being an ass is, I'm over here trying to maintain VIP quality at any place I give the fortunate grace of my presence, its ridiculous for you to even try defending that which is detrimental to significant communications.

>People reply and express their agreement/disagreement with another all the time without adding anything useful.

People do a shit ton of stupid things for no reason and AT NO POINT did I ever say I condoned anything they ever did nor do I accept to be lumped into the same considerable group.

>You ever clap after something cool happens?
No, and of course, this clapping goes on at the same place that the first thing happens amirite.
>Cheer something cool?
No, I may note significance, and its importance or relation and connection to other important concepts and facts, but all of this happens within myself and I'll be dammed if anyone within 500 miles of me would ever be worthy of being privy to a word of it.
>boo and hiss at something crappy?
I call people niggers if their action warrants it, does that count?

>>73
all those points are false and cant be argued, that line of questioning should be droped. instead you should consider why man came to the conclusion of god and not the conclusion that 1.93462138153290214514614614646454 = 2. god is a must and if you try to deny yourself this concept your as stupid as any fundi, instead choose "its" nature in a way that does not interfere with objective reality

>>76
the reason why men came up with the "conclusion" of god, is because coming up with a god gives a reason to things we don't know, and that makes us happy in our pants. That's about it, god is there to please people who can not believe that there are basic things of which we do not know the reason of existance.


"instead you should consider why man came to the conclusion of god and not the conclusion that 1.93462138153290214514614614646454 = 2. god is a must and if you try to deny yourself this concept your as stupid as any fundi, instead choose "its" nature in a way that does not interfere with objective reality"

could you explain to me what god has to do with objective reality?

"the reason why men came up with the "conclusion" of god, is because coming up with a god gives a reason to things we don't know, and that makes us happy in our pants. That's about it, god is there to please people who can not believe that there are basic things of which we do not know the reason of existance."

could not have said it better myself, proved my point. for you happy in the pants should be avoided right? or does knowing that there is an unknown make you happy in the pants?

"could you explain to me what god has to do with objective reality?"

nothing, thats the point i was trying to argue, god only has the power to affect objective reality through men. something that should be not avoided, but a logical choice, something religions cant handle

>>75
"Posting just for the sake of it without adding shit is what being an ass is, I'm over here trying to maintain VIP quality at any place I give the fortunate grace of my presence, its ridiculous for you to even try defending that which is detrimental to significant communications."

rofl

Take a step back and just look at it.

Come back when you get your head unstuck from your ass, Mr. IobviouslyknoweverythingsojustdowhatIsay.

people make up objective reality through their observations
therefore, people = God

pbtpbtpbtbtbtttt~!