Does god EXIST?

[One Love]

If a designer is omnipotant, why would there be a need to evolve? Did the designer get it wrong first time?

Not if that's what the designer intended in the first place.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

How can someone believe in Darwins TOE and God and Heaven etc etc at the same time ??

It just doesn't make sense to me, you either believe one or the other surely

Quite easily, really. The evidence for Evolution is all around us. How many instances does one get on wildlife documentaries about animals which have adapted to where they are and the surroundings in which they live. It happened, is still happening and will continue to happen. This is why I personally have no time for creationists

And plenty of people believe in God without believing in the creation story. There are theories about intelligent design and the like. i would not profess to be an expert on any of this in any way, but have obviously thought about it to some extent.

Not being a scientist, I don't find the need to explain everything and find out how everything works a la Richard Dawkins. I notice when they announced a few weeks ago that they had identified the Higgs-Boson "God" particle, which i was under the impression was the answer to everything (which everuyone knows is 42 if you watched the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy), that this was only going to be the key to a great deal more research.

I have personally a feeling that the whole search for a scientific explanation to everything is futile, although i realise it needs to be done. If you do get to prove that something happened to create the universe, where did that come from or who set it up.

We need philosophers as well as scientists!

 

[readingstockport]

Not if that's what the designer intended in the first place.

In which case the designer is not omnipotent. If it were then surely it would have created everything perfect in the first place and evolution would be unecessary.

So why call it god?

 

[readingstockport]

There are theories about intelligent design and the like.

No. No there are certainly not scientific 'theories' about id. There is pseudo-scientific rubbish made up by frauds like hovind and ken ham and peddaled by liars like creation ministries international and aig.

The hypothesis of id is not verifiable nor is it falsifiable so it does not qualify as a scientific theory.

 

[One Love]

In which case the designer is not omnipotent. If it were then surely it would have created everything perfect in the first place and evolution would be unecessary.

So why call it god?

You show a complete lack of understand I'm afraid.

This was why I declined answering Silk's post on the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.

It would involve explaining my understanding of reality as I see it and firstly that would take a very long time and secondly a footie forum is not the place to do it.

So in future I will shut up.

I imagine that should please you a lot. Job done and all that.

 

[Munkfish]

Not after last nights result no.

well unless you are a Swindon fan, then maybe yes.

 

[Seaber]

Anything that is not testable, such as anything non-physical, is always going to be unscientific. But dismissing it as "rubbish" when you have no better theories yourself is ignorant. You may not agree with it, or believe it yourself, but it is one of the best theories we have to explain our apparently fine-tuned universe.

It's a dreadful theory. The reason it's a dreadful theory is because there is no way it can be tested. Just because a lot of people agree with it doesn't make it right. A theory is very different from an idea. Gravity is a theory. Intelligent design is an idea.

I'm not saying it's wrong, even though I don't believe in it. If it is right, good for whoever or whatever took the time to make it.

Faith is impossible to prove and disprove, so this debate will carry on long after I don't go to heaven

 

[rocker959]

No for the final time.

 

[teaboy]

A harmful evolutionary trait has never been observed, despite millions of species studied. All evolutionary traits are formed over time to adapt to their environment, without exception. If what you were saying was true, and traits that were not useful in fact occurred in evolution, it would not guarantee death of the species - so all life forms would be inundated with evolutionary scars from past carnations that we could study - but this is not the case.

So basically you're saying there are NO harmful genetic traits?? Sickle Cell anemia must not exist then. Maybe you should tell someone...

 

[teaboy]

Sickle Cell believe it or not is also an adaptive trait, but in this case it was to battle Malaria, a disease which was killing a significant proportion of the population in the area that it originated.

And yet outside of that specific environment is harmful.

 

[Waynflete]

A harmful evolutionary trait has never been observed, despite millions of species studied. All evolutionary traits are formed over time to adapt to their environment, without exception. If what you were saying was true, and traits that were not useful in fact occurred in evolution, it would not guarantee death of the species - so all life forms would be inundated with evolutionary scars from past carnations that we could study - but this is not the case.

I've been trying not to get drawn into this, but can't resist! If I understand your point correctly I'm afraid you're completely wrong. Evolution is driven by random mutation. The vast majority of those random mutations have little or no effect on the overall organism. Most of those that have an effect are harmful to the organism, and may lead to it dying out or not being selected by natural selection.

A very tiny minority of those random mutations will turn out to be beneficial, in the context of the organism's environment, and are therefore likely to be passed down and spread by a successful organism.

If you are asking for evidence of evolutionary scars from past generations, there are literally countless examples. The vast majority of an organism's DNA is so-called 'junk' DNA from previous generations that no longer has a significant role to play. There are many many more tangible examples of redundant characteristics that still exist in living organisms. Off the top of my head, the human appendix is one, eyes in blind cave fish is another. These traits cost energy for the organism to grow and maintain but aren't sufficiently deleterious to kill the organism, so they persist from generation to generation.

So I'm afraid you're wrong that harmful traits are not observed - many mutations are harmful, they are just selected out by evolution. You're also wrong that evolutionary scars don't exist - they do in every organism that is alive today.

 

[beorhthelm]

...If what you were saying was true, and traits that were not useful in fact occurred in evolution, it would not guarantee death of the species - so all life forms would be inundated with evolutionary scars from past carnations that we could study - but this is not the case.

it is the case. vestigal structures (evolutionary scars) exist throughtout nature, for example Ostrich wings. there are "harmful" evolutions too, for instance primates being unable to synthesize vitamin C. there are pointless evolutions, such as the four leaf clover. evolution is driven by genetic change and mutations, those mutations occur randomly. theres no design.

ID is an awful hypothesis as its manifestly wrong. so many flawed, incomplete, or redundant duplicates "designs" exist. proponents of ID, such as yourself, seem to think nature is in a perfect state of balance. this is fundementally wrong, its in a state of imbalance and constantly changing. if it were perfect there would be no need to change, yet we know life constantly changes.

 

[Waynflete]

I understand what evolutionary theory claims - but many people disagree with many of the fundamental concepts - random mutations in particular. All evolutionary traits that have been observed are adaptive - there is not a single example known that is not - appendix included. Evolution is very slow, which is why sometimes it can seem as if the mutations have little or no effect on the organism & like I have said before, it has never been known for evolution to create a trait that is not adaptive in some way - let alone one that leads to the demise of a species. Once a trait is no longer needed, such as the appendix, over time it recedes until it is no longer there -again adaptive behaviour. The "junk DNA" will always exist, but this is not manifested physically on the organism, nor will it be detrimental.

You give the example of the blind cave fish. I'm not sure if the species you are referring to is the one which has lost its eyes all together, but if it is - it's a useful example. Why do species lose traits that are no longer needed? Random mutations are not responsible for this, natural selection would not mean that the blind cave fish without eyes would have an advantage over those with eyes. It's purely adaptive, evolution is only adapts to its environment, this is observable amongst every life form known - whether it's losing traits or developing new ones.

I would like to reiterate that random mutations , even those that are harmful but especially those that are merely useless, would often survive and be inherited - and if this were true we would find countless examples of inexplicable traits in species - but we don't.

Your argument is circular. You say that there is no evolutionary trait that is not adaptive, when by definition any 'evolutionary trait' would have to be adaptive, by being compatible with life and with the organism's environment. If not, it would die out and not be an evolutionary trait.

But an evolutionary trait is just a mutation, like any other mutation - it just happens to be beneficial. To use your terminology, a mutation that is deleterious and causes death, like a hole in the heart, would be a 'non-adaptive evolutionary trait', but of course we don't observe that in organisms because as soon as it happens it dies out.

A less extreme example might be human colour blindness. It's a mutation. It's not adaptive. But it's not sufficiently debilitating to cause the death of the person, so it persists.

Either way, your contention that a non-adaptive evolutionary trait has never been observed doesn't really make sense.

On the question of why a fish would lose its eyes, there are two potential explanations. Either random genetic drift over time, with the loss of eyes not being prevented because they no longer serve a purpose. Or that the growth and maintenance of eyes costs the organism in terms of energy, that could better be spent growing something useful, like whiskers or bigger fins. So over time the fish that are wasting energy on growing pointless eyes are selected out of the population.

This also explains why you don't generally see random, inexplicable traits. An organism that wasted energy on growing a useless trait would be less fit than its competitors, so wouldn't be selected. For example, there are cases of animals with a mutation for five legs. The animal lives its life and dies, but its fifth leg is a less efficient use of energy than its four-legged competitors, so that trait doesn't persist.

Anyway, I said I wasn't going to get drawn in, so I'll sign off now! Cheers.

 

[beorhthelm]

If there is design, it's not in the life forms - it's in life and its evolution itself. [...] Ostrich wings and primates unable to synthesize vitamin C aren't down to random mutations - again they are again both adaptive. Life only adapts, there is no "random" about it.

you'll have to try harder than that, what adaptive advantage is the loss of Vit C synthesise? life doesnt "create" solutions, life didnt create man in order to provide a solution to anything (many would suggest we're a bad idea anyway). adaptations are consquences, some work and perptuate, some are insignificant, some (albeit few) are detrimental. i dont think you are capable of comprehening this mutation paradigm, because it breaks your world view.

 

[dingodan]

No. No there are certainly not scientific 'theories' about id. There is pseudo-scientific rubbish made up by frauds like hovind and ken ham and peddaled by liars like creation ministries international and aig.

The hypothesis of id is not verifiable nor is it falsifiable so it does not qualify as a scientific theory.

Funny, you speak with the conviction and humility of the church in times gone by.

 

[readingstockport]

but it is one of the best theories we have to explain our apparently fine-tuned universe.

no it is not. it is no better than the flying sphagetti monster, ramen, or the invisible unicorn or the flying teapot. It is bollocks, in exactly the same way the other three are and should be discarded as such by any questioning mind. The difference is of course the other 3 are parodies to show up the idiocy of the intelligent design claims.

The fact you chose to accept an unprovable fable as fact does not make it in any way so at all.

 

[Bhafcman]

A God or Jehovah/Biblical God, if it's the latter as said in the bible, I for one have believed for the majority of my life however since I've been introduced to evolution and that creationism(as in the bible) isn't plausible alongside what science has uncovered, I don't believe the Biblical God exists or at least in the way stated by the bible and therefore original sin and Jesus dying on the cross wouldn't have been necessary?

 

[readingstockport]

Funny, you speak with the conviction and humility of the church in times gone by.

And you believe the world is going to be invaded by space aliens and refuse to admit your errors even when continually shown them by those more educated and intelligent than yourself. So excuse me if I don't give a flying f*** what you think about anything quite frankly.

Now run along and watch the skies for niburu, it's due any f***ing time now isn't it?

 

[dingodan]

And you believe the world is going to be invaded by space aliens and refuse to admit your errors even when continually shown them by those more educated and intelligent than yourself. So excuse me if I don't give a flying f*** what you think about anything quite frankly.

Now run along and watch the skies for niburu, it's due any f***ing time now isn't it?

The historical problem with religion is not that people have believed in God.

It is that people have believed themselves so virtuous and so beyond reproach, as to have the moral right, even obligation, to militantly and belligerently "correct" everybody else.

A bit like you.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

No. No there are certainly not scientific 'theories' about id. There is pseudo-scientific rubbish made up by frauds like hovind and ken ham and peddaled by liars like creation ministries international and aig.

The hypothesis of id is not verifiable nor is it falsifiable so it does not qualify as a scientific theory.

I said theories. I didn't use the word scientific. As I said elsewhere, I am not a scientist. I wasn't trying to promote the idea of Intelligent design.