Big Bang or Intelligent Design?

[Schiz0id]

What do you guys believe in? Personally I believe in the Big Bang and evolution. It just seems a lot more logical to me than this invisible magician in that sky snapping his fingers and thus creating the world. Also, go into detail to as why you believe in what you do.

[vashtsakared]

Well, first, Intelligent Design is usually considered the direct opponent to evolution, whereas Creationism is offered against the Big Bang. Intelligent Design has been fairly thoroughly proven wrong, I think, by the simple fact that so many details of our bodies and those of other animals have been engineered so poorly. There is a great book called Kluge by Gary Marcus that explains how this works. Evolution will select the first working solution. As long as that solution works, it will not be replaced, even if better choices are available. It's like a mountain range; evolution will reach the peak of whatever mountain it's on, but that may not be the highest peak in the range. An example he used of a less-than-ideal solution was the human spine. It's roughly the same as what quadrupeds have, but for bipeds it's much less efficient at supporting weight. Anyway, Kluge is a great book, and a short read. Most of what it covers is how our brains evolved and why our thought can be so irrational. Most of the reasoning traces back to cavemen or further.
This stuff doesn't have to disagree with the Bible. I know a Swiss engineer that mentioned "we rose from the mud" could just be a metaphor for rising from the algae. I think people try to interpret the book too strictly a lot of times, but you can't blame them. The thing can be pretty dense.
As far as Big Bang vs. Creationism, I can't really believe in Creationism. That doesn't mean the Big Bang is necessarily how it happened. The inflation theory is pretty cool. Our universe blinked into existence completely at random in a vacuum, as matter smaller than an electron, and then expanded and cooled this matter stew. I like that answer just because it sounds the craziest to think about.

[The7thGuest]

I believe both actually. I also believe a supreme being played a part in both.

That's my personal opinion.

[Schiz0id]

I believe both actually. I also believe a supreme being played a part in both.

That's my personal opinion.

I think there is a possibility that a supreme being may have made things happen, but I just don't think it's likely. I think if there was a "god" of some sort it wouldn't be the christian god. Maybe just some force that doesn't love us, and doesn't care. Who knows though.

[The7thGuest]

I believe both actually. I also believe a supreme being played a part in both.

That's my personal opinion.

I think there is a possibility that a supreme being may have made things happen, but I just don't think it's likely. I think if there was a "god" of some sort it wouldn't be the christian god. Maybe just some force that doesn't love us, and doesn't care. Who knows though.

That is just about THE stupidist thing I've ever heard. If you believe in the notion in a supreme being at even the slighest possiblilty and you've done your research on each one, there is no logical way of deducing that it is not the Christian God, since He is also the Jewish God. I suggest you either a) back up you theory with some logical argument or b) retract that statement.

The thought of not believing in any supreme being makes a lot more sense, logically, than revoking God.

[Dredric1]

let us look at this Debate logicaly

first: the things we need to understand
1. Intelligent Design and Evolution are direct opposites so if Intell. Des. is correct than evolution is false and if evolution is correct than intelligent des. is false. one of them has to be true because if the universe was not intelligently designed than it came into existance all by its self. and the argument can be taken the other way too.

2.the universe has to have an origin. where did the first atom come from? the first photon of light? the first pull of gravity?
the first electric charge?

lets take these to facts to the next level

if you take a box that is sealed and has nothing inside how are you to cause the box to become full if there is no inlet or outlet?
you cant
because you cant make something of nothing.
nor can you make nothing of something

so the universe being at one time empty could not of itsself become full

therefore the theory of Evolution is false

[Schiz0id]

I believe both actually. I also believe a supreme being played a part in both.

That's my personal opinion.

I think there is a possibility that a supreme being may have made things happen, but I just don't think it's likely. I think if there was a "god" of some sort it wouldn't be the christian god. Maybe just some force that doesn't love us, and doesn't care. Who knows though.

That is just about THE stupidist thing I've ever heard. If you believe in the notion in a supreme being at even the slighest possiblilty and you've done your research on each one, there is no logical way of deducing that it is not the Christian God, since He is also the Jewish God. I suggest you either a) back up you theory with some logical argument or b) retract that statement.

The thought of not believing in any supreme being makes a lot more sense, logically, than revoking God.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I DO NOT believe in a supreme being of any kind. I was merely saying it is a possibility. As an atheist it would be pretty ignorant to say that I know 100 percent. That would only mirror the certitude that is religion.

[IncandescentLight]

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only be changed from one form to another. There are many unanswered questions, though. If this law is followed the Universe had always been there.

The annhialation of matter and antimatter are as follows: matter+antimatter=a lot of energy+annhialation of both. Reverse that? Or just rearrange the formula?

[vashtsakared]

The idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed is only a classical idea. The original laws of thermodynamics, along with most Newtonian mechanics, need not apply under certain circumstances, which include whatever processes brought the Universe into existence.

However, this doesn't preclude the existence of God. To say that there cannot possibly be a God is a wrong idea. Nothing should be considered impossible. That is why I can't understand atheism. Agnosticism makes fine sense, because that's saying, "I doubt it, but who knows?" whereas atheism simply says, "No." That seems very reactionary, like there is a reason beyond rational deduction for the belief. (That may sound like religion to some of you, but realize that there can be rational reasons for believing in it.) Now, maybe a supreme being decided to set all these events in motion: the genesis of the Universe and all that was originally in it, and the evolution of different species. That would be really strange, on the one hand making God lazy and on the other being needlessly convoluted. Then again, maybe when you're doing things right, "no one will be sure you're doing anything at all."

[Spectre557]

However, this doesn't preclude the existence of God. To say that there cannot possibly be a God is a wrong idea.

True. Of course there could be an impossible magic man sitting in the sky, because nothing you say could actually disprove something which is undetectable if it exists. So likewise, I'm going to act offended and scornful when you "insult" me by saying you don't believe my delusion: He's an invisible flying spaghetti monster, and his name is Patrick. You can't actually see him, he doesn't communicate or act in any obvious way, but you know how even men have nipples? That was Him. He did that, and if science disproves that completely, then it was never meant to be taken literally anyway. ALL HAIL THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

Nothing should be considered impossible. That is why I can't understand atheism. Agnosticism makes fine sense, because that's saying, "I doubt it, but who knows?" whereas atheism simply says, "No." That seems very reactionary, like there is a reason beyond rational deduction for the belief.

To be an atheist you don't have to reject out of hand any ideas of a power, force or being beyond our perception. You reject all religious deities.

You also probably find the idea of a god that is incredibly human-like, whilst also omnipotent, who knows everyone personally and is everywhere but still one being and loves everyone (because apparently this all-powerful force feels very human-like emotions), who also wants you to do some ridiculous things or he's going to send you to a place after you're dead where you will have to endure unspeakable pain and torment although he loves you and wants to forgive you as long as you say sorry even though he already knows you are and made you say sorry himself, who has (supposedly) directly communicated to people and told them to kill other people for some unmentioned reason, but also said through his son, who is also him, who's also a ghost, which is also him, that killing is wrong and he will PUNISH you for doing it.

Phew. Now flame away if you insist, believers.

P.S. ALL HAIL PATRICK, THE INVISIBLE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

-- Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:19 am --

Another thing, a bit more on-topic...

Since our laws of physics dictate that matter and energy can only change forms, never be created or destroyed, it's impossible for the big bang to have come from nothing, right? But before the big bang, we didn't have any laws of physics, let alone a we to have them. Does this not also apply to any laws concerning the conservation of energy/matter?