- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 2/21/26 at 7:46 pm to SoDakHawk
Posted on 2/21/26 at 7:46 pm to SoDakHawk
quote:
The teaching is that God loves us, he created us, he allowed it to happen through the Big Bang, evolution, whatever scientific explanation that can be given.
The only question I would have here, of a Catholic priest, is that the creation account is specific concerning creating each of their own kind. That doesn’t marry neatly to evolution from a primordial soup.
0
Posted on 2/21/26 at 7:49 pm to SoDakHawk
quote:Part of it is that there’s an entire cottage industry built around misrepresenting evolution. Conferences, lecture circuits, glossy books, videos, books-on-tape (might be showing my age here
Don't know why that marriage of religion and science is so hard for people to understand.
) podcasts. There’s real money in telling people the scientific consensus is a house of cards. I say that from experience. I was raised immersed in that culture and those arguments and believed them completely when I was younger. It led to several embarrassing instances of challenging teachers and professors with what I thought were airtight objections, only to discover that what I believed to be facts were recycled talking points built on distortions and half-truths.
So when people struggle to reconcile faith and science, I don’t always assume it’s stubbornness. Sometimes it’s the result of years of confident misinformation delivered by hucksters who sound authoritative. Untangling that takes time.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 7:53 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I get what you’re trying to do there, but I think that line of argument concedes too much.
Not really trying to do anything. I don’t need to concede anything because I’m not team evolution or creation, I can believe in God, infinity, and evolution all at the same time.
quote:
Evolution doesn’t claim humans were “randomly formed” in a single probabilistic event. Variation has a random component, but selection is not random.
Selection is random within the limits of the environment no?
If evolution doesn’t claim randomness then they must claim some form of intervention? Who do the evolutionists claimed intervened with nature? Posted on 2/21/26 at 8:06 pm to High Life
quote:Whether you’re “team” anything isn’t really the point here. The only question that matters in this context is whether you accept the evolutionary model as it’s actually defined. Your theological beliefs are another layer on top of that.
Not really trying to do anything. I don’t need to concede anything because I’m not team evolution or creation, I can believe in God, infinity, and evolution all at the same time.
quote:What?
Selection is random within the limits of the environment no? If evolution doesn’t claim randomness then they must claim some form of intervention? Who do the evolutionists claimed intervened with nature?
Selection is not random “within the limits of the environment.” The environment is the constraint. Given a particular environment, some traits consistently result in more survival and reproduction than others. That statistical bias is what we call natural selection.
Non-random does not mean “intervention.” It means consistent outcomes under consistent conditions.
Mutation introduces variation without regard to usefulness. Selection filters that variation in a predictable direction based on survival and reproduction. There’s no third category required.
So no, if evolution isn’t purely random, it doesn’t imply someone intervened. It implies differential reproduction under physical and environmental constraints.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 8:08 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Do you believe there an infinite number of you?
No. But it sounds way better than the singular being theory. Just one being, one consciousness, all by themselves in nothingness creates an existence and imports itself into millions of concrete amnesiac bodies to forget that it’s all alone. Ie you me and everyone you know is actually god experiencing itself all over again an again through billions of different perspectives.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 8:23 pm to High Life
Better?
Posted on 2/21/26 at 8:26 pm to SoDakHawk
quote:
It was God's plan, and he allowed it to happen.
Don't know why that marriage of religion and science is so hard for people to understand.
I think Christian concepts like original sin and the fall of man are difficult to reconcile with evolution. If we were placed here with death and suffering already present and an inevitable part of the human experience, then we did not create those circumstances and can’t be blamed for them.
Children don’t die from cancer because we live in a fallen world. Children die from cancer because cancer has been around for millions of years and is a nasty part of this world regardless of how righteous our ancestors might have been.
And I still don’t know how ID proponents explain the fossil record. If species have been introduced by a Creator, then should we expect more species to appear suddenly in various ecosystems around the world? The T-Rex and Grizzly Bear, for example, are not contemporaries in the fossil record. T-Rex died out 65+ million years ago while the Grizzly came to be maybe about 5 million years ago at the earliest and is still extant. So did a sustainable breeding population of adult Grizzly Bears just come into existence one day out of the blue and integrate into an existing ecosystem long after T-Rex and other predators went extinct?
Posted on 2/21/26 at 8:30 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Given a particular environment, some traits consistently result in more survival and reproduction than others. That statistical bias is what we call natural selection.
May need an example to understand what you mean by randomness. I thought I understood natural selection.
quote:
Non-random does not mean “intervention.” It means consistent outcomes under consistent conditions.
Well yea in under non random conditions evolution will take a predictable path. I think when we are talking about the scope of the cosmos and creation I’m assuming that the nature of the environment is also a random occurrence. Yes the evolution within the environment will to some degree take the path of least resistance (which is obviously observable and not random). But how does that prove the whole planet isn’t random.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 8:44 pm to GRTiger
You’d rather be alone?
Posted on 2/21/26 at 8:53 pm to Azkiger
quote:Eating and breathing are more efficient for humans due to the muscles used for both being in the same area, like I said.
No, you stated safety measures that help mitigate the structure, not why our current structure is better than the structure I've proposed.
quote:From what I found, hands, wrists, and arms are actually the most common parts injured, followed by legs, feet, and ankles.
And yet the back/spine is, by far, the most common structure to get injured. It's almost as if we evolved from quadruped.
Oh, but I'm sure in the garden of Eden, prior to the fall, our backs were somehow different? This is just Satan's way of corrupting God's creation. I wonder how Adam and Even did look, though? How were their spines designed differently?
Again, just because we can and do get injured doesn’t mean the design is flawed.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 9:02 pm to High Life
quote:When biologists say mutations are “random,” they don’t mean everything is chaos. They mean mutations don’t happen because an organism needs them. They aren’t guided toward what would be helpful. They just occur.
May need an example to understand what you mean by randomness. I thought I understood natural selection.
But once those differences exist, the environment isn’t random. In a given setting, some traits help survival and reproduction more than others. Those traits become more common over time. That consistent filtering is natural selection.
quote:Evolutionary biology doesn’t try to answer that. It doesn’t need to. It just explains how populations change under whatever conditions exist.
Well yea in under non random conditions evolution will take a predictable path. I think when we are talking about the scope of the cosmos and creation I’m assuming that the nature of the environment is also a random occurrence. Yes the evolution within the environment will to some degree take the path of least resistance (which is obviously observable and not random). But how does that prove the whole planet isn’t random.
Even if the environment came about through chance events, once it’s there, selection works in a predictable way within it. The big cosmic randomness question is separate from the biological mechanism.
This is why I said your personal religious beliefs are a separate layer.
Hope this answers your questions.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 9:03 pm to High Life
quote:
You’d rather be alone?
No.
I didn't know what you meant by better.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 9:08 pm to GRTiger
quote:
I honestly have tried but nothing makes sense except magic and God.
Signed, the God of the Gaps
Page 16 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News