what Robert Hume said in 1758---What is more likely, that the diversity and complexity we see all around us came about by laws of nature that we can observe, or by supernatural Intelligent Designer that we cannot observe. This was even before Darwin.
Do you agree? Why or why not.
2007-07-24 07:08:06 · 18 answers · asked by April 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nope. It boils down to one side has a mountain of evidence and matches the fossil record, intelligent design doesn't.
2007-07-24 07:14:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
I questioned the evolution Versus creation for a long time.
One thing I stated noticing was rates of erosion. I live near a river and over just a few years I've seen noticeable erosion.
Learning from what I've seen I considered that if certain life forms were alive 100 + million years ago and embedded in limestone they would have eroded many times over by now. Lots of thse fossils are found in fairly open territory in the western US. Now someone is going to try to convince me these have been there that long. In that kind of rock even one tenth that long does'nt seem possile with all the earths changing weather patterns and earth quakes every 100 or so years.
Give this a little thought.
2007-07-24 14:22:35 · answer #2 · answered by kevin s 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the statement but wasn't it David Hume. Why wouldn't I? I would further say our existence has selected those natural laws ( among many ) conducive to the type of diversity and local complexity that make our existence possible.
2007-07-24 14:13:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Is intelligent design a testable hypothesis? Can you prove the intelligent designer exists? Any evidence? Can you tell us who created the intelligent designer? No? Then it's not a real science. I don't even dignify it with the word 'theory'-since nothing about it meets that standard.
2007-07-24 14:18:07 · answer #4 · answered by Julia Sugarbaker 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's true that we don't observe a supernatural intelligent designer. It's equally true that we have not observed life coming from non-living material.
2007-07-24 14:13:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
James B - wrong, we see life coming from non-living material every day in abundance.
Plants convert light, CO2, and water into living matter. That matter is then killed, broken apart, and reassembled into other living cells by other organisms.
2007-07-24 14:17:54 · answer #6 · answered by Diminati 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There were a whole lot of evolutionary failures in history going back to the dawn of life on Earth. Given that 99.9% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct I would say that if there was an inteligence behind the design, then that inteligence isn't all that smart.
I will ring your doorbell and run away!!!
2007-07-24 14:12:46 · answer #7 · answered by ♥Satan♥Lord♥of♥Flames♥ 3 · 8⤊ 3⤋
I don't agree with anything to do with evolution. Because, the odds that everything we see around us came about by pure chance, all from a one-celled amoeba which suddenly decided to crawl out of the primordial ooze & start evolving into all we see & hear & touch , are astronomical !
Really, it takes less faith to believe it was created, by God. No odds against that , is there ?
2007-07-24 14:17:58 · answer #8 · answered by The Count 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Hes simply saying we were created in either way. In that statement he isnt advocating one or the other.
2007-07-24 14:22:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Want to see real diversity and complexity? spend a day in Hoboken, NJ.
2007-07-24 14:13:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋