Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
ok so first read this https://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
this is.
*deep cleansing breath*
ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?
Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers
i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes?
/end vent
ok so first read this https://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
this is. *deep cleansing breath*
ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?
Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers
i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes?
/end vent
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
im pretty sure ull find that the bible was written by men ..... after the fact ..... based on their limited understanding ...... there where so many different versions floating around at one point that the king of england told them to write a single constitent version "those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry the Eight and Edward the Sixt were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original." the bible is a fairy tale ..... like all good fairy tales its roots lie deep in history but as its been passed from generation to generation its truth has been warped and manipulated by to suit the needs of those passing it on.
Online Bible Reference
"Don't violate your father by having sex with your mother. She is your mother. Don't have sex with her."
well da!
"Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent.
"Those who do any of these abhorrent things will be cut off from their people. Keep to what I tell you; don't engage in any of the abhorrent acts that were practiced before you came. Don't pollute yourselves with them. I am GOD, your God."
im pretty sure that if there is a omniscient being out there that they arnt a homophobe or if they where they wouldnt have "designed" everything to allow for it, i know i know god wants us to choose her ..... .cos she has this big inferiority complex and needs us to reaffirm how cool and hip she is ............. riiiiiiiiiiight
Written by: faithinfire
one is from an omniscient being and the other is from a bunch of people with limited understanding of the natural world
i don't take the bible fully literally but this is why i'd listen more to it. theories are always coming into question and getting revamped. the bible is mostly just translated
im pretty sure ull find that the bible was written by men ..... after the fact ..... based on their limited understanding ...... there where so many different versions floating around at one point that the king of england told them to write a single constitent version "those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry the Eight and Edward the Sixt were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original." the bible is a fairy tale ..... like all good fairy tales its roots lie deep in history but as its been passed from generation to generation its truth has been warped and manipulated by to suit the needs of those passing it on. Online Bible Reference
"Don't violate your father by having sex with your mother. She is your mother. Don't have sex with her."
well da!
"Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent.
"Those who do any of these abhorrent things will be cut off from their people. Keep to what I tell you; don't engage in any of the abhorrent acts that were practiced before you came. Don't pollute yourselves with them. I am GOD, your God."
im pretty sure that if there is a omniscient being out there that they arnt a homophobe or if they where they wouldnt have "designed" everything to allow for it, i know i know god wants us to choose her ..... .cos she has this big inferiority complex and needs us to reaffirm how cool and hip she is ............. riiiiiiiiiiight
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
That Leviticus chap you just posted to is like Tinklepants.
a mental..
That Leviticus chap you just posted to is like Tinklepants.
a mental..
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
I would like to draw your attention to one section of the web cast at ‘1.04.58’
About scientific method
(I have quoted as best I can I can only type so fast
)
This is where ID falls down it has not gone through the scientific process and it would seem ID believers are not willing to do this.
If they did I To would be thrilled and may even change my views and opinions but until they do I will stick to the tried and tested Theories of evolution that have been scrutinized for years but still hold strong today
.
I would like to draw your attention to one section of the web cast at ‘1.04.58’
About scientific method
(I have quoted as best I can I can only type so fast
)Written by: Ken Miller
Science often deals with novel scientific claims
But what we expect people to do is to do real research to back up their claims. To submit them to pier review to engage in the give and take of scientific argument. to win a scientific consensus and eventually if the evidence is on the side of these ideas no matter how goofy they sound at first and no matter how much the scientific community apposes them they will eventually find their way into classrooms and text books.
Now intelligent design advocates like to say they have a new scientific idea to and you know what if they wanted to do this I would be thrilled. I would say see you at the cell biology see you at biochemistry see you at earth science meetings we will have fun we will argue about this and I’ll show you your full of it and you know what may be you’ll do the same to me. may be you will come up with the experiments with the analysis that will show you are right and if you are right in 10 15 years we won’t have to go to the school board and argue you will automatically end up in textbooks and classrooms
This is where ID falls down it has not gone through the scientific process and it would seem ID believers are not willing to do this.
If they did I To would be thrilled and may even change my views and opinions but until they do I will stick to the tried and tested Theories of evolution that have been scrutinized for years but still hold strong today
. before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
This is not according to religion's history... If you'd take a close look at the religions of the world (especially and foremost the big ones), you will find that they adapted much to the circumstances and that they are spiritual "goulasch", or (politically correct) "mix veg curry" - blended from a variety of rituals and (belief) systems. "X-tianity" was blended from the teachings of Jesus (much of it corrupted), Judaism, the roman cult and a few Pagan elements... (the X-mas tree, the fish-symbol, the title "pontifex maximus" that represented the old title "High priest" in Rome, the image of Mary with the child... the list goes on)
Simply speaking: religion (as a whole) adopted much under the construction of a better, more waterproof psychological believe system, so you can't proove it "wrong". Religion was undergoing significant changes in the past 2.5 millennia and one of the latest developments are the "newborn christians"...
Patriarch: I think you have just made a glorious example which turns "the supreme being" into a blindfolded rubics cube player and therefore prooved his superiority (in patience)...
To think about the likelyhood of your example within the given timeframe in itself doesn't proof ID - or it does just as much as you can believe in the likelyhood of evolution - it might question evolution but nothing more.
IMO This is a merry-go-round.
You (along with others) want to make believe that there once was an old man (pretty sophisticated chemist he was)... I spare you the rest of my story, because ultimately it won't lead anywhere, but here...
..
Disclaimer: this might sound to some like a smartass arrogant post, but it really isn't - I weigh the arguments back and forth and look at them from various angles and find as many answers as new questions...
Written by:
Science will change when something new comes up, religion wont...
This is not according to religion's history...
If you'd take a close look at the religions of the world (especially and foremost the big ones), you will find that they adapted much to the circumstances and that they are spiritual "goulasch", or (politically correct) "mix veg curry" - blended from a variety of rituals and (belief) systems. "X-tianity" was blended from the teachings of Jesus (much of it corrupted), Judaism, the roman cult and a few Pagan elements... (the X-mas tree, the fish-symbol, the title "pontifex maximus" that represented the old title "High priest" in Rome, the image of Mary with the child... the list goes on) Simply speaking: religion (as a whole) adopted much under the construction of a better, more waterproof psychological believe system, so you can't proove it "wrong". Religion was undergoing significant changes in the past 2.5 millennia and one of the latest developments are the "newborn christians"...
Patriarch: I think you have just made a glorious example which turns "the supreme being" into a blindfolded rubics cube player and therefore prooved his superiority (in patience)...
To think about the likelyhood of your example within the given timeframe in itself doesn't proof ID - or it does just as much as you can believe in the likelyhood of evolution - it might question evolution but nothing more.
IMO This is a merry-go-round.
You (along with others) want to make believe that there once was an old man (pretty sophisticated chemist he was)... I spare you the rest of my story, because ultimately it won't lead anywhere, but here...
..
Disclaimer: this might sound to some like a smartass arrogant post, but it really isn't - I weigh the arguments back and forth and look at them from various angles and find as many answers as new questions...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Quite right Firetom, you've caught me out.
What I mean is that fundementalist religion is very resistant to change and ignores valid scientific facts when it suit it.
I've just skimmed your post. I'm sure it was very grand and clever enough to fool people who haven't studied statistics and chemistry. However the analogy is wrong because -shock- semi-living chemicals are different from rubix cubes. Not only that but the origin of life is irrelevent to evolution.
Where are your peer review papers then? Or have all creationist arguments been shot down at the review stage. We can all read the creationist ravings on AiG, but they are just that, baseless ravings. Until their opinions can stand up to scrutiny they shall not be given any credence.
EDIT:I've found a website which explains the creationist fallacy of no-new-information quite well and includes links to the original Nylonase papers, as well as links to the laughable AiG 'refutations'. Why did they only print their refutations on their website instead of submitting it to peer review? I'll let you guess.
Evolution and Information
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1141472761)
Written by: FireTomWritten by: Jeff(fake)
Science will change when something new comes up, religion wont...
This is not according to religion's history...
Quite right Firetom, you've caught me out.
What I mean is that fundementalist religion is very resistant to change and ignores valid scientific facts when it suit it.
Written by: Patriarch917
Something about rubix cubes I gather
I've just skimmed your post. I'm sure it was very grand and clever enough to fool people who haven't studied statistics and chemistry. However the analogy is wrong because -shock-
semi-living chemicals are different from rubix cubes. Not only that but the origin of life is irrelevent to evolution.Where are your peer review papers then? Or have all creationist arguments been shot down at the review stage. We can all read the creationist ravings on AiG, but they are just that, baseless ravings. Until their opinions can stand up to scrutiny they shall not be given any credence.
EDIT:I've found a website which explains the creationist fallacy of no-new-information quite well and includes links to the original Nylonase papers, as well as links to the laughable AiG 'refutations'. Why did they only print their refutations on their website instead of submitting it to peer review? I'll let you guess.
Evolution and Information
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1141472761)
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Did you even bother to read the link that you posted? Its "refutation" admits that the mutation that allowed the bacteria to eat nylon was a rearrangement of existing capabilities, and not an addition of new genetic material. The author persists in his belief that the mutation was random rather than environmentally triggered, and insists on believing it despite the odds against such a mutation occurring within the relevant time frame. The article ends with an argument over burden shifting. Surely you can come up with something better than that.
This argument seems to be based on the myth that scientists who believe in creation or ID do not have papers published in peer reviewed journals (they are). Furthermore, it is based on a belief that whichever peer reviewed journal you have in mind is edited by people who will reject any explanation that is not predicated on the acceptance of the belief that the universe is the product of chance (some are, but not all).
Since Creationists and ID advocates are a minority representing positions that are against the mainstream, it is to be expected that there are not as many papers by them being published as by other scientists. As Copernicus and Galileo would no doubt tell you, being in a minority that is rejected by that time period's mainstream science does not mean that you are wrong.
This is an argument from authority. You are essentially asking that I show that my theories are acceptable to the authority you have faith in (mainstream scientific theory). I might just as well insist that theories that your theories are acceptable to the authority that I have faith in. This would leave us deadlocked, however, in an argument over who to believe, rather than what to believe.
I can see why you would choose to claim that. The theory that unguided chance and naturalistic processes can account for life as we know it utterly fails in attempting to explain the existence of life in the first place. The faith required to believe in Evolution is far greater than that required by the alternatives.
My theory is that the Supreme being is not like a blindfolded Rubik's cube player, but is more like one that is not wearing a blindfold. To consider the likelihood of a living organism occurring by chance does indeed cast an almost insurmountable level of doubt on the claim that unguided chance can account for all things. To believe in the theory of history as put forth by Evolutionists requires far more faith than believing the theory put forth by advocates of ID. Here's why:
Imagine that we are walking around outside, and we find a solved Rubik's cube. In trying to decide how it got solved, we come up with two theories.
1. The Rubik's cube was solved by chance.
2. The Rubik's cube was solved by intelligence.
I found jeff(fake)'s line about "semi-living" chemicals to be quite funny. If you like, you can think of mixed up Rubik's cubes as being in various "semi-solved" states.
There are over 43 quintillion (43,252,003,274,489,856,000) possible "semi-solved" states that a Rubik's cube can be in. That's over 7 billion combinations for every person on the earth. Yet only one of these is the "correct" position. Even if we add in lots of other "correct" meaningful patterns that we will consider acceptable (crosses, etc), they still won't make much of a dent in over 43 quintillion random positions.
As you can see, to believe that a Rubik's cube can be solved by chance requires quite a bit of faith. However, if you start with the assumption that there is no intelligent input, you are left with no other possibility but that the odds were overcome by chance. This is the positions that Naturalistic evolution finds itself in, not just in the original creation of life, but in the random addition of new information afterwards.
On the other hand, you can believe that the Rubik's cube was intelligently solved. While the odds against solving a cube randomly are over 43 quintillion to one, an intelligent person can solve a Rubik's cube from any of these positions in 52 turns or less.
Thus, if the entire ocean were made of Rubik's cubes, and I were to find a solved one, the most reasonable explanation would still be that that cube had been solved intelligently, not by chance. It is possible to believe that chance can account for a solved Rubik's cube, but this belief requires a disregard of the overwhelming odds against it.
Just as finding a solved Rubik's cube suggests the presence of an intelligence that could have solved it, the existence of life suggests the presence of an intelligence that could have created it. The presence of life does more than cast serious doubt on the basic premise of evolution (that all information was formed by chance), it gives support to the theory that an intelligence capable of overcoming the odds exists.
EDITED_BY: Patriarch917 (1141494375)
Did you even bother to read the link that you posted? Its "refutation" admits that the mutation that allowed the bacteria to eat nylon was a rearrangement of existing capabilities, and not an addition of new genetic material. The author persists in his belief that the mutation was random rather than environmentally triggered, and insists on believing it despite the odds against such a mutation occurring within the relevant time frame. The article ends with an argument over burden shifting. Surely you can come up with something better than that.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Where are your peer review papers then?
This argument seems to be based on the myth that scientists who believe in creation or ID do not have papers published in peer reviewed journals (they are). Furthermore, it is based on a belief that whichever peer reviewed journal you have in mind is edited by people who will reject any explanation that is not predicated on the acceptance of the belief that the universe is the product of chance (some are, but not all).
Since Creationists and ID advocates are a minority representing positions that are against the mainstream, it is to be expected that there are not as many papers by them being published as by other scientists. As Copernicus and Galileo would no doubt tell you, being in a minority that is rejected by that time period's mainstream science does not mean that you are wrong.
This is an argument from authority. You are essentially asking that I show that my theories are acceptable to the authority you have faith in (mainstream scientific theory). I might just as well insist that theories that your theories are acceptable to the authority that I have faith in. This would leave us deadlocked, however, in an argument over who to believe, rather than what to believe.
Written by: jeff(fake)
but the origin of life is irrelevent to evolution....
I can see why you would choose to claim that. The theory that unguided chance and naturalistic processes can account for life as we know it utterly fails in attempting to explain the existence of life in the first place. The faith required to believe in Evolution is far greater than that required by the alternatives.
Written by: FireTom
Patriarch: I think you have just made a glorious example which turns "the supreme being" into a blindfolded rubics cube player and therefore prooved his superiority (in patience)...
To think about the likelyhood of your example within the given timeframe in itself doesn't proof ID - or it does just as much as you can believe in the likelyhood of evolution - it might question evolution but nothing more.
My theory is that the Supreme being is not like a blindfolded Rubik's cube player, but is more like one that is not wearing a blindfold. To consider the likelihood of a living organism occurring by chance does indeed cast an almost insurmountable level of doubt on the claim that unguided chance can account for all things. To believe in the theory of history as put forth by Evolutionists requires far more faith than believing the theory put forth by advocates of ID. Here's why:
Imagine that we are walking around outside, and we find a solved Rubik's cube. In trying to decide how it got solved, we come up with two theories.
1. The Rubik's cube was solved by chance.
2. The Rubik's cube was solved by intelligence.
I found jeff(fake)'s line about "semi-living" chemicals to be quite funny. If you like, you can think of mixed up Rubik's cubes as being in various "semi-solved" states.
There are over 43 quintillion (43,252,003,274,489,856,000) possible "semi-solved" states that a Rubik's cube can be in. That's over 7 billion combinations for every person on the earth. Yet only one of these is the "correct" position. Even if we add in lots of other "correct" meaningful patterns that we will consider acceptable (crosses, etc), they still won't make much of a dent in over 43 quintillion random positions.
As you can see, to believe that a Rubik's cube can be solved by chance requires quite a bit of faith. However, if you start with the assumption that there is no intelligent input, you are left with no other possibility but that the odds were overcome by chance. This is the positions that Naturalistic evolution finds itself in, not just in the original creation of life, but in the random addition of new information afterwards.
On the other hand, you can believe that the Rubik's cube was intelligently solved. While the odds against solving a cube randomly are over 43 quintillion to one, an intelligent person can solve a Rubik's cube from any of these positions in 52 turns or less.
Thus, if the entire ocean were made of Rubik's cubes, and I were to find a solved one, the most reasonable explanation would still be that that cube had been solved intelligently, not by chance. It is possible to believe that chance can account for a solved Rubik's cube, but this belief requires a disregard of the overwhelming odds against it.
Just as finding a solved Rubik's cube suggests the presence of an intelligence that could have solved it, the existence of life suggests the presence of an intelligence that could have created it. The presence of life does more than cast serious doubt on the basic premise of evolution (that all information was formed by chance), it gives support to the theory that an intelligence capable of overcoming the odds exists.
EDITED_BY: Patriarch917 (1141494375)
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
You didn't read it thourally did you? What it shows is the origins of a completly novel enzyme, basicly the creation of new information which creationist claim is impossible. Genetic additions, a different topic and which also happened in the formation of Nylonasem occur all the time, and I've sequenced some myself.
That's as much as I'll say on this, the rest of your post is just ridiculous. You have absolutely no concept of evolutionary theory and you argue from store bought fallacys from AiG. An enzyme only needs to be adequate, not perfect, and changes happen at a few at a time not all at once, thus your Rubix cube analogy is a pitiful failure. I deal with organic chemistry, take your multicoloured plastic toy elsewhere.
Natural selection is not random, the clue is in the second word of the name. Until you can grasp that very simple concept you will never understand nor be able to argue against evolution. My advice is to learn about biology from a source other than the AiG.
Written by: Patriarch917
Its "refutation" admits that the mutation that allowed the bacteria to eat nylon was a rearrangement of existing capabilities, and not an addition of new genetic material.
You didn't read it thourally did you? What it shows is the origins of a completly novel enzyme, basicly the creation of new information which creationist claim is impossible. Genetic additions, a different topic and which also happened in the formation of Nylonasem occur all the time, and I've sequenced some myself.
That's as much as I'll say on this, the rest of your post is just ridiculous. You have absolutely no concept of evolutionary theory and you argue from store bought fallacys from AiG. An enzyme only needs to be adequate, not perfect, and changes happen at a few at a time not all at once, thus your Rubix cube analogy is a pitiful failure. I deal with organic chemistry, take your multicoloured plastic toy elsewhere.
Natural selection is not random, the clue is in the second word of the name. Until you can grasp that very simple concept you will never understand nor be able to argue against evolution. My advice is to learn about biology from a source other than the AiG.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
@ Patriarch: Yes I am kind-a for having brushed off your rubicks-example so ignorantly.... excuse me. It's a brilliant example! 
and I was sitting at the ocean last night, pondering upon this:
The ocean(s are) filled all the way up with *stuff*, set in motion by the moon and climate, cooked by (undersea) volcanoes, meteorites bombarding the surface of the planet, bringing in more elements (maybe)... given time and opportunity and swof!: life!
I mean, Patriarch, did you recently look at the ocean? There are myriads of ripples and waves - you cannot count the drops that are on the surface of what you actually observe (only a minimal %age of the actual ocean itself) and you cannot count the number of grains of sand that are on the beach you're standing on.... WOW
Infinitely nature is playing with opportunities and combinations - simply beautiful - coming up with creations, dumping them again... how powerful.
Patriarch, as initially stated: in my world evolution and ID co-exist. Why? Because I have a different reference when it comes to the definition of "God"...
Thanks again for your beautiful methaphore!
@ Patriarch: Yes I am kind-a
for having brushed off your rubicks-example so ignorantly.... excuse me. It's a brilliant example! and I was sitting at the ocean last night, pondering upon this:The ocean(s are) filled all the way up with *stuff*, set in motion by the moon and climate, cooked by (undersea) volcanoes, meteorites bombarding the surface of the planet, bringing in more elements (maybe)... given time and opportunity and swof!: life!
I mean, Patriarch, did you recently look at the ocean? There are myriads of ripples and waves - you cannot count the drops that are on the surface of what you actually observe (only a minimal %age of the actual ocean itself) and you cannot count the number of grains of sand that are on the beach you're standing on.... WOW
Infinitely nature is playing with opportunities and combinations - simply beautiful - coming up with creations, dumping them again... how powerful.
Patriarch, as initially stated: in my world evolution and ID co-exist. Why? Because I have a different reference when it comes to the definition of "God"...
Thanks again for your beautiful methaphore!
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I read it more thoroughly than you read my Rubik's cube post, apparently. The enzyme isn't the "information" they are talking about. The new information is the "shift" of the previous information in the genes that allowed the bacteria to create the enzyme. The dispute is not whether the change resulted in a new enzyme, the dispute was whether the change was random or triggered.
Of course, even if it were truly a random change, this would not be a problem for creationists. Probability assures us that small changes can occasionally be useful. We know that flinging scrabble tiles will occasionally result in the formation of words. The dispute is over whether this mechanism is actually responsible for the information present today.
If you had read my post, you would have seen that I was not discussing the formation of an enzyme, but of a living organism. I allowed broad discretion as to the number of "adequate" solutions to the Rubik's cube. I did not restrict it to just one "perfect" solution, but allowed you to add in any number of meaningful patterns that you can come up with. There are a number of "adequate" patterns that we can think of, but these would not put much of a dent in the 43 quintillion possible combinations.
To deal with organic chemistry, I would have had to deal with probabilities that were much, much less likely than randomly solving a Rubik's cube. With the Rubik's cube, we are only dealing with the approximate number of seconds in the estimated theoretical age of the universe. To move into the realm of organic chemistry, we would have to deal with probabilities described in ways like "the number of electrons that could fit in the volume of the visible universe."
There is also the problem that the theories of how life could have developed are based almost purely on speculation, and none of them actually allow for success. The conditions necessary for the compounds to develop would kill any life that randomly assembled itself, and the conditions needed for life to survive would prevent the components from being able to form. (To use an analogy, a busy highway is a good place for a car to operate, but not a good place for the car to be built).
Of course, natural selection is not random. In my analogy, natural selection was the fellow sitting next to the blindfolded rubik's cube player telling him "yes" or "no." Natural selection is the mechanism which is supposed to filter out the useful information from the non-useful… or rather, the "solved" from the "semi-solved." It is the guy creating the possible solutions that we are concerned with… and whether he is coming up with the solutions randomly or intelligently.
One can turn a Rubik's cube a few times, notice that a few of the colors on one side match, and conclude from this that it is possible to solve a Rubik's cube by chance, with no intelligent planning and no goal in mind. This would be a correct conclusion. It is undisputedly true that a Rubik's cube can be solved by chance, and we know the probability (about 43 quintillion against). It is also true that a living organism can be assembled from nonliving material by chance. The probability of this happening is far less likely than a Rubik's cube being solved by chance, but still there is that possibility.
Chance and intelligence are both valid explanations for finding a solved Rubik's cube. One seems to us to be the more "likely" one, but they are both possible. In the same way, the existence of life can be attributed to chance or to design. One may be less "probable" than the other, but you can choose to have faith in either explanation.
No one disputes the role of natural selection. The dispute is over the source of the information (the guy that is turning the Rubik's cube). Evolution insists that he is blind, and solved it by chance. Creationists (and ID-ers) contend that a more likely explanation for the solved Rubik's cube is that it was solved intelligently (without the blindfold). Probability can tell us which theory is "better" at solving a Rubik's cube (43 quintillion maximum random possibilities before success, vs 52 maximum intelligent moves). However, probability cannot tell us which one we "must" choose to have faith in.
My philosophical assumptions allow for the possibility of an intelligence capable of making life. Other people may have philosophical assumptions that do not allow for an intelligence of this sort, and thus having faith that life was created by chance is the only other option.
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Patriarch917
Its "refutation" admits that the mutation that allowed the bacteria to eat nylon was a rearrangement of existing capabilities, and not an addition of new genetic material.
You didn't read it thourally did you? What it shows is the origins of a completly novel enzyme, basicly the creation of new information which creationist claim is impossible. Genetic additions, a different topic and which also happened in the formation of Nylonasem occur all the time, and I've sequenced some myself.
I read it more thoroughly than you read my Rubik's cube post, apparently. The enzyme isn't the "information" they are talking about. The new information is the "shift" of the previous information in the genes that allowed the bacteria to create the enzyme. The dispute is not whether the change resulted in a new enzyme, the dispute was whether the change was random or triggered.
Of course, even if it were truly a random change, this would not be a problem for creationists. Probability assures us that small changes can occasionally be useful. We know that flinging scrabble tiles will occasionally result in the formation of words. The dispute is over whether this mechanism is actually responsible for the information present today.
Written by: jeff(fake)
That's as much as I'll say on this, the rest of your post is just ridiculous. You have absolutely no concept of evolutionary theory and you argue from store bought fallacys from AiG. An enzyme only needs to be adequate, not perfect, and changes happen at a few at a time not all at once, thus your Rubix cube analogy is a pitiful failure. I deal with organic chemistry, take your multicoloured plastic toy elsewhere.
If you had read my post, you would have seen that I was not discussing the formation of an enzyme, but of a living organism. I allowed broad discretion as to the number of "adequate" solutions to the Rubik's cube. I did not restrict it to just one "perfect" solution, but allowed you to add in any number of meaningful patterns that you can come up with. There are a number of "adequate" patterns that we can think of, but these would not put much of a dent in the 43 quintillion possible combinations.
To deal with organic chemistry, I would have had to deal with probabilities that were much, much less likely than randomly solving a Rubik's cube. With the Rubik's cube, we are only dealing with the approximate number of seconds in the estimated theoretical age of the universe. To move into the realm of organic chemistry, we would have to deal with probabilities described in ways like "the number of electrons that could fit in the volume of the visible universe."
There is also the problem that the theories of how life could have developed are based almost purely on speculation, and none of them actually allow for success. The conditions necessary for the compounds to develop would kill any life that randomly assembled itself, and the conditions needed for life to survive would prevent the components from being able to form. (To use an analogy, a busy highway is a good place for a car to operate, but not a good place for the car to be built).
Written by: jeff(fake)
Natural selection is not random, the clue is in the second word of the name. Until you can grasp that very simple concept you will never understand nor be able to argue against evolution.
Of course, natural selection is not random. In my analogy, natural selection was the fellow sitting next to the blindfolded rubik's cube player telling him "yes" or "no." Natural selection is the mechanism which is supposed to filter out the useful information from the non-useful… or rather, the "solved" from the "semi-solved." It is the guy creating the possible solutions that we are concerned with… and whether he is coming up with the solutions randomly or intelligently.
One can turn a Rubik's cube a few times, notice that a few of the colors on one side match, and conclude from this that it is possible to solve a Rubik's cube by chance, with no intelligent planning and no goal in mind. This would be a correct conclusion. It is undisputedly true that a Rubik's cube can be solved by chance, and we know the probability (about 43 quintillion against). It is also true that a living organism can be assembled from nonliving material by chance. The probability of this happening is far less likely than a Rubik's cube being solved by chance, but still there is that possibility.
Chance and intelligence are both valid explanations for finding a solved Rubik's cube. One seems to us to be the more "likely" one, but they are both possible. In the same way, the existence of life can be attributed to chance or to design. One may be less "probable" than the other, but you can choose to have faith in either explanation.
No one disputes the role of natural selection. The dispute is over the source of the information (the guy that is turning the Rubik's cube). Evolution insists that he is blind, and solved it by chance. Creationists (and ID-ers) contend that a more likely explanation for the solved Rubik's cube is that it was solved intelligently (without the blindfold). Probability can tell us which theory is "better" at solving a Rubik's cube (43 quintillion maximum random possibilities before success, vs 52 maximum intelligent moves). However, probability cannot tell us which one we "must" choose to have faith in.
My philosophical assumptions allow for the possibility of an intelligence capable of making life. Other people may have philosophical assumptions that do not allow for an intelligence of this sort, and thus having faith that life was created by chance is the only other option.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
So you've abandoned Biblical creationism and retreated back to the origin of life have you? Makes sense since the last page of posts and links have totally destroyed the creationist arguements on the absence of evolution. The origins of life are a speculative affair and irrelevent to evolution, but I'll have a go anyway.
Lets consider the Rubix cube for a brief minute.
6 fixed center pieces.
8 Vertice pieces with 3 orientations.
12 Side pieces with 2 orientations.
By my rough back of the envelope maths that gives
(8*3*7*3*6*3*5*3*4*3*3*3*2*3*3)*(12*2*11*2*10*2*9*2*8*2*7*2*6*2*5*2*4*2*3*2*2*2*2)
= (8!*3^8)*(12!*2^8)
=32 439 002 455 867 392 000 different combinations
Lets call it 3.2*10^19 for compactness
No we consider for other meaningful solutions. Of course, these would be mathamatically related to the perfect solution. Lets say that the correct placment of the vertices is the most important thing.
That gives 8! or 40320 possible combinations. A big number, but one easily reachable by random assortments. Lets say there were a billion rubix cubes world wide (metaphore begining). In that case there would be 24801 which would by chance have had a combination which was nearer to the perfect solution than random.
Now lets say that those cubes nearer to the solution are better than those further away. That means that those lucky cubes with correct vertice placement will then go one to conquer the Earth and wipe out the random rubes, creating a world population of a billion cubes with the vertices in the right place, but with random changes in other attributes. How many of those cubes will have those vertices in the right orientation?
1 in 3^8 or 6561. Meaning that there will now be 152415 cubes with their vertices in the correct place and the correct orientation. These cubes will then go on to conquer the Earth.
But wait! some of them have their sides in the correct places. Approximately 1 in 12! or 1 in 479 001 600 of them, producing 2 with correct side placement. After they replicate up to the billion mark, now they orientate! Only a 1 in 256 chance now! There will be 3906250 perfect solutions.
Thus evolution find the solution. All it took is time, which the universe has had plenty of.
Courtesy of Jeff,
Who never would have believed that an A in advanced higher maths would have led to the ownage of creationist.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1141580185)
So you've abandoned Biblical creationism and retreated back to the origin of life have you? Makes sense since the last page of posts and links have totally destroyed the creationist arguements on the absence of evolution. The origins of life are a speculative affair and irrelevent to evolution, but I'll have a go anyway.
Lets consider the Rubix cube for a brief minute.
6 fixed center pieces.
8 Vertice pieces with 3 orientations.
12 Side pieces with 2 orientations.
By my rough back of the envelope maths that gives
(8*3*7*3*6*3*5*3*4*3*3*3*2*3*3)*(12*2*11*2*10*2*9*2*8*2*7*2*6*2*5*2*4*2*3*2*2*2*2)
= (8!*3^8)*(12!*2^8)
=32 439 002 455 867 392 000 different combinations
Lets call it 3.2*10^19 for compactness
No we consider for other meaningful solutions. Of course, these would be mathamatically related to the perfect solution. Lets say that the correct placment of the vertices is the most important thing.
That gives 8! or 40320 possible combinations. A big number, but one easily reachable by random assortments. Lets say there were a billion rubix cubes world wide (metaphore begining). In that case there would be 24801 which would by chance have had a combination which was nearer to the perfect solution than random.
Now lets say that those cubes nearer to the solution are better than those further away. That means that those lucky cubes with correct vertice placement will then go one to conquer the Earth and wipe out the random rubes, creating a world population of a billion cubes with the vertices in the right place, but with random changes in other attributes. How many of those cubes will have those vertices in the right orientation?
1 in 3^8 or 6561. Meaning that there will now be 152415 cubes with their vertices in the correct place and the correct orientation. These cubes will then go on to conquer the Earth.
But wait! some of them have their sides in the correct places. Approximately 1 in 12! or 1 in 479 001 600 of them, producing 2 with correct side placement. After they replicate up to the billion mark, now they orientate! Only a 1 in 256 chance now! There will be 3906250 perfect solutions.
Thus evolution find the solution. All it took is time, which the universe has had plenty of.
Courtesy of Jeff,
Who never would have believed that an A in advanced higher maths would have led to the ownage of creationist.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1141580185)
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
i think youll find theres 12 side pieces
not that its here nor there .... but u know it had to be said
Written by: jeff(fake)
Lets consider the Rubix cube for a brief minute.
6 fixed center pieces.
8 Vertice pieces with 3 orientations.
8 Side pieces with 2 orientations.
i think youll find theres 12 side pieces
not that its here nor there .... but u know it had to be said Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
D'oh. Quite right, I'll correct my post.
EDIT: Edit complete. It still works! Sometimes I amaze myself with my genius.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1141580318)
Written by: ben-ja-menWritten by: jeff(fake)
Lets consider the Rubix cube for a brief minute.
6 fixed center pieces.
8 Vertice pieces with 3 orientations.
8 Side pieces with 2 orientations.
i think youll find theres 12 side pieces
D'oh. Quite right, I'll correct my post.
EDIT: Edit complete. It still works! Sometimes I amaze myself with my genius.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1141580318)
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Your initial probability calculation is still off by 10,813,000,818,622,464,000 (over 10 quintillion). Here's a web site that gives you the equation that you are looking for:
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/RubiksCube.html
I would also point out that we are talking about the creation of the first self reproducing life form. Thus, the rest of your post describing how "almost right" Rubik's cubes will reproduce and take over the world is not applicable to the discussion.
I let the solved Rubik's cube represent the first life form capable of self reproduction. Your example lets "semi-solved" Rubik's cubes represent self reproducing life forms that will pass their "semi-solved" structure onto the next generation. The passing on of information from parent to child is how things work after the creation of self reproducing life, not before.
In my analogy, we needed to randomly generate a solved Rubik's cube. In your analogy, you only need to generate vertices in the correct position.
Since the odds against the random generation of life are far greater than the random generation of a solved Rubik's cube, my example is "more analogous" than yours because my probability is closer to the actual probability.
Your initial probability calculation is still off by 10,813,000,818,622,464,000 (over 10 quintillion). Here's a web site that gives you the equation that you are looking for:
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/RubiksCube.html
I would also point out that we are talking about the creation of the first self reproducing life form. Thus, the rest of your post describing how "almost right" Rubik's cubes will reproduce and take over the world is not applicable to the discussion.
I let the solved Rubik's cube represent the first life form capable of self reproduction. Your example lets "semi-solved" Rubik's cubes represent self reproducing life forms that will pass their "semi-solved" structure onto the next generation. The passing on of information from parent to child is how things work after the creation of self reproducing life, not before.
In my analogy, we needed to randomly generate a solved Rubik's cube. In your analogy, you only need to generate vertices in the correct position.
Since the odds against the random generation of life are far greater than the random generation of a solved Rubik's cube, my example is "more analogous" than yours because my probability is closer to the actual probability.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Which is why I called it a bad analogy.
With the case of organic chemistry there would have been a metric load more than a billion organic molecuels on primeval Earth. Slightly more than the billion number I used in the last example...
As I said before though, it's speculative. But it is still presumtious to assume that it was created by god when no reliable evidence that such a thing has ever been observed, whilst the abiotic hypothesis utilise only mechanics observable today. I've shown by analogy and evidence that something highly improbably can occur by chance and selection, but you've never shown any proof of the existance of god.
It's simply a matter of parsimony.
Written by: Patriarch917
I would also point out that we are talking about the creation of the first self reproducing life form. Thus, the rest of your post describing how "almost right" Rubik's cubes will reproduce and take over the world is not applicable to the discussion.
Which is why I called it a bad analogy.
With the case of organic chemistry there would have been a metric
load more than a billion organic molecuels on primeval Earth. Slightly more than the billion number I used in the last example...As I said before though, it's speculative. But it is still presumtious to assume that it was created by god when no reliable evidence that such a thing has ever been observed, whilst the abiotic hypothesis utilise only mechanics observable today. I've shown by analogy and evidence that something highly improbably can occur by chance and selection, but you've never shown any proof of the existance of god.
It's simply a matter of parsimony.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Posted:
So... what's the best music to spin to?
So... what's the best music to spin to?
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
I don’t think this has been posted before, if it has sorry!
I’m sure Jeff and some others know about the Clay theory, and anyone who has not should read more about it. I first read about it in Dawkins Blind Watchmaker (a book that covers everything here in what I think is a better way than that webcast did, but then again, it’s a book for a 2 hour talk)
Anyway, back to the theory.
The basics of it are as follows: (I know this is a very bad version of it indeed, if you want to pull the theory apart please don’t use this as a reference, go and read the blind watchmaker or papers on the original theory. Whatever you say about my version of this, remember I ‘get’ evolution and I’m not talking about 80s Childs toys)
Clay will grow in a self-replicating way, like any other crystal does. Think of this like honeycomb, expanding (in this example) as a sheet right and left.
When a lot of clay is made in a river, it could do a few things: if it’s not made of a very strong shape it will more often than not just get washed down the river. If it’s strong it will, in time, rise above the river or change the direction of it. The areas that are above the river will dry up and turn in to dust. This dust will get blown in the wind and some of it might end up in a different river. Once it is in a river it can start to grow again and we have just come full circle.
Now, if something changes in the form of the clay crystal for whatever reason the clay will carry on copying the error in the same way as it did before. For example, our honeycomb clay could change itself in to triangle clay. It could also change in to anything else and many other shapes wouldn’t work at all.
Anyway, now we have our changed shape clay crystal. What if it builds faster then the first clay, but has all the other ‘good’ points, like sticking to itself and forming solid dams? If you start the first clay at the same time as the second, changed clay the second will grow and form a dam faster. Therefore it will dry faster and be able to spread to other rivers faster.
There is no better clay, but one will become more common because it’s better at spreading. This can carry on and on, with most clay not changing at all, some clay changing in to something that doesn’t work at all and even less clay changing in to something that makes it a little bit faster at spreading. Some advanced clay might even start floating or forming a film on the water in the hopes that it will get washed up on an existing clay dam and then spread with it. Thus forming a simple host/parasite relationship.
There is no reason to this, other than though random mutation it has started doing it. Any clay that gets very good at the grow > block > dry > spread > grow cycle will more often than not be the most common clay.
If you understand this, then you understand the most basic form of natural selection I can think of. Once you have accepted the clay idea, then there is no reason why you can’t accept the same thing with organic life forms.
I hope you understand all this, I’m sure I’ve left out many things. As I say, go and read the original sources. I can’t find any at the moment, but I’m sure wikipedia will help.
I think you should use this an analogy, rather than the ridiculously based overly simple Rubik’s cube thing!
I don’t think this has been posted before, if it has sorry!
I’m sure Jeff and some others know about the Clay theory, and anyone who has not should read more about it. I first read about it in Dawkins Blind Watchmaker (a book that covers everything here in what I think is a better way than that webcast did, but then again, it’s a book for a 2 hour talk)
Anyway, back to the theory.
The basics of it are as follows: (I know this is a very bad version of it indeed, if you want to pull the theory apart please don’t use this as a reference, go and read the blind watchmaker or papers on the original theory. Whatever you say about my version of this, remember I ‘get’ evolution and I’m not talking about 80s Childs toys)
Clay will grow in a self-replicating way, like any other crystal does. Think of this like honeycomb, expanding (in this example) as a sheet right and left.
When a lot of clay is made in a river, it could do a few things: if it’s not made of a very strong shape it will more often than not just get washed down the river. If it’s strong it will, in time, rise above the river or change the direction of it. The areas that are above the river will dry up and turn in to dust. This dust will get blown in the wind and some of it might end up in a different river. Once it is in a river it can start to grow again and we have just come full circle.
Now, if something changes in the form of the clay crystal for whatever reason the clay will carry on copying the error in the same way as it did before. For example, our honeycomb clay could change itself in to triangle clay. It could also change in to anything else and many other shapes wouldn’t work at all.
Anyway, now we have our changed shape clay crystal. What if it builds faster then the first clay, but has all the other ‘good’ points, like sticking to itself and forming solid dams? If you start the first clay at the same time as the second, changed clay the second will grow and form a dam faster. Therefore it will dry faster and be able to spread to other rivers faster.
There is no better clay, but one will become more common because it’s better at spreading. This can carry on and on, with most clay not changing at all, some clay changing in to something that doesn’t work at all and even less clay changing in to something that makes it a little bit faster at spreading. Some advanced clay might even start floating or forming a film on the water in the hopes that it will get washed up on an existing clay dam and then spread with it. Thus forming a simple host/parasite relationship.
There is no reason to this, other than though random mutation it has started doing it. Any clay that gets very good at the grow > block > dry > spread > grow cycle will more often than not be the most common clay.
If you understand this, then you understand the most basic form of natural selection I can think of. Once you have accepted the clay idea, then there is no reason why you can’t accept the same thing with organic life forms.
I hope you understand all this, I’m sure I’ve left out many things. As I say, go and read the original sources. I can’t find any at the moment, but I’m sure wikipedia will help.
I think you should use this an analogy, rather than the ridiculously based overly simple Rubik’s cube thing!
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
I respectfully bow out of this conversation. I will peek in from time to time. Maybe something will be so ignorant that I will be unable not to post, but this discussion has degenerated from a constructive one. If you cannot be adult enough to respect my beliefs, there is no point in talking to some of you. Others who wish to continue this discussion in a healthy nonbelittling way are more than welcome to pm or email me. The negativity here is overwhelming and really unnecessary
I respectfully bow out of this conversation. I will peek in from time to time. Maybe something will be so ignorant that I will be unable not to post, but this discussion has degenerated from a constructive one. If you cannot be adult enough to respect my beliefs, there is no point in talking to some of you. Others who wish to continue this discussion in a healthy nonbelittling way are more than welcome to pm or email me. The negativity here is overwhelming and really unnecessary
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Of course something improbable can occur by chance, given the right set of starting assumptions. If we find a solved Rubik's cube, there is a 1 in about 43 quintillion possibility that random chance could have solved it. However, the parsimonious explanation is that it was solved by an intelligence.
I've shown by analogy and evidence that something highly improbable (or impossible) can be done much more easily by intelligence than by chance. While my theory that it was done by intelligence may be the more parsimonious theory, it is still not proven.
Of course, you would be the first to admit that your theory cannot be proven either. We can only interpret evidence in favor of our position. I look at the odds against the random formation of life and say "the chance of this occurring randomly is so small, it is more reasonable to believe that life was created by intelligence." You can look at the same probability and say "but there is still that chance, so I am going to believe that it occurred by chance."
You cannot prove your position, and I cannot prove mine. We can speculate over whether God exists, or whether a primeval earth would actually have had the necessary organic components and conditions to allow for the random construction of life. We can infer the existence of either one based on evidence, and we can call each other "presumptuous" for our presuppositions, but we cannot prove anything.
I think it is presumptuous to presume a primeval earth full of organic components that also allows for the possibility of the random construction of life. You think it is presumptuous to presume a God powerful enough to create life.
No natural mechanics observable today could have resulted in the random creation of life. So far, experiments done in the lab that are capable of manufacturing basic organic components require conditions that would have destroyed any life that might have been constructed from them.
Of course, even if scientists were able to create a full blown living creature in the lab (or just the component parts), this would not help the case for abiogenists. Scientists can create plenty of things in the lab (such as certain elements) that could never be created by natural processes.
However, if we were to find a natural mechanic that was spawning life, this would be evidence in favor of abiogenesis. People used to believe in spontaneous generation of life, but all of the old examples were disproven by science (moldy grain produces mice, rotting meat produces flies).
When Darwin proposed the theory of Evolution, the theory of abiogenesis was resurrected. Since, at the time, single celled organisms were thought to be very simple ("organic jelly"), the theory was suggested that single celled organisms could have been generated by a primeval "organic soup."
Science has since revealed the mind boggling complexity of even the simplest form of self-reproducing life. When jeff(fake) said that it was "not relevant," he was truly expressing the attitude of mainstream science today. Past efforts to provide experimental support for the theory of abiogenesis ended up making things worse for the idea. Now it is generally just assumed for the purposes of the theory of evolution, and the work is done in other areas.
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Patriarch917
I would also point out that we are talking about the creation of the first self reproducing life form. Thus, the rest of your post describing how "almost right" Rubik's cubes will reproduce and take over the world is not applicable to the discussion.
Which is why I called it a bad analogy.
With the case of organic chemistry there would have been a metric
As I said before though, it's speculative. But it is still presumtious to assume that it was created by god when no reliable evidence that such a thing has ever been observed, whilst the abiotic hypothesis utilise only mechanics observable today. I've shown by analogy and evidence that something highly improbably can occur by chance and selection, but you've never shown any proof of the existance of god.
It's simply a matter of parsimony.
Of course something improbable can occur by chance, given the right set of starting assumptions. If we find a solved Rubik's cube, there is a 1 in about 43 quintillion possibility that random chance could have solved it. However, the parsimonious explanation is that it was solved by an intelligence.
I've shown by analogy and evidence that something highly improbable (or impossible) can be done much more easily by intelligence than by chance. While my theory that it was done by intelligence may be the more parsimonious theory, it is still not proven.
Of course, you would be the first to admit that your theory cannot be proven either. We can only interpret evidence in favor of our position. I look at the odds against the random formation of life and say "the chance of this occurring randomly is so small, it is more reasonable to believe that life was created by intelligence." You can look at the same probability and say "but there is still that chance, so I am going to believe that it occurred by chance."
You cannot prove your position, and I cannot prove mine. We can speculate over whether God exists, or whether a primeval earth would actually have had the necessary organic components and conditions to allow for the random construction of life. We can infer the existence of either one based on evidence, and we can call each other "presumptuous" for our presuppositions, but we cannot prove anything.
I think it is presumptuous to presume a primeval earth full of organic components that also allows for the possibility of the random construction of life. You think it is presumptuous to presume a God powerful enough to create life.
No natural mechanics observable today could have resulted in the random creation of life. So far, experiments done in the lab that are capable of manufacturing basic organic components require conditions that would have destroyed any life that might have been constructed from them.
Of course, even if scientists were able to create a full blown living creature in the lab (or just the component parts), this would not help the case for abiogenists. Scientists can create plenty of things in the lab (such as certain elements) that could never be created by natural processes.
However, if we were to find a natural mechanic that was spawning life, this would be evidence in favor of abiogenesis. People used to believe in spontaneous generation of life, but all of the old examples were disproven by science (moldy grain produces mice, rotting meat produces flies).
When Darwin proposed the theory of Evolution, the theory of abiogenesis was resurrected. Since, at the time, single celled organisms were thought to be very simple ("organic jelly"), the theory was suggested that single celled organisms could have been generated by a primeval "organic soup."
Science has since revealed the mind boggling complexity of even the simplest form of self-reproducing life. When jeff(fake) said that it was "not relevant," he was truly expressing the attitude of mainstream science today. Past efforts to provide experimental support for the theory of abiogenesis ended up making things worse for the idea. Now it is generally just assumed for the purposes of the theory of evolution, and the work is done in other areas.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Patriarch, evolution is not random. That is the key here, it just isn't random at all.
It's Selection, things are selected in the same way fatter cows or poodles were selected, except this time they are not selected by anything other then their ability to live.
That is not random, and no scientist would say that life is random – that’s what you are saying! You are saying that life came to be from nothing in one step! That is the point that we do not agree with, we are saying that it did not just happen, and it took a very long time with a very many small steps.
Patriarch, evolution is not random. That is the key here, it just isn't random at all.
It's Selection, things are selected in the same way fatter cows or poodles were selected, except this time they are not selected by anything other then their ability to live.
That is not random, and no scientist would say that life is random – that’s what you are saying! You are saying that life came to be from nothing in one step! That is the point that we do not agree with, we are saying that it did not just happen, and it took a very long time with a very many small steps.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I'm not being disrespectful of your beliefs I'm just saying that they are groundless, irrational and almost certainly wrong. Personally I make a distinction between the person and their beliefs. I'm confident that both you and Patriarch are nice people in real life and neither of you think in your heart of hearts that homosexuality is evil or that a loving God would torch the majority of mankind for all eternity.
I think that everyone has to be open minded enough to accept that everything that they know could be wrong and to shut your mind to that possibility is possible the most destructive thing a person could do. To be a scientist is all about accepting this as a fact of life, and that is the path I have chosen.
Written by: faithinfire
If you cannot be adult enough to respect my beliefs, there is no point in talking to some of you.
I'm not being disrespectful of your beliefs I'm just saying that they are groundless, irrational and almost certainly wrong. Personally I make a distinction between the person and their beliefs. I'm confident that both you and Patriarch are nice people in real life and neither of you think in your heart of hearts that homosexuality is evil or that a loving God would torch the majority of mankind for all eternity.
I think that everyone has to be open minded enough to accept that everything that they know could be wrong and to shut your mind to that possibility is possible the most destructive thing a person could do. To be a scientist is all about accepting this as a fact of life, and that is the path I have chosen.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
If it is not random, then it is planned. This is the difference between ID and evolution.
Evolution posits that new information is generated randomly. To hold otherwise is to believe that the information is created on purpose.
I understand the theory that the formation of the DNA in the first organism would have taken place in small steps, even one molecule at a time. Meanwhile, the other parts of the first cell were also being formed in small steps. Naturalistic evolution says that all of these small steps were random, and not being done according to some plan. The chemicals did not have a "goal" of creating life that they were trying to reach. They simply made life by accident… randomly.
Natural Selection allowed that first organism to live and reproduce, but natural selection did not tell the components ahead of time what it's criteria were for a successful living organism. The solution was hit upon randomly.
In theory, cells would have formed in the past that would have not survived for many different reasons. One cell might have been able to survive in the environment, but not reproduce. Another may have been able to reproduce, but was only capable of eating Nylon. Since these organisms could not look at the environment to know how to form, their formation had to be random. It may have been possible for a human zygote to form, but Natural Selection would have eliminated it. The majority of the randomly formed cells would have died.
Finally, one hit upon a combination that met a certain minimal threshold for life. Such minimum forms of life have been imagined, and the probability of them forming from pure pools of the needed components can be estimated. People with better math skills than jeff(fake) (who may have also made A's) have calculated the probabilities, and they are quite high even in ideal conditions. I suggest you look up some of the estimates from secular sources.
One cannot simply compare the odds against it happening randomly vs the odds against it happening by some intelligence, and ask which is more "likely". While intelligence will always be the parsimonious answer, for philosophical reasons many people choose to believe that it can happen by chance.
Of course, you can indeed believe in nonrandom evolution. Most people who believe in evolution in the U.S. do not believe in Naturalistic Evolution, but instead believe that God works through evolution. ID does not even go so far as to demand God, but accepts any sort of higher intelligence that is capable of doing a better job at explaining the origins and development of life.
Written by: Sym
Patriarch, evolution is not random. That is the key here, it just isn't random at all.
It's Selection, things are selected in the same way fatter cows or poodles were selected, except this time they are not selected by anything other then their ability to live.
That is not random, and no scientist would say that life is random – that’s what you are saying! You are saying that life came to be from nothing in one step! That is the point that we do not agree with, we are saying that it did not just happen, and it took a very long time with a very many small steps.
If it is not random, then it is planned. This is the difference between ID and evolution.
Evolution posits that new information is generated randomly. To hold otherwise is to believe that the information is created on purpose.
I understand the theory that the formation of the DNA in the first organism would have taken place in small steps, even one molecule at a time. Meanwhile, the other parts of the first cell were also being formed in small steps. Naturalistic evolution says that all of these small steps were random, and not being done according to some plan. The chemicals did not have a "goal" of creating life that they were trying to reach. They simply made life by accident… randomly.
Natural Selection allowed that first organism to live and reproduce, but natural selection did not tell the components ahead of time what it's criteria were for a successful living organism. The solution was hit upon randomly.
In theory, cells would have formed in the past that would have not survived for many different reasons. One cell might have been able to survive in the environment, but not reproduce. Another may have been able to reproduce, but was only capable of eating Nylon. Since these organisms could not look at the environment to know how to form, their formation had to be random. It may have been possible for a human zygote to form, but Natural Selection would have eliminated it. The majority of the randomly formed cells would have died.
Finally, one hit upon a combination that met a certain minimal threshold for life. Such minimum forms of life have been imagined, and the probability of them forming from pure pools of the needed components can be estimated. People with better math skills than jeff(fake) (who may have also made A's) have calculated the probabilities, and they are quite high even in ideal conditions. I suggest you look up some of the estimates from secular sources.
One cannot simply compare the odds against it happening randomly vs the odds against it happening by some intelligence, and ask which is more "likely". While intelligence will always be the parsimonious answer, for philosophical reasons many people choose to believe that it can happen by chance.
Of course, you can indeed believe in nonrandom evolution. Most people who believe in evolution in the U.S. do not believe in Naturalistic Evolution, but instead believe that God works through evolution. ID does not even go so far as to demand God, but accepts any sort of higher intelligence that is capable of doing a better job at explaining the origins and development of life.
Forget puppy power, Scrappy's just gay
632 posts
Location: Southampton Uni
632 posts
Location: Southampton Uni
Posted:
I can't disprove your idea of God, Patriacrch, much as you can't disprove my 'belief' (substitute understanding if it makes you happier). But my 'belief' is based on observable evidence. Yours isn't.
Having an intelligent being who we can neither see, nor hear, nor touch, nor experience in any other way, who's only proof lies in a book that was written by man, that has constantly evolved over thousands of years, which has been edited, changed and had entire books removed from it, does nothing but make us comfortable and secure.
My 'beliefs' don't claim to have all the answers. But mine are scientific. Yours aren't.
Back to the point again:
ID is nothing but Creationism with out a God. But as you yourself said, it substitutes the word God for higher intelligence. So basically, they're the same.
So ID = Creationism = Christian mythology masquerading as science.
So, should we teach the Hindu creation myths along with the Christian creation myth in the science class room? They fulfil all the arguments you've stated, including fitting events that've happened in the past, and they're older than Judaism, older than Christianity and haven't been disproved either?
No? What about Sumerian? or Egyptian? or Urian? or Babylonian? or Persian? or Chinese? or Aboriginal? or American Indian? No? Why not?
They explain events that happened too, they contain histories intermingled with stories and laws, just like the bible (except older in most cases)! Why shouldn't these be taught in the science room too?
Because they are religions.
I can't disprove your idea of God, Patriacrch, much as you can't disprove my 'belief' (substitute understanding if it makes you happier). But my 'belief' is based on observable evidence. Yours isn't.
Having an intelligent being who we can neither see, nor hear, nor touch, nor experience in any other way, who's only proof lies in a book that was written by man, that has constantly evolved over thousands of years, which has been edited, changed and had entire books removed from it, does nothing but make us comfortable and secure.
My 'beliefs' don't claim to have all the answers. But mine are scientific. Yours aren't.
Back to the point again:
ID is nothing but Creationism with out a God. But as you yourself said, it substitutes the word God for higher intelligence. So basically, they're the same.
So ID = Creationism = Christian mythology masquerading as science.
So, should we teach the Hindu creation myths along with the Christian creation myth in the science class room? They fulfil all the arguments you've stated, including fitting events that've happened in the past, and they're older than Judaism, older than Christianity and haven't been disproved either?
No? What about Sumerian? or Egyptian? or Urian? or Babylonian? or Persian? or Chinese? or Aboriginal? or American Indian? No? Why not?
They explain events that happened too, they contain histories intermingled with stories and laws, just like the bible (except older in most cases)! Why shouldn't these be taught in the science room too?
Because they are religions.
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Evolution and Creationism are both based on the same observable evidence. Evolutionists and creationists do not disagree over the evidence, they disagree over what the evidence means.
Example: What does the discovery of unfossilized t-rex bone tissue mean? To a creationist, it means the bone is young. To an evolutionist, it means that we need to come up with a theory of how soft tissue can be preserved for tens of millions of years.
Naturalism is a religion, just as much as hinduism, judaism, or any other religion. Like other religions, it is based on faith in a particular explanation for the world we can observe. It masquerades as science, and insists (like other religions) that it should be accepted to the exclusion of others.
Evolution and Creationism are both based on the same observable evidence. Evolutionists and creationists do not disagree over the evidence, they disagree over what the evidence means.
Example: What does the discovery of unfossilized t-rex bone tissue mean? To a creationist, it means the bone is young. To an evolutionist, it means that we need to come up with a theory of how soft tissue can be preserved for tens of millions of years.
Naturalism is a religion, just as much as hinduism, judaism, or any other religion. Like other religions, it is based on faith in a particular explanation for the world we can observe. It masquerades as science, and insists (like other religions) that it should be accepted to the exclusion of others.
GOLD Member
wandering dingo
167 posts
Location: Aussie in London, Australia
wandering dingo
167 posts
Location: Aussie in London, Australia
Posted:
Do those rubiks cube numbers take into account the possibility that children peel the stickers off and switch them around? I know I used too.
Do those rubiks cube numbers take into account the possibility that children peel the stickers off and switch them around? I know I used too.
Only three things are certain: Death, Taxes, and that England will not win back the Ashes in this lifetime.
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
cringe
Methodological naturalism is the opposite of faith. Its a hypothesis based on approximate knowledge. The point of approximate knowledge is that it is the most probable scenario based on the empirical and simulated evidence available.
The word currently is important as the whole point of approximate knowledge is that is displays an understanding that our ontological and epistemological premises are incomplete aqnd thus imperfect. Hence the fact they are constantly being questioned and revised through research in both the sciences (natural and social) arts and humanities.
Now contrast this with the opinions you have given, which are predicated upon a literal interpretation of a storybook. When the sources of the storybook have been questioned, using historical and cultural evidence, your reply has been that you believe God is omnipotent and thus can do anything - thereby negating any amount of evidence suggesting anything which contradicts your belief structure. That it what we call faith.
That a number of scientists have grown so weary of wasting time arguing with people like yourself that they have become somewhat arrogant and dismissive is not the same as holding fundamental beliefs in a bunch of third hand stories.
Written by:
Naturalism is a religion, just as much as hinduism, judaism, or any other religion. Like other religions, it is based on faith in a particular explanation for the world we can observe. It masquerades as science, and insists (like other religions) that it should be accepted to the exclusion of others.
cringe
Methodological naturalism is the opposite of faith. Its a hypothesis based on approximate knowledge. The point of approximate knowledge is that it is the most probable scenario based on the empirical and simulated evidence available.
The word currently is important as the whole point of approximate knowledge is that is displays an understanding that our ontological and epistemological premises are incomplete aqnd thus imperfect. Hence the fact they are constantly being questioned and revised through research in both the sciences (natural and social) arts and humanities.
Now contrast this with the opinions you have given, which are predicated upon a literal interpretation of a storybook. When the sources of the storybook have been questioned, using historical and cultural evidence, your reply has been that you believe God is omnipotent and thus can do anything - thereby negating any amount of evidence suggesting anything which contradicts your belief structure. That it what we call faith.
That a number of scientists have grown so weary of wasting time arguing with people like yourself that they have become somewhat arrogant and dismissive is not the same as holding fundamental beliefs in a bunch of third hand stories.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
I think that covers it fairly well.
Written by:
What does the discovery of unfossilized t-rex bone tissue mean? To a creationist, it means the bone is young. To an evolutionist, it means that we need to come up with a theory of how soft tissue can be preserved for tens of millions of years.
Written by:
Gary Hurd PhD
Concluding Remarks
Answers in Genesis Ministry generally, and Carl Wieland CEO-Australia specifically, are the principal sources of the creationists' repeated falsehood that dinosaurs are modern because blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in fresh bone. There are in fact four gross errors in just those few words that originated with Wieland and Answers in Genesis. These falsehoods are found commonly repeated throughout the creationist literature. We have demonstrated above that Carl Wieland, writing for Answers in Genesis, falsely represented this research to his readers. Minimally any objective reader should be satisfied that within the scientific literature, a) "red blood cells" have not been found in dinosaur bone, b) Schweitzer did not say that there were "red blood cells" in her specimens, c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone, e) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than "willful ignorance", and has actively lied to a trusting public. Schweitzer did make some early remarks to news reporters that were easily exploited by creationists such as Wieland. Even the popularized version of Schweitzer's work was distorted through selective quoting and direct misrepresentation. This is a common problem when trying to communicate science - anything that can be misinterpreted by creationists probably will be. But the test of science is in the scientific literature, and at no point did her speculative remarks enter the scientific dialog.
Serious questions of credibility are raised by the falsehoods and misrepresentations exposed above. The dino-blood chimera has been widely promoted by Answers in Genesis. Wieland wrote -
Such is the stifling effect of the evolutionary dogma that scientists can be blinded to the clear implications of their own data. [Wieland 2002]
The irony is palpable. No scientist could continue his or her career guilty of such shoddy work, but we predict that there will be no negative consequence to Wieland or his organization. If you "own" the truth, you apparently needn't stint at falsehood.
I think that covers it fairly well.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I will then withdraw the use of the word naturalism... since if God exists He can be considered "natural." There are plenty of Christian naturalists... so the term is confusing.
Perhaps the better term is Athiesm: faith that there is no god. I dislike the term (since it seems too much like an insult) but it is probably a better one.
Someone who believes Atheistic evolution rejects theories and interpretations of evidence that conflicts with their belief structure. When there are two possibilities for the origin of life, one which requires God and one which requires an improbable accident of chance, the Atheist chooses to have faith in the explanation that does not violate his religion.
I would continue, but turning this thread into a dispute over the meanings of the words faith, religion, science, etc. would be boring.
As far as the soft tissue in the buried t-rex...
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm
I will then withdraw the use of the word naturalism... since if God exists He can be considered "natural." There are plenty of Christian naturalists... so the term is confusing.
Perhaps the better term is Athiesm: faith that there is no god. I dislike the term (since it seems too much like an insult) but it is probably a better one.
Someone who believes Atheistic evolution rejects theories and interpretations of evidence that conflicts with their belief structure. When there are two possibilities for the origin of life, one which requires God and one which requires an improbable accident of chance, the Atheist chooses to have faith in the explanation that does not violate his religion.
I would continue, but turning this thread into a dispute over the meanings of the words faith, religion, science, etc. would be boring.
As far as the soft tissue in the buried t-rex...
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Jesus Christ. Words fail me, they really do.
There's a clip of the upcoming season 4 of family guy circulating on the web.
Family Guy 4
Take a close look at the intelligence chart. I think it says it all.
Written by: Patriarch917
If it is not random, then it is planned. This is the difference between ID and evolution.
Written by: Patriarch917
Naturalism is a religion...
Jesus Christ. Words fail me, they really do.
There's a clip of the upcoming season 4 of family guy circulating on the web.
Family Guy 4
Take a close look at the intelligence chart. I think it says it all.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [intelligent design v * evolution] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [866 replies]
- Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com