Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Posted: 5th Sep 2005
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is no joke! Have you looked at the FSM Sightings Gallery ? Some of those images are far more convincing than any Jesus shaped potato chip or Virgin Mary shaped cloud. And I recently did some deep research in to the origins of Poi and you’ll never guess what I found out. Poi is actually the FSM’s name.

Proof {P is the 16th letter in the alphabet. I the 9th and O the 15th. Now F is the 6th, S the 19th and M the 13th. SEE! P-O-I = 16-9-15 / F-S-M = 6-19-13….. So P and F have a 6 in them and O and S have a 9 in them. But at first I found it odd that I and M didn’t seem to share any thing. Until I realized they were both in fact ODD NUMBERS! POI = FSM}

Furthermore, I found that Poi were originally created to honor the great Flying Spaghetti Monster by mimicking the flailing of his noodley appendages.
I rest my case.

I ain't been around the world, but I've been around the block. I ain't seen everything, but I've seen enough to talk. I'm not a prophet, I'm not the 2nd comming of christ. I'm just a mason with a will to build and a little advice.

Posted: 6th Sep 2005
*spits the coffee he was drinking over over the computer screen*

He's right!!!!!

Posted: 6th Sep 2005
ok, back on topic. i think the ID'ers kinda have a point (ducks for cover). now before ppl start yelling at me, or laughing or whatever let me explain.
i dont know what the ID nutters are saying now, i only what i think. people get misled into thinking that the evolution of species has been scientifically proven. it hasnt. the process by which they may have evolved has been proven, but as far as i know scientists have not been able to conduct, repeatable scientific experiments over millions of years to show the development of a new species. it takes a little faith to say that the process of evolution is responsible for all life on earth. and im not saying it isnt, i just think dont realise that they hold a belief founded in faith.
not everything the ID people say is going to good, ill give you that, but just because of that dont dismiss everything they have to say.
i, for one, believe in both. i think something (not exactly sure what) created the universe and everything within it. once the ball was rolling, i dunno how much they (the creator or creators)have had to do with things, and to be honest i dont much care.
now im sure alot of people will think im a idiot or a religous nut. thats fine, it doesnt bother me. just want people to accept that there is always to sides to an arguement.

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Posted: 6th Sep 2005
I think it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster who created it all to be converted go to https://www.venganza.org/

I thought I waz just dreammin'?!!??!!??!! Dis place can't really be real.

Posted: 6th Sep 2005

Written by: Icer

---

people get misled into thinking that the evolution of species has been scientifically proven. it hasnt. the process by which they may have evolved has been proven, but as far as i know scientists have not been able to conduct, repeatable scientific experiments over millions of years to show the development of a new species.

---

while we havnt observed the evolution of single celled organisms to lamas we are able to watch the evolution of different species, take for example when the calici virus hits a rabbit population, say it kills 99% of the population but 1% has a natural immunity, when they breed all the offspring will be immune so that population has evolved as it now has a new characteristic which gives it an advantage.

Written by: Icer

---

not everything the ID people say is going to good, ill give you that, but just because of that dont dismiss everything they have to say.

---

The problem isnt so much with what the ID ppl are saying its where they want to say it, ID is fine for philosophy/religious studies, it has no place in a science classroom.

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?

Posted: 7th Sep 2005
yea, im not sure where it should be taught, the problem is that it is called 'intelligent design', its not just the theory of christian creation. my point was that evolution is still just a theory, granted almost (but not all) we know agrees with it and it is flexible enough to fit almost any anomaly (like the coelocanth), it hasnt been proved with repeatable experiments. people just assume it has been proven, but it simply hasnt.

rabbits that are immune to a virus are in no way a different species to rabbits without that immunity. there are many different definitions of what constitutes a species and i dont think any would support that one.
what i was saying is that small scale changes like that are pretty evident,-selective breeding has been done since humans first domesticated animals. but the development of new species hasnt been observed. the biggest changes humans have actually observed are pretty muniscule when you look at the changes needed for the development of a new species. it takes alot to be a distinct species, realistically wolves and dogs should still be classed as sub-species within a single species.

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Posted: 7th Sep 2005

Written by: Icer

---

rabbits that are immune to a virus are in no way a different species to rabbits without that immunity. there are many different definitions of what constitutes a species and i dont think any would support that one.

---

i agree that they arnt a different species however the process which they are going through is that of evolution, if a population is seperated for hundreds of generations with different environmental conditions different traits will be more advantageous causing the two populations to evolve differently.

Written by: Icer

---

the biggest changes humans have actually observed are pretty muniscule when you look at the changes needed for the development of a new species.

---

so is the timescale

the theory of evolution is based on observing the real world and formulating/modifying a theory, intelligent design is based on first coming up with a theory then trying to fit the real world to it.

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?

Posted: 7th Sep 2005
You're talking about macroevolution and speciation there - these are the "contested" bits of evolution according to IDers. I don't think anyone disagrees with inheritance, since you can see it in a lab quite easily.

"Moo," said the happy cow.

Posted: 7th Sep 2005
hold on a second:

'evolution is still just a theory, granted almost (but not all) we know agrees with it and it is flexible enough to fit almost any anomaly (like the coelocanth), it hasnt been proved with repeatable experiments. people just assume it has been proven, but it simply hasnt. '

um, nope, you're wrong again: people have observed drosophila evolving. and how do you think MRSA came about? these changes are by no means miniscule.

speciation is a slightly harder one, since the concept of a species is contested. philosophers of biology have been working on this quite a bit recently; a friend of mine has written his MA dissertation on species concepts.

the point is, science isn't a set of beliefs founded in faith; it's a method. and it's a significantly better method than the ID method, which *does* start with a set of beliefs and works a theory to support them.

ture na sig

Posted: 7th Sep 2005
i never said evolution is wrong or doesnt happen, but just that it hasnt been PROVEN. it is accepted by most people as real because they are told its real, most people dont actually know that much about what is and isnt known about it.
im glad ben-ja-men refered to it as a theory, 'cause thats all it is at the moment. maybe one day we can prove it, at the moment we cant. as was pointed out, the timescale evolution works on is not easily observed.

im not trying to deny that evolution should work. the three basic principles absolutly exist.
1) variation exists within a breeding population.
2) this variation is inheritable and is passed on to the next generation.
3) this variation allows certain individuals within the population to breed more successfully than other variations.

this process exists, i have no doubt about that. i just want people to admit that it hasnt been proven scientifically and that people believe it on faith (for lack of a better word,-i dont want this to be confused with religous stuff).
if anyone can prove it scientifically, then please feel free.

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Posted: 7th Sep 2005
icer: maybe i'm missing something, so perhaps you could help me out and clarify your position by answering the following question:

what, in your view, would constitute scientific proof?

ture na sig

Posted: 7th Sep 2005
Just a theory?

Like the theory of gravity?

Man, why are stupid people allow equal say in life...

In science 'theory' means that enough evidence has been gather about something that to deny it would be irrational. In this case it would be downright moronic. If evolution hasn't happened then god has seriously gone out of his way to make it look as if it has.

So just who is it working against the will of god?

Food for thought...

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 7th Sep 2005
i find really amusing how worked people get about this.

and yes, evo is JUST a theory. there is abundant data to support it, im not denying that. as for scientific proof, testing falsifiable (which means it can be proved wrong) hypothesis in controlled, repeatable experiments would be proof. ofcourse, it is important to remember that you can never prove anything in science, only disprove. when scientists publish they never say "results prove..." but rather "results suggest..." or "results provide support for..."
using 'hypothetico-deductive' methodology (the standard scientific method), evo will never be proved.

like i said, you cant run those experimants to show that evo caused 'all this'. you can certainly show the 3principles i mentioned earlier work and can produce significant changes within populations and infer from that how the process has changed life over millions of years. you also cant run experiments to proove ID either. i think ID is worse 'cause they do tend to have their theory a priori. although most scientists today do the same with evo.

and as for why stupid people have equal say in life? who knows.
but for the record, i do have 2degrees, one of which is a science degree (with honours), i double majored in zoology and ecology, so i do know a thing or two about evo. i never said it didnt work, just that it hadnt been proven experimentally.

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
would evo be able to be proved experimentally using micro-biology? i.e bacteria cultures. (would suggest viruses but opens a whole debate about whether viruses actually "live")
by making subtle changes to environment could you see how bacteria evolve? and would the timescale be measureable?

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Posted: 8th Sep 2005

Written by: Icer

---

i find really amusing how worked people get about this.

---

i get very worked up by people refusing to think rationally and logically.

it's the cause of pretty much all human problems.

if you don't get worked up about that, then what do you get worked up about?

bah, i know what you mean though. Its all just words at the end of the day.

but DELIBERATELY indoctrinating children that reasoning comes second to just believing whatever crap you're told REALLY gets my goat. And rubbish of the brand that you're talking is rather unhelpful.

Evolution not "proven"? Well whoop-te-doo. Neither is your existence to me.

Doesn't mean it isn't the ONLY sensible answer.

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
the process of natural selection would work on a bacteria culture, and it has been shown in Drosophila (a small fruit fly) aswel as a number of other things, especially plants. mynci pointed out the problem though, its the timescale we have to deal with, or rather not so much time scale as it is generations, we need far too many observable generations to see how the process of evo would/could change one species into another.

we cant prove that birds evolved from the maniraptora, we could only possibly disprove it, (which hasnt happened and wont happen, because they did). we say they did cause we make an educated geuss based on what we believe we know about how life works. which is my point, its still just an educated geuss.

if you think rationally and logically about it, you should be able to work out that it is exceeding arrogant to think that we have all the answers and have figured out the meaning of life and can fully explain how, what, where and why life began.

and im not for indoctrinating children wihtout giving the chance to reason things out for themselves. thats why im willing to consider that they maybe they should be exposed to ID, instead of being indoctrinated into the evo mind set without giving them a chance to reason it out. if you have to be an idiot to accept ID (which all the people with PhD who believe in ID would disagree with), then whats the problem? and i dont think they were trying to indoctrinate kids, i think they wanted it taught along side evo, to give kids the choice.

and i dont get too worked up about it, cause...well...im happy with what i believe, and what you think doesnt affect me one way or the other. if you get worked up when anybody doesnt think 'rationally and logically', then you must have a very stressful life.

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Posted: 8th Sep 2005

Written by:

---

it is exceeding arrogant to think that we have all the answers and have figured out the meaning of life and can fully explain how, what, where and why life began

---

absolutely

but why does that then mean we have to teach patently ridiculous theories devoid of evidence alongside our current best explanation?

Written by:

---

what you think doesnt affect me one way or the other

---

the way we think affects everybody we communicate with. If i don't have any effect on you, then you ain't listening. And vice versa

Written by:

---

if you get worked up when anybody doesnt think 'rationally and logically', then you must have a very stressful life.

---

indeed

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
simian, you're an ape after my own heart

icer: if you think that science can never prove anything, you're wrong (still puzzled? consider: if you falsify one of a pair of mutually exclusive and exhaustive hypotheses, what have you done?). but even if i allow you that science never proves anything, you must surely agree that science can indicate how things are likely to be. let's say you're right about science never proving anything: then you can't prove that vaccinating children protects them from smallpox, but the evidence seems to be pretty compelling. (smallpox has been eradicated in many parts of the world). if you don't want to call this 'proof', then fine; but however you look at it, the evidence is so compelling that you'd be an idiot to deny that vaccination works. you see the analogy?

your point about 'ID'ers with PhDs' is spurious. there are plenty of idiots out there in the world who are willing to award degrees, just as there are idiots studying for them. having a degree in itself doesn't make you clever, or able to think reasonably. having a degree from a good, respected university, might get a bit closer but still doesn't make you reasonable (Nick Griffin, the racist pig leader of the British National Party, is a Cambridge graduate).

the worst bit is the following claim:

'maybe they should be exposed to ID, instead of being indoctrinated into the evo mind set without giving them a chance to reason it out. if you have to be an idiot to accept ID (which all the people with PhD who believe in ID would disagree with), then whats the problem? and i dont think they were trying to indoctrinate kids, i think they wanted it taught along side evo, to give kids the choice.'

Even if you have to be an idiot to accept ID (which all the university-accredited idiots would, I grant you, disagree with) then there is still a problem, and it is this: THERE ARE PLENTY OF IDIOTS IN SCHOOLS. No offence, schoolkids. And if you're going to expose them to ID to 'give them the choice', then why stop there? Why not expose them to Hindu creation myths, while you're at it? What about ancient Greek creation myths? Why not expose them to 'the flying spaghetti monster'? Now I grant you that it's good to be exposed to a wide range of religious perspectives, but they are precisely that; religious. They belong in a religious-education class, not in a science lesson. Kids can't always work out what's right and wrong, and they sometimes just need to be told.

Here's a really good reason not to teach ID alongside evolution: it's a waste of time. Seriously. If you spend equal amounts of time on ID and evolution, you're a) going to confuse a lot of kids who don't know better, and b) HALVE THE AMOUNT OF DECENT SCIENCE TEACHING THAT THE CHILDREN RECEIVE. People are under-educated enough as it is, without having valuable teaching time frittered away on a theory which has no scientific support. And there's no good reason to include ID: the 'choice' argument applies to every other wacky belief structure, so if you're using 'choice' as the argument for teaching ID then you're also committed to Hindu creation myths, Greek legends, and flying spaghetti monsters.

Rage, people, rage.

ture na sig

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
ok, well, first, ID isnt the christian creation myth. it is a theory that suggests that life has been designed by some intelligence. it doesnt suggest what that intelligence is.

and science doesnt prove anything. even if A and B are the only options, you disprove A, you can only geuss that answer is B, for all we know it could be a third option C, which we, in our ignorance dont know about yet.

if the scicene teacher is worth their salt then they shoudl be able to highlight the problems with ID and the strengths of evo.
there is some evidence for ID, other wise it would not have gotten as far as it has.

as for idiots with degrees giving out degrees to other idiots, ill agree to that one, but i was more talking about things like biology, microbiology, geologists and other degrees in physical science, you cant get too far being an idiot in those. and by the time you get to PhD you have outside referees, so it doesnt matter too much which university you go to.

and do apologise for saying that what people say doesnt affect me, otherwise i would not feel compelled to engage in these discussions. i do listen and take in what people say. often i agree with them, dispite what i say in response, or rather, dispite how people read what i write.
i DO support evo, that is why i dont think i have too much of a problem with ID, i know evo has more explanatory power than ID. i also believe knowledge is power, and just as in war, you need to know what the opposition is thinking. i know alot of biologists who know alot about evo and alot of christians who know alot about ID, but very few people who know alot about both.
ok, ive writen heaps and have lost track of what i have said and not suare if i said it all, but ill end it here. im sure someone will have something to attack somewhere in here.

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
'and science doesnt prove anything. even if A and B are the only options, you disprove A, you can only geuss that answer is B, for all we know it could be a third option C, which we, in our ignorance dont know about yet.'

And you say you have two degrees? I'm sorry for impugning your intelligence, but this is pretty basic stuff. Look: if A and B are the only options, then there isn't a third option C. I grant you that if TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE there are only two options, then MAYBE THERE MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE A THIRD; but IF A AND B ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS, THEN [ex hypothesi] THEY ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS, DAMNIT.

Here it is in formal logic:

1. P v Q [either P is true or Q is true, or both are true]
2. ¬[poss.][P & Q] [P and Q can't be true simultaneously]
3. ¬Q [Q is true]
hence
4. P [P is true]

that's a proof; it's deductively valid. If you think that science can falsify things, then you must also think that it can prove things. QED.

Finally, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ID. I apologise for shouting, but this is an absolutely infuriating display of bloodyminded unreflective assertion. Maybe I'm being too harsh - perhaps you could show me where this 'evidence' is, or at least give a brief description of it? Please, I'm begging you. Cough it up.

ture na sig

Posted: 8th Sep 2005

Written by: quiet

---

Rage, people, rage.

---

I'm raging, I'm raging already!

I.D. truly is a dreadful thing, it is the death of mankinds pride in himself and the hatred of reason whcih leads only to pain and misery in a new dark age. That, icer, is why it works me up. Keep it out of the schools at all cost, it doesn't even warrant a mention.

If any religious nut is reading think about this:
Mankind chose to eat the forbidden fruit. We chose to sacrifice immortality and decadent ignorance for the abilty to reason and accumulate knowledge.

Not an interpratation you'll hear often from any damn preacher I promise you that. The bible is much more interesting to a learned atheist.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
hehe, this is fun.



falsifying things eliminates possible answers, increasing the probability of the remaining answers. but there may be answers we havnt thought of, which is why scientists always sate things like 'this suggests', not 'this proves things absolutly and positively, we will never be proved wrong'. they have more sense than to say that the only answers they thought possible are the only possible answers. that is pretty close to saying, that we humans know everything. id like to think your not that arrogant.

take the kennedy assination, they wanted to decide whether the shot had been fired from in front or behind. they proved through physics that the shot couldnt have been form in front. they said that this suggested it came from behind and everyonen accepts that. but, what if the bullet had coem from the front and richocheted, striking kennedy in the back. that is the third option, C, that no one considered. its so unlikly no one considered it, BUT it isnt impossible.

it seems that scientists, unlike yourself, admit to the possibility that there may be things out there that we dont know about yet, which is why they state things the way they do. formal logic is great, it really is, but we dealing with natural systems here and formal logic, sadly, cant always explain things, because we often cannot make a statement that 'either P is true, Q is true, or both are true'. we dont have absolute understanding of the dynamic systems that are at work, which is why we cant make absolute statements like that. thats why the weather reports are wrong half the time, we make our best educated geuss based on everything we know, but its such a dynamic system we cant predict it to a 100% certainty.



also,



as for evidence for ID, its kinda hard to put out there cause i do know how to rip it apart (which is why i support evo), but the concept of irreducible complexicity is a favouraite of the IDers i know. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

sadly this is going to be long, sorry.



A good example is the cilium. Cilia are hairlike structures on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells. In humans, for example, cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. A cilium consists of bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double "microtubules" surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composedof two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing a protein called dynein. Experiments have shown that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered "walking" of the dynein arms on one microtubule up a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other. The protein cross-links between microtubules in a cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links, therefore, convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.



Now, let us consider what this implies. What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly requires microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally we require a motor, or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, we require linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these parts are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore, IDers conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex.



and humankinds pride in himself? by evolving by chance, an accident if you will, with the sole purpose of procreating and getting more of our genes into the next gen than the other guy?



congrats to anyone who managed to read all that, its pretty dry stuff. for those that didnt read it all...i dont blame you.
EDITED_BY: Icer (1126195001)

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
And who am I to argue with such an expensive education as your own? An archway is 'irriductibly complex' as well. Take away any part of it and the whole thing will collapse. They've ignored the concept of 'scaffolding'. Not that it matters, they haven't proven that cillia are irriductible.

Funny how they ask for for less strenous 'proof' from their own kind isn't it? And I agree, this is fun.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 8th Sep 2005

Written by: Icer

---

there is some evidence for ID, other wise it would not have gotten as far as it has.

---

as far as im aware there isnt, thats the whole point of the flying spagetti monster page

quite i agree with your point of view however i find the way that you have written it to be a bit harsh, i can see where icer is coming from even though i disagree.

i disagree with ID as it is but i dont think that the concept of ID has to negate evolution ie the law of the universe (or create the ways in which they evolve upon observation) had to come from somewhere, in the same way that a cellular automata evolves a particular pattern based on its initial configuration its rules and the number of generations

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?

Posted: 8th Sep 2005

Written by: Icer

---

Now, let us consider what this implies. What components are needed for a cilium to work? Ciliary motion certainly requires microtubules; otherwise, there would be no strands to slide. Additionally we require a motor, or else the microtubules of the cilium would lie stiff and motionless. Furthermore, we require linkers to tug on neighboring strands, converting the sliding motion into a bending motion, and preventing the structure from falling apart. All of these parts are required to perform one function: ciliary motion. Just as a mousetrap does not work unless all of its constituent parts are present, ciliary motion simply does not exist in the absence of microtubules, connectors, and motors. Therefore, IDers conclude that the cilium is irreducibly complex.

---

evolution is oppertunistic so the other parts can exist previously for other stuff and evolve into being something totally different. is there a bit more to that conclusion?

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?

Posted: 8th Sep 2005

Written by: ben-ja-men

---

the laws of the universe...had to come from somewhere

---

No they don't. Causality is a product of this universe, as it is now, and at macroscopic sizes. To put it simply, stuff can and does happen for no blinkin reason.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
I feel it necessary to offer these defenses of creation:

1 TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT (1) Creation is true. (2) If Creation is true, then reason must exist. (3) Reason exists. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
2. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. (2) I say the universe must have a cause. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
3. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (a) (1) I define God to be X. (2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
4. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (b) (1) Creation is true. (2) Since Creation is true, God must be perfect. (3) That which is perfect must exist. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
5. MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) Creation is true. (2) God, existing, is either necessary or unnecessary. (3) God is not unnecessary, therefore
God must be necessary. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
6. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (1) Check out that tree. Isn't it pretty? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
7. ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (1) My aunt Helen was most likely to die from cancer. (2) She didn't. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
8. MORAL ARGUMENT (a) (1) Person X, a well-known atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
9. MORAL ARGUMENT (b) (1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting [censored]. (2) That all changed once I became religious. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
10. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION (1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore Creation is true. (2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
11. ARGUMENT FROM FEAR (1) If there is no God then we're all going to die. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
12. ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (1) [arbitrary passage from OT] (2) [arbitrary passage from NT] (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
13. ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE (1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. Creation is true whether you like it or not. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
14. ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE (1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys -- you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth" John 3:16. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
15. ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF (1) If Creation is true, then I should believe in Him. (2) I believe in God. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
16. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION (a) (1) See this bonfire? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
17. PARENTAL ARGUMENT (1) My mommy and daddy told me that Creation is true. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
18. ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS (1) Millions and millions of people believe in God. (2) They can't all be wrong, can they? (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
19. ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY (1) Maranathra! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
20. ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY (1) Creation is true, you bastards! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
21. BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT (1) Ha ha ha. (2) Therefore, Creation is true. 22. DORE'S ARGUMENT (1) I forgot to take my meds. (2) Therefore, I AM
CHRIST!! (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
23. ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY (1) Eric Clapton is God. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
24. ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY (1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God. (2) Here is the URL. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
25. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY (1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping! (2) No one has ever refuted (1). (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
26. ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM (1) Telling people that Creation is true makes me filthy rich. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
27. MITCHELL'S ARGUMENT (1) The Christian Creation is true. (2) Therefore, all worldviews which don't assume the Christian God's existence are false and incomprehensible. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
28. ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (a) (1) Atheists are spiritually blind. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
29. ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (b) (1) God is love. (2) Love is blind. (3) Ray Charles is blind. (4) Therefore, Ray Charles is God. (5) Therefore, Creation is true.
30. ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY (1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed. (2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. (3) I propose that Creation is true. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
31. ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS (1) Creation is true. (2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
32. ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS (1) [obscenity deleted] (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
33. ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS (1) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded face in that tortilla. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
34. SLATHER'S ARGUMENT (1) My toaster is God. (2) Therefore, Creation
is true.
35. ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION (1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew. (2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
36. ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS (1) If things had been different, then things would be different. (2) That would be bad. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
37. ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL (1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God! (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
38. ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF (1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity. (2) This is just what Satan intended. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
39. ARGUMENT FROM POST-DEATH EXPERIENCE (1) Person X died an atheist. (2) He now realizes his mistake. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
40. ARGUMENT FROM EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL (1) God loves you. (2) How could you be so heartless to not believe in him? (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
41. ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE (1) See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently? (2) That's how infinite wisdom reveals itself. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
42. OPRAH'S ARGUMENT (a) (1) The human spirit exists. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
43. OPRAH'S ARGUMENT (b) (1) Check out this video segment. (2) Now how can anyone watch that and NOT believe in God? (3) Therefore, Creation is true. 44. CALVINISTIC ARGUMENT (1) If Creation is true, then he will let me watch you be tortured forever. (2) I rather like that idea. (3) Therefore, Creation is true. 45. ARGUMENT FROM CROCKERY (1) Pots don't go around giving orders to the potter. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
46. ARGUMENT FROM MASS PRODUCTION (1) Barbie dolls were created. (2) If Barbie dolls were created, then so were trees. (3) Therefore, Creation is
true.
47. ARGUMENT FROM PAROCHIALISM (1) God is everywhere. (2) We haven't been everywhere to prove he's not there. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
48. ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE ASSERTION (1) CREATION IS TRUE! GET USED TO IT! (2) THEREFORE, CREATION IS TRUE.
49. ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS (1) Ask atheists what caused the Big Bang. (2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. (3) Continue process until the atheist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. (4) You win! (5) Therefore, Creation is true.
50. ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY (a) (1) How could God NOT exist, you bozo? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
51. ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY (1) The Bible is true. (2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
52. ARGUMENT FROM RESURRECTION (1) Proof of God's existence will be available when you rise bodily from your grave. (2) Therefore, Creation is
true.
53. ARGUMENT FROM BIOGENESIS (1) Where did Adam come from, dummy? (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
54. ARGUMENT FROM STEADFAST FAITH (1) A lot of really cool people believed in God their entire lives. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
55. ARGUMENT FROM LONELINESS (1) Christians say that Jesus is their best friend. (2) I'm lonely, and I want a best friend. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
56. ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION (1) Creation is true. (2) [atheist's counterargument] (3) Yes he does. (4) [atheist's counterargument] (5) Yes he does! (6) [atheist's counterargument] (7) YES HE DOES!!! (8) [atheist gives up and goes home] (9) Therefore, Creation is true.
57. ARGUMENT FROM CREATIVE INTERPRETATION (1) God is: (a) The feeling you have when you look at a newborn baby. (b) The love of a mother for her child. (c) That little still voice in your heart. (d) Humankind's potential to overcome their difficulties. (e) How I feel when I look at a sunset. (f) The taste of ice cream on a hot day. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
58. ARGUMENT FROM INSECURITY (1) We have gone to absolutely berserk lengths to establish that atheists are laughable morons. (1.5) Actually, we did so in the hopes of curing our own insecurities about theism -- but there's no chance in hell we'll ever admit that. (2) Therefore, atheists are laughable morons. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
59. ARGUMENT FROM SUPERIORITY (1) If God does not exist, then I am an inferior being, since I am not "special" in a cosmic sense. (2) But I am superior. Because I am a Christian. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
60. ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION (1) If there are absolute moral standards, then Creation is true. (2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards. (3) But that's because they don't want to admit to being sinners. (4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards. (5) Therefore, Creation is true.
61. ARGUMENT FROM HUMAN NECESSITY (1) Atheists say that they don't need God. (2) Which just goes to show that they need God. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
62. ARGUMENT FROM HIDDEN LOGIC (a) (1) Intellectually, I know that the existence of God is impossible, or vastly improbable. (2) But I must put on the appearance of being cool and intellectual in front of my Christian apologist peers. (3) Therefore, I must pretend that (1) is false. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
63. ARGUMENT FROM INDULGENCE (1) Atheists like to think that they can control their emotional desires. (2) But they're atheists, so they can't. (3) Therefore, atheists feel the need to indulge in whatever they feel like without worrying about committing sin. (4) This just goes to show how they need God in their lives. (5) Therefore, Creation is true.
64. ARGUMENT FROM HATE (1) Some atheists hate Christians and Christianity. (2) That's why they don't believe in God. (3) Pathetic, aren't they? (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
65. ARGUMENT FROM QUENTIN SMITH (1) Quentin Smith says that God does not exist. (2) But God does exist. (3) Therefore, Quentin Smith cannot be accepted as an expert on the matter, because he is wrong. (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
66. ARGUMENT FROM EVIL SPIRITS (1) I've just had contact with evil spirits. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
67. ARGUMENT FROM HIDDEN LOGIC (b) (1) Atheists say that God doesn't exist. (2) But they only say that because they want to look cool and intellectual in front of their peers. (3) They don't fool me! (4) Therefore, Creation is true.
68. ARGUMENT FROM HOVIND'S CHALLENGE (1) Kent Hovind offers $250,000 (which may or may not exist) to anyone who can demonstrate evolution (defined as a natural, acausal origin of the universe) to a reasonable doubt (meaning with 100% certainty, allowing for no other possibilities whatsoever) in front of a neutral committee (handpicked by Hovind himself) and according to certain criteria (carefully worded so as to rule out any possibility whatsoever of the challenge ever being met). (2) No atheist has ever met this challenge. (3)Therefore, Creation is true.
69. ARGUMENT FROM INSANITY (1) No sane person could have thought up Christianity (2) Therefore, it must be true (3) Therefore, Creation is true
70. ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged) (1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X? (2) Atheist: of course. (3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'? (4) Atheist: Um, no, not really. (5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true? (6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'! (7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well? (8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway? (9) I'm glad we all agree.....(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed? (38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going? .... (81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed? (82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING!? .... (177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed? (178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust] (179) Therefore, Creation is true.
71. MR. GOODSALT'S ARGUMENT (ARGUMENT FROM GENERAL INQUIRY) (1) Question for atheist population: [apparently random question] (2) Your answer is wrong. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
72. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM ORIGINALITY (1) I have written the following to demonstrate the existence of God. (2) [insert entire text of a William Lane Craig article] (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
73. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM LIMITED VOCABULARY (1) You use lots of big words. (2) Therefore, I cannot possibly be expected to understand your refutation of my position. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
74. PEACOCK ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE MEMORY (1) [Christian asks "stumper" question] (2) [Atheist adequately answers question] (3) [A lapse of time] (4) [Christian repeats question] (5) [Atheist repeats satisfactory answer] (6) [A lapse of time] (7) [Christian repeats question] (8) [Atheist repeats satisfactory answer] (9) [A lapse of time] (10) Athiest, you never answered my question. (11) Therefore, Creation is true.
75. ARGUMENT FROM HISTORICAL CORRELATION (1) This historical event was recorded. (2) The Bible mentions this event. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
76. THE CLASSICAL CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (1) We know that Creation is true because the Bible tells us so. (2) We know that the Bible is true because it is the word of God (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
77. ARGUMENT FROM SELECTIVE CELEBRITY QUOTATION (1) [insert famous persons name] is a well known Atheist. (2) [insert famous persons name] made a comment about God. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
78. ARGUMENT FROM IRRELEVANT TRIVIA (1) The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years. (2) Many people from varied backgrounds wrote the Bible. (3) Lots of copies of the Bible have been sold (4) Therefore, Creation is true. (This is a modification of the 78 "therefore god exists" arguments)
79. ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY (b) (1) I cannot imagine how all this could have come from the Big Bang/evolution. (2) Thefore, Creation is true.
80. ARGUMENT FROM PREDICTIVE FREE-ASSOCIATION (1) [Insert random Bible passage that could mean just about anything here] (2) This passage clearly predicts a recent current event. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.
81. ARGUMENT FROM FABRICATION (1) [Insert completely fabricated and unsubstantiated assertion here (e.g. “Scientists have discovered Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat”)]. (2) Therefore Creation is true.
82. ARGUMENT FROM SELF-ESTEEM (1) Teaching children that they are evolved from apes/slime will hurt their self-esteem. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
83. ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION (b) (1) You will go to hell if you don’t believe in God. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
84. MORAL ARGUMENT (c) (1) You are all sinners. (1a)(alternatively) We are all sinners. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
85. ARGUMENT FROM HOMOSEXUALITY (1) Homosexuality is a sin. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
86. ARGUMENT FROM SATANIC ORIGIN OF EVOLUTION (1) The Theory of Evolution is the work of the Devil. (2) Therefore, Creation is true.
87. ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS INVENTION (1) Evolution is contrary to my religious beliefs. (2) Therefore evolution is a religion. (3) Therefore, Creation is true.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
Provide a link instead and delete that monstrosity Doc!

But it is very good.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
actually, ben-ja-men, there isnt too much more to that conlcusion, like i said it isnt that good, but sadly it is just good enough for ID to get this far. there is abit more the cilia example, but i think everyone gets the jist of it.



archways built with scaffolding isnt a good example as the scaffolding was put there by intelligent designers who planned ahead. evo doesnt plan ahead, so you would have to show how scaffolding would be beneficial without being there to help build the archway which doesnt exist yet, the scaffolding needs another reason for being there. it coul dpossible be there fulfilling the function that the arch way ultimatly fills, and since the archway does a better job, the scaffolding dissapeared once the arch way was built. although that leads to the question of why the archway was built when the scaffolding was doing its job already.



this is the kind of thing IDers have a problem with. like, how did feathers evolve in ectotherms (things like reptiles and crocodiles that get their heat from the environment, they need quick transfer of heat, so little insulation), feathers are great for flight and insulation, but their original purpose cant of been either. this would be something that an IDer woudl call irreducibly complex (i dont, there a several feasible explanations), but these kind of things are enough for ID to keep going. remember that there is a distinction between ID and christian creationism.



and cheers to Doc, very nice, and sadly very true for the most part. for the record i DONT believe in creation and DO believe in evo. i just recognise its flaws and weaknesses as an 'absolute' theory.

It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Posted: 8th Sep 2005
ICER: you insist on repeatedly missing the point. will you please do me the favour of taking the time to understand this:


i) I'm not saying that stuff is true just because scientists think so. in my 'two options' example, the point was simply that IF you set up the problem as being a matter of two mutually exclusive and exhaustive alternatives, THEN there can be no third option. this is a matter of definition, you muppet. it's logic, not epistemology. i wasn't making any claims about how often this sort of option occurs; just that when it does, science can prove stuff. simple as that.

so when you post cr*p like:

'it seems that scientists, unlike yourself, admit to the possibility that there may be things out there that we dont know about yet'

it indicates that you haven't bothered to work out i'm saying. try reading more carefully next time. that kind of mistake reflects badly on you.

ii) irreducible complexity isn't a phenomenon. the cilia example that you clearly cut 'n' pasted from a google search contains a very simple mistake, namely the presupposition that cilia don't have any functional precursors.

the eye is another organ that people used to hold up as an example of 'irreducible complexity'. [it's a very old and widely discredited argument, this 'irreducible complexity' nonsense; it's not 'evidence', it's a bad argument]. many people argued that the eye simply wouldn't work unless it was present in its entirety, and hence couldn't have evolved. on the contrary, current research indicates that the eye evolved separately at least nine times [as manifest in present species]. how could such a compex organ evolve? easy: certain cells mutate to become sensitive to heat, and from heat to light is just a step up the EM spectrum. besides which, the eye is far from perfect. the eye DOES have functional precursors.

ditto, i would imagine, cilia. the assertion that they have no functional precursors is just that: an assertion. so what you offer as evidence is just a disguised, ungrounded, assertion. nice one, icer.

forgive me for being rude, but this is simply ridiculous. you go into a library and read ANY NUMBER of articles on philosophy of biology, or philosophy of science, or etiology, and it should become immediately apparent to you how wrong you are.

again [and forgive my repetition, but you haven't grasped this crucial point so i'm going to put it into CAPITALS]:

A BAD ARGUMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE

and if you do have any evidence to produce, i'd love to see it. come on, i'm open to the possibility.

ture na sig