• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12345...30
ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored 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? confused
/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?

Delete Topic

Icer
Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch
Member Since: 26th Apr 2005
Total posts: 205
Posted:ok, if you read what i wrote, you will see i didnt think it was good example.

also you havnt bothered to work out what im saying. my point is that evo and ID are NOT two mutually exclusive ideas.
IF your two options example could exist within natural systems THEN your example might be worth a mention, BUT no scienctist should ever say they have all the answers. go into a library and read biological, zoological, ecological, evolutionary etc journal and you will see words like 'suggest', because they recognise the possibility they could be wrong. try it you might get a kick out of it. you even use the word 'indicates', not 'experimentally proven', when you talked about eye development because just like irreduc-comp it is an assertion. in science you need to disprove an assertion, typically this is fairly easy, but often not so easy with ID.

no one here has disproved ID, most people have got all fired up. seeing as you have missed my point i will put it in capitals too: A BAD ARGUEMENT DOES NOT NOT CONSTITUE EVIDENCE. i know its terrible english so let me explain for you. just cause something does not have great evidence, you need to disprove that evidence. you havnt disproved ID, just said the arguements are bad, which i do agree with.

i did cut and paste the exmaple of the cilia, because im not a microbiologist, im a zoologist and ecologist. i could have used the eye example, but like you said it is old and easy to discredit, i wanted to give you a challenge. instead you fell back on the eye and called me a muppet.

how can having it in school ruin humankind? just cause people learnt about WWII doesnt mean that we all going to turn in Nazis. i think its important to know people will throw at you in life and have the knowledge to refute it properly. not just say, 'thats a bad arguement, so it cant possible be true, you muppet'. it woudl be good for kids or anybody really to be able to rationally discuss ID with an IDer and show them the errot of their ways, not just take the piss out of them, like the speghetti monster thing. taking the piss like that is simply indulging in arrogance.

instead of asking me to provide evidence for ID, try disproving it. show everyone why it is impossible, and im not saying show how evo is better, but instead prove ID doesnt work. which is a proper scientific approach.


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

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:I'm going to have one more go at this, and then I'm going to give up.

1. quote: 'IF your two options example could exist within natural systems THEN your example might be worth a mention'

- The stuff about 'two mutually exclusive and exhaustive alternatives' was NOT intended as an argument to the effect that we can prove evolution. I was simply refuting your suggestion that science can't prove anything, by providing a very clear case in which it can. Like I keep saying, read what I write a bit more carefully, please.

2. quote: 'instead of asking me to provide evidence for ID, try disproving it. show everyone why it is impossible, and im not saying show how evo is better, but instead prove ID doesnt work. which is a proper scientific approach. '

- You don't understand proper scientific method. Proper scientific method doesn't involve attempting to disprove every possible hypothesis; it involves finding hypotheses which are reasonable, or for which there is some support, and then testing them. Unless there is some reason to think that ID is a decent hypothesis, we shouldn't waste time on it. Proponents of ID attempt to generate reasons to think that ID is a decent hypothesis: your 'cilia' example is a case in point. My argument simply consists in showing that these 'reasons' are bad reasons (that is, the 'arguments' are bad arguments), and that we should, therefore, not waste time on ID.

The central point is that if there is no good reason to take a suggestion seriously, then we have no reason to take the suggestion seriously. And there is no good reason to take ID seriously; the arguments given by ID'ers are bad arguments, and as such don't constitute 'good reason'.

Clear?


ture na sig

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Hi... i'll apologise in advance because theology and evolutionary science definately aren't subjects that I have extensive knowledge of, so if my questions are somewhat uninformed please dont get upset.

I'd call myself an agnostic, I dont claim to know the cause of existence and dont really feel I'll ever be in a place to have enough knowledge to have anything as concrete as a belief on this

The problems I've always had with evolution as an absolute (macro rather than the quite provable micro-evolution)...

Language... How did it appear... And why are ancient languages so grammatically correct, as opposed to say English... They seem more like something taught than something a bunch of tribal folks came up with several thousand years ago.

The missing link

The Cambrian explosion

Complex Mathamatical knowledge of civilisations like Ancient Sumaria (Pre Babylonian times)

Biblical creation (which can be traced back past the jews to ancient Sumarians(possible further, I'm no expert)

1.Light
2. Water
3.Plants
4.Sun Moon Stars
5. Sea Creatures, Birds
6. Land Creatures
7.Humans

Now 4 is obviously wrong... But otherwise that seems to be pretty much the right order. Possibly a good guess by some guy/girl living 7000 years ago... Maybe not

Organised religion in contemporary society is mental. But some of their ideas do seem vaugly plausible (note some... many beliefs and tales in religion are plain crazy) ... Not in any literal sense, but if you were an extra-terristrial/something similarly silly how would you explain the big bang and evolution to a human living in a desert way back when.

Just wanted to know what y'all think seeing as most of this thread has been so vehemently pro-evo.


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

Delete

Icer
Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch
Member Since: 26th Apr 2005
Total posts: 205
Posted:quiet, i think we have to agree to disagree. i think this would be much easier to sort out if we could talk face to face. its too hard to just post and reply.
i will stop after this post too, as it aint going anywhere.

but i will say that your last post was filled with words like 'reasonable' and 'good' and 'bad. sadly those a highly relative terms. what is reasonable to someone is not reasonable to someone else.
there is some support for ID, its not good support, but it is there. (there is more support for ID than the flying speghetti monster). what do people really know about ID? i would say that most people on this thread dont know a hell of alot. there must be some substance to the ID proposals other wise it would not have gotten this far.

you still didnt prove ID as impossible. you just said it was unreasonalbe without saying why it is unreasonable.
try one more post, this time simply state ID is unreasonable, without using subjective terms like good and bad, instead try using scientific terms like probablity, then i will be happy.

im in NZ, we just got a heap of dvds and other info packs supporting ID sent to schools through out the country. this is a real issue and we cant just laugh at it (and talk about spaghetti monsters). ID wants to come into the science class, so lets address it in the science class room.

dream, you have alot in your post and its good. i will only mention language cause this post already dragged on.
language is symbolic representation of the physical (or abstract) world. some primates demonstrate symbolic representation in there calls. when a monkey (or ape) calls, often it is to express an emotional state and this state is communicated to other individuals. but this is simply communicates an emotional state, either anger, alarm, joy or whatever. some primates however, have specific calls for specific threats. one alarm call for eagles, one alarm call big cats. i different respnse is needed for each threat and this is displayed in the behaviour (dropping from the tree tops to an eagle call, crowding and scanning for cats). these calls can be seen as symbolic representations of the threat. the same as if some yelled EAGLE! som eprimates travel in interspecific groups, understadngin the calls of the other species, these coudl possible be called bilingual primates. from these rudimentary beginnigs it shoudl be easy to see how the gradual development of language progressed. different sound swere gradually associated with different things.


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

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Icer

iim 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).



It's easily demonstratable. It's tough to demonstrate in a population of individuals that reproduces, say, every 20 years (i.e. humans) but it's very easy to demonstrate in a population that reproduces every 20 minutes under ideal conditions (Escherichia coli).

Here's a simple experiment that I've done myself, demonstrating evolution within a week. Begin with a colony of E. coli is known to be sensitive to an antibiotic, such as ampicillin. You can prove that it's sensitive by growing this colony in a medium and then plating it on a plate with ampicillin and observing no growth.

So you plate these on an antibiotic-free plate and then place a disk of paper soaked in ampicillin in the middle of the plate. Colonies will form on the plate, but there will be no colonies growing in the region around the antibiotic disk.

So you take a colony from the very inner edge of this region (a colony closest to the disk) and grow it up in medium and then plate it again on another plate with a stronger disk of ampicillin on it. Again, colonies will not grow in the area around the disk, so you take the colony closest to the disk and grow it up again and plate it out on a plate with an even stronger disk of ampicillin in the middle of it...and wash, rinse, and repeat.

After about ten or fifteen cycles of this (and often fewer) the bacteria that you have been selecting will grow readily in a medium with ampicillin. This is because the bacteria will have evolved ampicillin resistance.

Now, you might be tempted to say "Wait! That's artificial selection!" Well, the difference between "natural" and "artificial" is rather philosophical. But more importantly, this same experiment can be repeated in a continuous culture medium by simply gradually increasing the concentration of antibiotic.

And, furthermore, this phenomenon is well documented in a more natural setting, which is why we have methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and other lovely antibiotic-resistant bugs.

In biology, there are no mathemetical proofs because there are no absolute mathemetical models such as there are in physics, but the above evidence is as close to a proof as you'll ever get.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

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.


i disagree, if nothing existed there could be no relationship between cause and effect, if there where no underlying laws of the universe electrons couldnt sit in their orbitals, energy couldnt be conserved (assuming thats what it actually does), etc etc (these might not be the laws of the universe but the biproducts of them but they are a symptom of something).

the complex interaction that are the universe couldnt happen if there wasnt something to guide them, if there was no underlying rules there would be nothingness because there would be nothing that was able to change.


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?

Delete

Icer
Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch
Member Since: 26th Apr 2005
Total posts: 205
Posted:absolutly doc, i can site quite a few experiments too. drosphila is a good one cause its a fruit fly (a mutli cellular 'complex' organism). i never said evo didnt work, on the contrary i said it does. even in the quote you put i said that it works, i was typing quickly tho when i said it 'hadnt been proven scientifically', i meant that the fact that we, humans, and all other life on earth DID come about from evo hadnt been proven scientifically. its been shown that we PROBABLY did, but not to 100% absolute certainty. its this 100% certainty everyone believes exists that im curious about.

if we address IDer with the assumption that out evo is infallible, and as such everythign is riduculous, they could use that say we have decided a priori what we want to believe. for the record i DO believe in evo.


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

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: Icer

its this 100% certainty everyone believes exists that im curious about.




Outside of pure math, ain't no such animal.

Well, actually 100% certainty is found in the Bible. But it ain't necessarily so.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:quote icer: 'there must be some substance to the ID proposals other wise it would not have gotten this far.'

Yeah - and there must have been some substance to Nazi theories of racial superiority, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten as far as they did.


ture na sig

Delete

Icer
Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch
Member Since: 26th Apr 2005
Total posts: 205
Posted:thanks doc, that what im pretty much after at mo.

and quiet, i dont think IDers want to slaugher millions of people so dont equate Nazi to ID. the theory of eugenics has alot of substance however, the methods Nazis used were totally wrong. i believe US eugenics programs were used as models for Nazi models. it is basically artificial selection (like doc talking about earlier), which according to evo should happen naturally to the human species any way.
we never going to agree on anything i think.


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

Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Icer
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.


But this is just a newer version of the classic "the eye is too complex to have evolved" argument which has been shown to be nonsense - what makes you think this is going to be any different?

Quiet - are you arguing that science can prove something to be "not true"?


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

spiralx
spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK
Member Since: 1st May 2002
Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: ben-ja-men
i disagree, if nothing existed there could be no relationship between cause and effect, if there where no underlying laws of the universe electrons couldnt sit in their orbitals, energy couldnt be conserved (assuming thats what it actually does), etc etc (these might not be the laws of the universe but the biproducts of them but they are a symptom of something).

the complex interaction that are the universe couldnt happen if there wasnt something to guide them, if there was no underlying rules there would be nothingness because there would be nothing that was able to change.


I'm not sure, causality seems to come from the fact that information travels no faster than the speed of light, i.e. general relativity. Whether it would be built in to a "theory of everything" is something we don't know.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:spiralx: I'm arguing that science can prove stuff to be true, by proving every alternative to a hypothesis false.

ture na sig

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:icer: i was NOT EQUATING ID'ERS TO NAZIS. That wasn't the point. My point was that you can't argue from 'loads of people believe it' to 'there must be something to it'. I'll pick a different example: are you suggesting that since lots of people believe in witches, there must be something to the theory that they exist?

ture na sig

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: dream

Complex Mathamatical knowledge of civilisations like Ancient Sumaria (Pre Babylonian times)



Sumarians knew about maths, yes. That's because maths is universal and the ancient Sumarians were a clever bunch. I don't see how this has any relevance in this discussion though.

Written by: dream

Biblical creation (which can be traced back past the jews to ancient Sumarians(possible further, I'm no expert)

1.Light
2. Water
3.Plants
4.Sun Moon Stars
5. Sea Creatures, Birds
6. Land Creatures
7.Humans

Now 4 is obviously wrong... But otherwise that seems to be pretty much the right order. Possibly a good guess by some guy/girl living 7000 years ago... Maybe not



Sorry, wrong. The correct order was:
1. The stars, then the sun, then the moon.
2. Water (this actually came before the light in Biblical creation, please get it right)
3. Sea creatures
4. Land creatures
5. Plants
6. Birds
7. Mankinds

All in all, a very bad guess from the ancient Sumarians. They should have stuck to maths.

Written by: be-ja-men
I disagree


I didn't mean that everything happens for no reason, just that cause-and-effect don't exist in the way we presumed they do in Newtonian physics. The laws of physic exist, but they could exist for no reason at all.

Written by: quiet
[sarcasm]Yeah - and there must have been some substance to Nazi theories of racial superiority, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten as far as they did.[/sarcasm]

Godwin's Law, quite.

Have I missed anyone? wink


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

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:spot on smile

ture na sig

Delete

T&B
T&B

Me
Location: London/Bristol
Member Since: 30th Aug 2003
Total posts: 607
Posted:Jeff... In response to your...

'Sorry, wrong. The correct order was:
1. The stars, then the sun, then the moon.
2. Water (this actually came before the light in Biblical creation, please get it right)
3. Sea creatures
4. Land creatures
5. Plants
6. Birds
7. Mankinds'

Ummm... not according to the bible it isn't.

Genesis 1 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morningthe second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

They aren't my beliefs (as I repeatedly stated before), but if they were I'd find your belligerent dismissal of them fairly insulting when considering that your reply shows that you know nothing about them.


Maybe I should change this too something abit nicer, humm no I still think your all Ccensoredt

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Sorry Tim... didn't mean to steal your identity... and use it to quote the bible...
redface


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

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: T&B
Ummm...not according to the Bible it isn't


You might as well quote to me from Harry Potter. The Bible is [censored].
Written by: T&B
They aren't my beliefs (as I repeatedly stated before), but if they were I'd find your belligerent dismissal of them fairly insulting when considering that your reply shows that you know nothing about them.


Too bad for you then because those beliefs as laid down in the bible are completely wrong. If nutty religious types are going to argue their beliefs when they are clearly demonstratably wrong then it's pretty naive of them to not expect a rubuttal.

This is called a discussion. It's what grown-ups do. It's not hard to get to grips with the basics. If you are so insecure in your blind faith that you have to flame someone when they disagree then you really shouldn't broadcast them on a public forum. (and, for the record, this is how you properly flame someone)


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

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Jeff

I asked for people's opinions regarding some of the arguments religious types often bring forwards, and which prevent me having the sort of fundamentalist macro-evolutionary beliefs you hold. Some of these arguments in my opinion are worth thinking about. This doesn't mean that any religion's answer to them is correct, merely that science and evolution in particular doesn't have a satisfactory answer for phenomenom such as the Cambrian Explosion.

You then dismissed the notion that these questions were even worth posing by inventing sections of the bible (your list was so woefully inaccurate that it couldn't even be described as a misinterpretation). When I pointed this out you by presenting you with the text you disputed, your reply was

'You might as well quote to me from Harry Potter. The Bible is censored.'

When debating what the bible says, I think the Bible itself would be a slightly better source of information than Harry Potter. Though not having read the Harry Potter books I can't say for sure...

'If nutty religious types are going to argue their beliefs when they are clearly demonstratably wrong then it's pretty naive of them to not expect a rubuttal. '

Fine. Then post a rebuttal which demonstrates that they're wrong. It's what I was asking you to do with my original post. Don't however post information which is demonstrably inaccurate and then get in a strop when its pointed out that your talking rubbish.


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

Delete

jeff(fake)
jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 15th Apr 2005
Total posts: 1189
Posted:I wasn't quoteing the Bible, I was quoteing how things had actually happened, you know, in the real world in comparison to the first list you posted since you were stating that that was very close to how things had happened. My pointed rebuttal disproved that entirely.

As for the Cambrian explosion, there is nothing that happened that disproves evolution in any way. It is simply the time when hard shells and multicellularity became common. I suspect you've read some outdated or biased book and based your entire opinion on that.

Lastly I don't 'believe' in evolution. It is a logical neccesity. Faith enters nowhere.


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

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Sorry my mistake... but your list is still wrong. The first plants appeared about 1.3 billion years ago while the first creatures to come out of the sea are placed around 300 - 400 million years ago. So your list is a similar accuracy to that in the old testament (one glaring error). Which has made me laugh for about half an hour now (sorry, quite drunk) ubbrollsmile



'As for the Cambrian explosion, there is nothing that happened that disproves evolution in any way'



well...



"On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata"



Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.



* Darwin, Charles

On the Origin of Species, 1st edition

Harvard Univ. Press, facsimile reprint, 1964, p. 307



'Note: In Darwin's time, the "Silurian" was the name given the oldest known fossil-bearing strata. "Cambrian" does not occur as an index entry in this edition of the Origin.'





So Darwin himself gives the period as a major problem with his evolutionary thesis, due to this apparent gap in the fossil record which still hasn't been adequately filled.



'3 billion years went by (after life first appeared) before complex multicellular life appeared, but when it did it only took between 5 and 10 million years for all the basic body plans of the organisms we see around us today to be established. This is why the origin of multicellular life, in particular the metazoans or large animals with complex body plans, is termed the Cambrian explosion.'



There are a number of hypothesis as to how and why this occured, ranging from the diverse range of life existed but isn't on record, to atmospheric changes created the necessary conditions for more complex life (which is also an argument used by interventionists strangely enough). However the time scale involved poses a real problem for Darwinian micro-evolution, which you claim is a logical necessity.



The scientific community doesn't agree on the hows and whys of the Cambrian Explosion, because they don't know (seemingly unlike you) which is why there's still a lot of research which goes into trying to understand what happened and why (Bristol Uni's Earth Sciences dept does quite a lot).



Time to pass out.



wink

EDITED_BY: dream (1126441019)


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

Delete

Icer
Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch
Member Since: 26th Apr 2005
Total posts: 205
Posted:dream, i think you meant to put 300-400 million, not billion. just a typo i know, but you might want correct it before someone focuses on that and pulls you apart for it.

i said i was gonna stay outs this thread but it seems like it isnt goin to die, so ill jump back in, its too much fun to resist.

jeff, you said -"Lastly I don't 'believe' in evolution. It is a logical neccesity. Faith enters nowhere."
ill refer you to the link simian provided in the other thread that wont die (religion; mental illness). that explains how logical reasoning works. you will find that evo theory doesnt fall into the catergory of a 'sound' arguement (see the diagram on that page), because the inferecne you nake form the premise isnt consistant.let me explain in terms all you 'logicians' might like:
premise= it is possible (maybe even probable) that evo is the sole process by which life has developed on earth.
inference= no other theory can be right.
conclusion= evo is true.
the inference is wrong when it is based on that premise.
you could also have:
premise= evo is process responsible for the changes we have witnessed in species.
inference= evo is responsible for ALL changes in ALL species from ALL times.
conc= evo is true.
logically you could make the arguement:
premise=God is real
inference=the biblical account of creation is real as it is the Word of God.
conc=creation is real.
when the conclusion is reasonable given the inference and the inference is reasonable from the premise, then it is a logical arguement or conclusion.
the problem lies in the original premise that is made. that is where the problem lies if you want to have a logical arguement for evo. i do believe in evo, but i cant think of single line of reasoning that doesnt involve making a premise that hasnt been proven. every premise i can think of hasnst been proven incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt, atleast to my knowledge. if someone has that proof, or experiment reference, please post it up. or if you have a line of reasoning that doesnt assume an unproven premise then please post that up.


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

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:argh - icer, woeful misdescription of logic, there, but i'll let it lie.

Jeff - he's right, you know. It's not 'logical necessity'. Maybe it is 'such a good and plausible theory that to deny it would require some pretty impressive mental acrobatics', but it certainly isn't a matter of *logical* necessity.


ture na sig

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted:Thanks Icer... drunken typos.... biggrin

According to T&B (resident mathmatician in the corner) evolution isn't a logical necessity...

While the kind of micro evolution Darwin observed in birds almost definately is correct, to say that micro-evolution is entirely responsible for human evolution from primordial soup is just one possible explanation, and one which faces several significant problems such as the Cambrian explosion, missing link etc (which may/may not be due to gaps in fossil records, atmospheric changes, extra-terristrial intervention, the hand of god, etc). As soon as there is any gaps in the evidence things are not certain. This doesn't mean it isn't true, just that it might not be. And with the evidence currently available its impossible to talk of macro-evolution as a certainty. If it was no one would argue with it.


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

Delete

Icer
Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch
Member Since: 26th Apr 2005
Total posts: 205
Posted:thanks quiet, i think that was all i was after, that evo isnt the a logical absolute. i ask forgiveness for the misrepresentation of logic, i dont have 4 yrs in philosophy as you do, only 4 yrs in zoology and ecology and 4 yrs in anth. as different disciplines they have trained and taught us to do different things, i think that i sreflected in the different way we think about the world.
i do know that the your thinking about things, like the fact that i have misrepresented 'logic' is an area i need to develop. how have i gone wrong in the reasonable develop of thought from an original premise? im not trying to be antagonistic, just curious. you can either reply on this thread or PM i dont mind. keeping it on this thread might be good so people can see the probs, as you see it, with what i wrote.


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

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:briefly:

quote [icer]: 'when the conclusion is reasonable given the inference and the inference is reasonable from the premise, then it is a logical arguement or conclusion'

Logic deals with relations between propositions (minimally). An argument is said to be valid if it is impossible for the premisses to be true & the conclusion. In other words, an argument is logically valid if the truth of the premisses guarantees the truth of the conclusion. A valid argument with true premisses is said to be sound; in other words, we can know the conclusion to be true.

We can criticise an argument for being illogical if it involves some kind of fallacy; a fallacy is a logical mistake. Here's an example:

1. If it rains, then I will get wet [premiss]
2. It isn't raining [premiss]
so
3. I won't get wet [conclusion]


ture na sig

Delete

Icer
Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch
Member Since: 26th Apr 2005
Total posts: 205
Posted:thats pretty much how i understood it. but that a nice clear description.
i think the problem between evo's and IDers is still primarily the premises people make at the beginning.
out of interest, i have been trying to make a sound argument for evo. having a lil trouble so can you give it a crack?


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

Delete

quiet
quiet

analytic
Location: bristol
Member Since: 15th Sep 2004
Total posts: 503
Posted:No, of course you can't produce sound arguments for evolutionary theory; for pretty much any scientific theory, it's always going to be logically possible for the premisses to be true and for the conclusion to be false. But that misses the point: scientific arguments or theories aren't supposed to deal with logical necessities, but rather with showing what the evidence points towards. In the ID/evo debate, the evidence points overwhelemingly towards evolution. We may not understand the details (like speciation, for instance), but that doesn't falsify the theory. It just means that we haven't yet worked out the details.

ture na sig

Delete

Icer
Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch
Member Since: 26th Apr 2005
Total posts: 205
Posted:i think we might be agreeing on something at last. biggrin

science tends not to 'prove', it indicates or suggests what is true.



evo hasnt been proven, it is the best answer we got (by a very long way), but it isnt the only one. the majority of people believe that evo is the only option. i think i have been trying to get people to admit that its possible that evo isnt the right answer, not to accept any other theory, but just admit the possiblity, however unlikely, that evo is wrong.

for the record, i think evo is right, but i could be wrong, i am only human. biggrin

EDITED_BY: Icer (1126537086)


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

Delete

Page: 12345...30

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow

     Show more..