• 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: 1...2021222324...30
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003

ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide

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

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917

Just because they dont want the Bible to be true?


Yeah, eternal bliss would just suck big time, captain logic. rolleyes


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

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)


 Written by: Patriarch917

Just because they dont want the Bible to be true?


Yeah, eternal bliss would just suck big time, captain logic. rolleyes



MCP's logic isn't the issue in this phrase. His question about motivation applies equally to both sides. It may seems absurd, but not illogical. The two are not the same.

One can believe that you shouldn't do medical tests on animals because cute animals shouldn't be hurt. This cannot be attacked as being illogical, but the assumption upon which the logic is based can be disputed.


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:You've just made a faux pas... wink

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

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:This made me laugh...
 Written by: answers in genesis

Smoke and mirrors are generally what you will get on skeptics and old-earther web sites. They shun peer review and publication. Instead they rely on the naivet of most of their readers to protect their bad science from exposure. Anybody can say anything on a website, and they do.


Oh the sheer irony of it. ubblol


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

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)



This made me laugh...

 Written by: answers in genesis

Smoke and mirrors are generally what you will get on skeptics and old-earther web sites. They shun peer review and publication. Instead they rely on the naivet of most of their readers to protect their bad science from exposure. Anybody can say anything on a website, and they do.



Oh the sheer irony of it. ubblol





The man who wrote that letter:



http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp


Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted: Written by:

Just because they dont want the Bible to be true?



I think you got the horse riding the jockey there mr Patriarch 917.

You believe in God, and that God created the world and nature and all that, yet you dont understand how it works.

Creatism is not the story written in our DNA, yet you keep trying to force nature to fit your interpretation of a book.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Zauberdachs


Zauberdachs

enthusiast
Location: The village of Edinburgh

Total posts: 220
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917


It used to be thought that mice would spontaneously generate from grain and old rags left in the corner of a barn, or that maggots would spontaneously generate from rotting meat. This was a simple explanation, and no doubt you could appeal to occams razor in favor of it. Experiments were done to prove this theory. You could leave meat out to rot, and maggots would grow in it simple cause and affect.

Of course, we know now that the correct explanation was more complex.




Surely the Bible is giving us the "simple" mice from rags/maggots spontaniously appear view while sience is giving us the more complex view?

The Bible gives us:
Q. why is the earth here and why does man exist?
A. God made it.
Q. Wow, but how do you know that?
A. Well the earth's here and mans here, plus we've got this book so God must have made it.
Q. Ok, but the earths here and mans here plus I've got another book that says the earth was created by a different god?
A. la la la, I've got faith so I don't care.

While sience goes into rather more detail... smile


The insults of your enemy are a tribute to your bravery wink

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted:You and I may think that the Bible's description of creation is the parsimonious one, and thus the one that occam's razor favors. However, serveral people have argued that spontaneous generation is the more simple explanation. It's a very subjective test, and we should remember that the "razor" is descriptive, not proscriptive.

Of course, I don't recall anyone arguing in this discussion that Creationism is correct "because the Bible says so." The arguments have been based on interpretations of physical evidence, logic, and subjective reasonability.

One person has a book that says life was created by God, another has a book that says life was created by spontaneously generation. The question isn't whether you can find a book that agrees with you, the question is whether the claims found in the book accurately describe the past.

Such a thing is obviously very difficult to prove, which is why there is no general consensus about the creation of life.


Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted:So I've yet to have to make a proper reply, but: Why don't you assume that a process we see around us, natural selection, could have been going on, on earth, throughout it's history, without any other godly influences? Why have god there at all? He isn't needed. I know you believe he is, but I still don't think you've proved that natural selection couldn't have created life, all you have done is shown an absence of evidence. (tangent: creationism: It's like a gigantic april fools, God: "Hey I bet you really believed that the earth was millions of years old! Those bones really had you fooled! GOTCHA!")

<because the Bible says so The arguments have been based on interpretations of physical evidence, logic, and subjective reasonability.>

I think most people's points on this thread show that all the arguments based on physical evidence, logic and subjective reasonability (wtf?) are all weak / false, and the strongest one is based purely on faith.

Basically I don't understand why you seem so keen to try and back up your beliefs on evidence, when the entire 'argument' of ID and creationism is based on belief and that needs no evidence.


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917

Of course, I don't recall anyone arguing in this discussion that Creationism is correct "because the Bible says so." The arguments have been based on interpretations of physical evidence, logic, and subjective reasonability.


Heh.

If God created the Universe then persumably God created the laws of physics and so on as well as revealing the words of the Bible. I'm still left to wonder if it that is the case then why did he create the Universe in such a way as to make the Bible look completely wrong. Which leads me back to Bill Hicks' line about God being a practical joker wink


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Even Micheal Behe, lead proponent of inteligent design, thinks that the concept of a young Earth is moronic.

You can hardly aledge that he is prejidiced against god.


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

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: mcp


So I've yet to have to make a proper reply, but: Why don't you assume that a process we see around us, natural selection, could have been going on, on earth, throughout it's history, without any other godly influences?



Natural selection has been going on since the begining. However, if God created everything, this itself could correctly be called a "godly influence."

The reason I do not think that it is the only influence is because it is not a reasonable explanation for life as we know it. Natural selection as we observe it today is not the best explanation, in my opinion, for either the creation of life or the origin of species.

 Written by: mcp


I still don't think you've proved that natural selection couldn't have created life, all you have done is shown an absence of evidence.



Why should I accept a theory that has no evidence? All of the experiments we have done to date show that life could not have been created by chance natural processes. The data indicates that the theory does not adequately explain the real world. A new theory is needed.

You can choose to have faith in natural selection if you want, but while you do you have no standing to criticize people who have faith in different explanations.

 Written by: mcp


Basically I don't understand why you seem so keen to try and back up your beliefs on evidence, when the entire 'argument' of ID and creationism is based on belief and that needs no evidence.


That is not true. If incontrovertible evidence could be found that evolution were true, I would certainly believe at least in theistic evolution. However, the physical evidence we find does not show this to be the only, or even a likely possibility.

Naturalistic evolution is completely unconvincing, because it contradicts observable principles of the universe, and demands what I see as an unreasonable amount of coincidences.

 Written by:


If God created the Universe then persumably God created the laws of physics and so on as well as revealing the words of the Bible. I'm still left to wonder if it that is the case then why did he create the Universe in such a way as to make the Bible look completely wrong.



He didn't. While certain theories have been proposed that contradict the Bible, actual evidence has never been found that contradicts the Bible.

@jeff ID is merely a scientific theory that requires no acceptance of any part of the Bible. One can believe in ID and think, for example, that life on earth was put here by aliens.

ID springs from the failure of naturalistic evolution to fully account for life on earth as we observe it. It merely proposes that we accept theories besides natural selection.

By limiting the theories you are willing to accept, one can be led to wrong conclusions. If one refuses to accept the possibility that humans lived in ancient Egypt, one might be pressed to invent some explanation for how the pyramids were constructed purely by natural processes. This would not be an example of "good science" Science is not solely the process of trying to find theories for explanations that fit a prior commitment to a naturalistic philosophy. If the truth is that life did not arise from chance, there is nothing unscientific about accepting that truth.


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:I don't think Behe believes life was put here by aliens. rolleyes

What I'm demonstating is that some of the most religious of Christians don't believe in Creationism, so your claim of 'different axioms' is wrong.

As for proof of evolution, it's all around us. Perhaps if you stop listening to ridiculously biased sites like the AiG and listen to some competant people who still share your faith, like the much respected Dr. Williams, you would have more luck.

Talk.orgin's articles are supported by people of a vast multitude of different faiths for example, even if the site owner is an atheist. The science on the site is bang on and is much recommended for anyone interested in the debate.


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

Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917


 Written by: mcp


So I've yet to have to make a proper reply, but: Why don't you assume that a process we see around us, natural selection, could have been going on, on earth, throughout it's history, without any other godly influences?



Natural selection has been going on since the begining. However, if God created everything, this itself could correctly be called a "godly influence."




Yes, which is why I've been wondering why we haven't gone back to the big bang yet. But I guess that's because I'm quite happy to accept that evolution created life out of molecules. I mean, I've created that kind of simple life in my computer, so I don't see how it's soo hard for a much more complicated environment to do it.

 Written by: mcp


I still don't think you've proved that natural selection couldn't have created life, all you have done is shown an absence of evidence.



Why should I accept a theory that has no evidence? All of the experiments we have done to date show that life could not have been created by chance natural processes. The data indicates that the theory does not adequately explain the real world. A new theory is needed.




It's not the scientific way to give up on a theory without a better one, one that fits the facts better and that can explain more. (insert jeff like acerbic comment about how science hasn't embraced ID.) ID and creation can't explain more about our world. They explain nothing apart from the bible, they're like a theory that's a full stop.

They do have evidence, as has been pointed out on this thread many times. You don't believe there's any evidence, that's fine, there's obviously nothing that can convince you. I could take you back in time, point at the first self replicating molecules replicating and you probably would say there's divine influence, or that they'll never become life without god's help in the future. Not that life is anything different from any of the other entropic forces at work in the universe.

I'm perfectly happy to believe that in the vastness of this planet a molecule somewhere was in the right configuration to selve replicate. There's more molecules in a drop of water, than there are stars in the universe. (That drop of water probably has at least one molecule that used to be part of me in it, and I'll completely change all the molecules in my body every eight years.) so on earth, there's a lot of molecules to have a shot at making life, and who am I to go against those odds?

 Written by: Patriarch917


You can choose to have faith in natural selection if you want, but while you do you have no standing to criticize people who have faith in different explanations.




I'm not critisizing. (not yet) I'm not jeff. wink I don't mind you having faith in creationsim or ID. But I expect a rational person to base their reasoning on rational arguments, and a religious person to base their beliefs on faith. I don't mind if those mindsets are in one person, as long as they can keep their logics distinct. as plenty of scientists do.

It offends me when somebody has to argue to put something unneeded into a nice clean theory, and more so that a group attempts to destroy our future with poor education. Thou I guess the truth is that immigrants and mixed cultures will be the future, and their culture being stronger than ours, will take us over and then if their not lucky, tumble into decadence like ours.

 Written by: Patriarch917


That is not true. If incontrovertible evidence could be found that evolution were true, I would certainly believe at least in theistic evolution. However, the physical evidence we find does not show this to be the only, or even a likely possibility.




I can't imagine how much evidence there is for evolution. I only did biology to the level of like second year american university, but there's too much for me to remember.


 Written by: Patriarch917


Naturalistic evolution is completely unconvincing, because it contradicts observable principles of the universe, and demands what I see as an unreasonable amount of coincidences.




This I just plain don't get? What is it contradicting? You can argue that the anthropic principle is god, but that's a different argument.


The bible is just a book, books can't tell the whole truth, or usually any. Why should I believe it?

 Written by: Patriarch917


Science is not solely the process of trying to find theories for explanations that fit a prior commitment to a naturalistic philosophy. If the truth is that life did not arise from chance, there is nothing unscientific about accepting that truth.



Yes there is. Science don't go on 'truth' alone. Science is based on the scientific method, not on belief in 'science'. Science is like an algorithm to get close to the 'truth'. Without evidence and a theory that fit observable phenomenon, science doesn't say anything. It's not a belief system. (apart from belief in induction and logic and that our senses perceive reality.) It's just a method of finding the truth. If a better theory came along that fit the evidence better, they would be reluctant, but they would give up the old one and go with the new, always trying to get closer to the truth. If god came down and gave scientists the perfect theory of everything, do you think scienctists would just accept it at face value? They would test it and use it to discover more about the universe. You talk about accepting a truth that as you yourself argue, can never be finally determined as true on not. That's never going to happen. The scientific method doesn't work like that. Even though evolution may have marginal gaps in it's 'truth' scientists will explore them, try and find a different theory that fits using the gaps, and see more clearly the theory weakness using the gaps. They won't be happy with it being mostly true and a little bit false, like a piece of a jigsaw puzlle that doesn't quite fit, they'll force in into the puzzle and when they find a better fitting piece, they'll pop that in instead. They won't just take that peice out for a worse fitting one, or just leave it out entirely.

Because you can't observe god, then science says nothing about him. I think religion should ba the same way with sceince. (apart from ethical shenanigans.)


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted: Written by:

Of course, I don't recall anyone arguing in this discussion that Creationism is correct "because the Bible says so



Patriarch 917 I dont think the bible is wrong. Its your interpretation of what is written in the bible that is wrong. Most Christians dont believe in Creationism. To put is bluntly, you are wrong not the bible.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:Fish with feet found finally smile

Delete

jo_rhymes
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

jo_rhymes

Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops

Total posts: 4525
Posted:I saw that on the news about an hour ago! The fish thats alive now (fossil's great great great grandson) with the little back legs is cool. but the fossil they found is 383 million years old, and they probably never met, so so sad.

Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:Oh come off it..
How can it be 383 million years old?

The entire universe is only 10,000

wink


Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted:jon! I thought YOU were the missing link?

"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:So did I untill 4 hours ago...
frown


Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted:I notice that it is theorized to have lived at the same era as this fish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
br>
If so, then maybe we will catch a live one.


Delete

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.

Total posts: 5276
Posted:I've caught a live ucof before... biggrin

"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:It's not magic: 'Missing link' fossil fish unearthed April 2006

Scientists have unearthed the preserved remains of what is described as the "missing evolutionary link" between fish and tetrapods, the four-footed animals that emerged from water, from river sediments on Ellesmere Island in Canada's Nunavut.

The newly-discovered species, dubbed Tiktaalik roseae, looks superficially like a crocodile, with a skull around 20 centimetres long. Its flattened body, which probably grew to a length of between 1.25 and 2.75 metres, was covered in diamond-shaped bony scales. It is like a fish, with its primitive jaw and fins, but has a tetrapod's neck and ribs.

In the beginning, there was the sea and little by little, the fish in the sea moved on to the land, evolving into the myriad species of animals that have lived, eaten or been eaten, fought and died on terra firma for more than 300 million years.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:The ID is creationism in disguise. How can you possibly argue otherwise? If there had to be SOME INTELLIGENT BEING that DESIGNED us, you then pass the buck to that being. How did IT come into being. All of ID's arguments about evolution's impossibility in the given time-frame seems to say that this couldn't have made life spontaneously evolve ANYWHERE in the universe, which leaves only one POSSIBLE explanation, and that is a supernatural force, which by definition is beyond scientific inquirey and thus is NOT scientific.

To say that "Oh it's not necessarily God" is just trying to throw a tissue over the giant pink elephant so the rest of us can't see it for what it is. It's absurd and it insults the intelligence of rational thinking individuals. By your (and I mean ID's by your) arguments there is only one possible explanation and it will always be God or at least something which exists outside of nature (the realm of science), for the simple reason that those arguments say that any "natural method" can not account for life beginning in the first place.

Science is the study of natural phenomenon to find the natural causes of what we observe. There is nothing natural about ID because by it's own tennents it points at an unnatural explanation. It isn't scientific, and has no place in a classroom unless we're talking about Philosophy, in which case, go for it.


Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: i8beefy2


The ID is creationism in disguise. How can you possibly argue otherwise? If there had to be SOME INTELLIGENT BEING that DESIGNED us, you then pass the buck to that being. How did IT come into being. All of ID's arguments about evolution's impossibility in the given time-frame seems to say that this couldn't have made life spontaneously evolve ANYWHERE in the universe, which leaves only one POSSIBLE explanation, and that is a supernatural force, which by definition is beyond scientific inquirey and thus is NOT scientific.




That doesn't at all have to be the case. All of the data and experiments to date suggests that the conditions needed for life to occur by chance never existed on Earth. However, just because life could not have evolved by chance on Earth doesn't mean you have to believe that it couldn't have evolved by chance somewhere else.

This is not a new theory by any stretch of the imagination. The suggestion that life on earth came from an extraterrestrial source has been around for a long time. Some have suggested that it simply fell here by chance. Others think that life was put on earth on purpose.

One can believe that this was done by a supernatural being (or beings) that always existed, or you can believe that life evolved by chance somewhere else in the universe, and that those beings put life on Earth. If you think that life evolved naturally, you can even theorize what sort of environment might have been needed in order for life to have evolved by chance. According to the experiments done so far, the environment would not look like earth, and the life would not look like life as we see it on earth. Still, it is possible to believe that those conditions formed that sort of life somewhere besides Earth.

 Written by: i8beefy2


To say that "Oh it's not necessarily God" is just trying to throw a tissue over the giant pink elephant so the rest of us can't see it for what it is. It's absurd and it insults the intelligence of rational thinking individuals. By your (and I mean ID's by your) arguments there is only one possible explanation and it will always be God or at least something which exists outside of nature (the realm of science), for the simple reason that those arguments say that any "natural method" can not account for life beginning in the first place.




It is true that no natural method has yet been suggested or demonstrated that could create life without intelligence directing it. This is nothing special. No natural method has been suggested or demonstrated that could create an automobile by chance without intelligence directing it either. This does not mean that since humans can create automobiles that they are "supernatural" or that the explanation is "unscientific." Neither does the existence of automobiles somehow prove the existence of God.

A line of thinking seems to exists that suggests:

1. God is not natural.
2. Science can only consider natural explanations
3. ID requires God,
4. Therefore ID is unscientific
5. Science is the only reliable source of truth, therefore ID must be wrong.

These propositions are so obviously absurd, I won't even bother to argue against them at this point, lest I be accused of setting up a "straw man."


 Written by: i8beefy2


Science is the study of natural phenomenon to find the natural causes of what we observe. There is nothing natural about ID because by it's own tennents it points at an unnatural explanation. It isn't scientific, and has no place in a classroom unless we're talking about Philosophy, in which case, go for it.



Even if that definition of science were true, it would not exclude ID since intelligence is not "unnatural."

I would refer you to an example brought in previous posts. Imagine that 20 years from now we humans decide that we don't like earth, so we leave the planet with all of our stuff. A few years go by, and some alien scientists show up to investigate the planet. They find poodles.

A clever scientist looking at a poodle will realize that a poodle is nothing more than a dog that has had certain traits "brought out" by selective breeding. It is possible, in theory, for a poodle to be born by chance. All that need happen is for the right dogs to get together and breed, generation after generation.

However, attributing the existence of a poodle to chance evolution would be a bit farfetched. Sure, it is possible in theory for a poodle to evolve naturally, but a much better explanation is that poodles were intelligently designed to be the way they are.

A clever alien scientists could infer through the presence of poodles that there might be an intelligent designer who made them. This would not be "unscientific." In fact, it is even possible to speculate as to "how intelligent" the designer would have had to be in order to breed a poodle.

The same principle applies to the modern ID movement. Currently, ID does not have a theory of what the intelligent designer is, but it's not impossible to come up with such a theory. All one need do is look at how complicated life is and calculate the odds of life occurring by chance. This will give you a base level for the "difficulty" of the task, and give you an idea of the intelligence that we should search for.

A rubik's cube is somewhat difficult to solve. If you were to find a solved rubik's cube, the likely explanation would be that someone intelligent arranged it in that order. Even though you may never have met the person, you can at least get an idea from the evidence how smart they must have been in order to solve the cube, simply by looking at the odds of a cube being solved by chance. You can theorize that they meet a certain minimum threshold of "intelligence."

How intelligent must a being have been in order to put life on earth? The question is an interesting one. You can do a search and try to find the odds of the simplest imaginable self replicating organism forming by chance. This will give you an idea of the complexity of the task.

Sure it is possible to theorize that it occurred by chance against virtually impossible odds and actually impossible environmental condition. However, this is just a cop-out. "Time and chance" are simply not the best explanation for the world as we observe it. ID is a serious attempt to try to really give a viable explanation for certain observable phenomenon, and I respect it for that.

While ID attempts to answer the question "in a vacuum" with no real starting point other than current observations and experiments, Creationism is based on the idea of a specific creator, who not only made everything but told us a little about how it was done. Thus, for a Creationist certain theories are already available, and they need only be tested scientifically to see if they are valid. So far, these theories adequately explain the world as we know it, predictions made by these theories can be verified experimentally, and no scientific experiment has disproved them.

I am sometimes inclined to label Naturalistic Evolution as being "unscientific" since it tries to impose a certain set of unproven assumptions onto science. It is sometimes irritating to have the proponents of a certain theory claim that their theory is more "scientific" when what they really mean is "atheistic." However, I am content to let Naturalism suggest it's theories about the origin and development of life, and to let real science be used to test whether those theories are correct or not.

So far, the theory of abiogenesis has no experimental support, and seems not to be able to adequately explain the presence of life. This is why I choose not to put my faith in it. I do not mind that some people do choose to have faith in it, any more than I mind that some people used to believe that heavier objects fall faster than light ones. The scientific method is an excellent way of learning about the world, and I trust that when done properly it can aid us in finding the truth.


Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:I was under the impression that the "probability" of life evolving in the universe would require such a vast ammount of time that it couldn't be a valid reason for life evolving under natural conditions ANYWHERE and thus REQUIRED an intelligent designer outside of the system.

However you have provided a way out of that: life evolved somewhere else and through some means came here, ie meteor, or aliens, after which it evolved to its current form. Thus evolution still works and ID is still incorrect.

Here's another one. Explain the differentiation of species over time. What I mean is, for evolution to be completely incorrect, that is the macroevolution which you must reject on principle, where do new species come from? They have to all be here from the beginning and not change from something else into what they are today. This just isn't so. Humans didn't exist when dinosaurs did. ID fails to explain something that evolution DOES explain. This is why it is a weaker theory as such and was (rightfully) overthrown by the more naturalistic, and more encompassing, theory of evolution.

The simple problem remains that ID just passes the buck. If aliens seeded the planet then where did THEY come from to design us? Oh THEY evolved but somehow evolution can't explain speciation here? Simple bacteria from a comet have the same effect of "seeding" and requires no intelligence at all either if life evolved elsewhere.

If you are saying that evolution was responsable for the intelligent designers, but not for us your contradicting your own premises. Ok, let's say that the basic building blocks came from elsewhere and evolution took it from there. Simply saying "it didn't begin here" doesn't mean it had no beginning without intelligent design.

==

We had a creationist (not ID, creationist) speaker come in to our university this week. The Geology students and Biology students had fun ripping the guy apart. His defense being "What are you all high?" I really wished he knew what he was talking about, but he didn't and got called to accounts on it.

Until I can see ID giving a NON-self-defeating argument (life evolving elsewhere is still evolution), I can't take it seriously because it is just creationism in disguise. The non-self defeating angle implies God, and thus is the ONLY foot ID has to stand on. Evolution has gaps. ID has no foundation what so ever. When you are talking science, you don't point to the supernatural. Intelligence can be natural, you're right. But then THAT intelligence still needs to be explained.


Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: i8beefy2


Here's another one. Explain the differentiation of species over time. What I mean is, for evolution to be completely incorrect, that is the macroevolution which you must reject on principle, where do new species come from? They have to all be here from the beginning and not change from something else into what they are today. This just isn't so. Humans didn't exist when dinosaurs did. ID fails to explain something that evolution DOES explain. This is why it is a weaker theory as such and was (rightfully) overthrown by the more naturalistic, and more encompassing, theory of evolution.




ID does not conflict with evolution. You can believe in ID, and in macroevolution. If you were thinking of Creationism, it theorizes that many different types of animals were created, then evolved into what we see today.

 Written by: i8beefy2


The simple problem remains that ID just passes the buck. If aliens seeded the planet then where did THEY come from to design us? Oh THEY evolved but somehow evolution can't explain speciation here? Simple bacteria from a comet have the same effect of "seeding" and requires no intelligence at all either if life evolved elsewhere.




If the buck needs to be passed, then it should be passed. If life couldn't have arisen here by chance, then we must look for a better explanation. ID does that. So does bacteria from a comet... if you can come up with a theory for how life could evolve by chance in a comet.

You were right when you said though, that it is terribly unlikely that life could evolve by chance ever, anywhere, in this universe. Thus, perhaps the explanation lies in a source outside of our universe.

 Written by: i8beefy2


If you are saying that evolution was responsable for the intelligent designers, but not for us your contradicting your own premises.




That is no contradiction at all. One can certainly believe that life evolved by chance in one instance, but by design in another. I happen to think that wolves adapted to their environment naturally, but that poodles did so through the intervention of intelligent design. The two are not mutually exclusive.

One can believe that chance evolution is responsible for the intelligence that designed life on earth. The premise of ID is not that evolution can't explain anything, it's that it is not the best explanation for certain things we can observe in life on earth.

 Written by: i8beefy2


Until I can see ID giving a NON-self-defeating argument (life evolving elsewhere is still evolution), I can't take it seriously...



Then I am happy to have shown you that ID does not contain a self defeating argument.

Of course, the idea that life could evolve by chance anywhere in this universe is probably false, unless the universe is much bigger or much older than the current theories. This is one reason to think that the likely explanation for life may be in a source outside of our universe.


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917


All of the data and experiments to date suggests that the conditions needed for life to occur by chance never existed on Earth.


Rubbish.

What you meant to say is that all the data suggests that specific proteins and DNA are too complex to have emerged by chance. Creationists often misinterprate this in their mad rush to try and disprove evolution, thus exposing their scientific naivety.

And if you'll remember we've shown repeatedly that evolution is not chance, and that there is no need for specific proteins or DNA in the abiogenesis hypothesis.


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

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted: Written by: i8beefy2


The ID is creationism in disguise. How can you possibly argue otherwise? If there had to be SOME INTELLIGENT BEING that DESIGNED us, you then pass the buck to that being. How did IT come into being. All of ID's arguments about evolution's impossibility in the given time-frame seems to say that this couldn't have made life spontaneously evolve ANYWHERE in the universe, which leaves only one POSSIBLE explanation, and that is a supernatural force, which by definition is beyond scientific inquirey and thus is NOT scientific.

To say that "Oh it's not necessarily God" is just trying to throw a tissue over the giant pink elephant so the rest of us can't see it for what it is. It's absurd and it insults the intelligence of rational thinking individuals. By your (and I mean ID's by your) arguments there is only one possible explanation and it will always be God or at least something which exists outside of nature (the realm of science), for the simple reason that those arguments say that any "natural method" can not account for life beginning in the first place.

Science is the study of natural phenomenon to find the natural causes of what we observe. There is nothing natural about ID because by it's own tennents it points at an unnatural explanation. It isn't scientific, and has no place in a classroom unless we're talking about Philosophy, in which case, go for it.




I've said it before. ID does not exclude Evolution. the two are not mutually exclusive.
The only conflict is whether a being of the supernatural sort started this all and gently guides it so it doesn't get too far off track for one reason or another, or whether it all is one great cosmic coincidence.
For us, God is the only rational explanation and find it to be hubris that humans find it possible that it all just happened and excluding a supernatural being allows for secularism and all that individualistic adam smith invisible hand do what you want because you have no master. some believe that we need to take care of the natural world some of you don't
We have found that most things have a beginning and an end so i see the universe

Taking myself out of the conversation again. Had to butt in with the severely rude and somewhat hostile comment


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)


 Written by: Patriarch917


All of the data and experiments to date suggests that the conditions needed for life to occur by chance never existed on Earth.


Rubbish.

What you meant to say is that all the data suggests that specific proteins and DNA are too complex to have emerged by chance.




I can agree with that part


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Page: 1...2021222324...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..