• 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...2122232425...30
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003

ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia

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

mcp
PLATINUM Member since May 2003

mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom

Total posts: 5276
Posted:I personally think it's hubris to think that god created us specially and differently from the rest of the universe. What if god just created the big bang and let it run? What if he created 3 alien races a while ago on different planets and we're decended from one of their cells that rid a comet to out planet? Whatever happened, god knew all about it in advance and didn't need to mess about with evolution to get us here.

It's utter hubris to think he created us specially, it's as silly as the sun going round the earth, while earth sits at the centre of the universe.

Time to wake up and smell your environment, everything doesn't revolve around us.


"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

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
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. 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.



Actually, I meant what I said.

There are two objections to the idea that life arose from nonliving material by chance on Earth. One is that, assuming the right components were available, it is prohibitively unlikely that they would arrange themselves into a self replicating form. I say that it is unlikely, not impossible.

Right now, I'm sitting in a room that is about 21% oxygen. These oxygen molecules are bouncing around the room. It is theoretically possible that all of the oxygen molecules could randomly end up congregating in one corner of the room, and I could suffocate. This is not impossible, it is merely unlikely.

It would not happen by "chance," one could say. Each individual molecule would be following the laws of physics, and someone who could see and track them all could accurately predict their paths. However, I do not fear this because I know that, over time, random occurrences tend to lead to disorder and chaos rather than order.

It is the same way with the spontaneous generation of life. Even assuming the world was filled with oceans of the components needed, the odds against the components gathering together at the right place and the right time are prohibitive.

However, you seemed to take issue with my statement that the conditions on earth would never have allowed for the creation of life. This is exactly what I meant to say. We can say authoritatively that life could never be created on Earth by chance at this time, because the environment as we see it would destroy the component parts before they could assemble. The Earth is well suited to support life right now, but not to create and sustain the component parts. On the other hand, the proposed environments suitable for manufacturing the component parts would tend to destroy any life that were to try to assemble itself.

It's like baking a cake. If you were to put all of the ingredients for a cake in the oven, and then try to start mixing them, it wouldn't work very well. On the other hand, you can't just mix the ingredients outside of the oven and then never put the cake in the oven. Two different environments are needed to properly make a cake, which is just one reason why cakes don't form in nature by chance, (another reason is that it is unlikely that the components of the cake would coincidentally arrive at the same location and mix themselves without intelligent intervention.) Making life is, of course, even more complex.

I still do not understand the desire to fight the idea that life evolved by chance processes. If it did not occur randomly, it must have been done on purpose. Purpose seems to require a purposeful actor, and your back to ID. The idea that life was created by chance, and not through design, is a fundamental difference between Naturalistic evolution and ID.

I've already given a number of quotes from authorities on evolution proudly proclaiming that chance is responsible for the initial creation of life and it's subsequent development (check page 23). These seemed to work for a little while (remarks were made such as "chance plays a role in evolution, but evolution is not chance.") I don't want to rehash a previous argument. If both ID and evolution agree that life did not occur by chance, then I will accept it and move on.

It's not that crazy, I suppose, that two sides can seem to disagree so much but really be arguing over tiny details. For example, Richard Dawkins seems to like the theory that life may have been created from clay. The Bible agrees.


Delete

Zauberdachs


Zauberdachs

enthusiast
Location: The village of Edinburgh

Total posts: 220
Posted:What makes me chuckle is that ID does not mean a Christian god. Indeed if we go by the evidence supplied by the Bible it become more unlikely that it was a Christian god smile

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

Delete

Domino
SILVER Member since May 2004

UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK

Total posts: 757
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917


life could never be created on Earth by chance at this time, because the environment as we see it would destroy the component parts before they could assemble.




Correct. Highly reactive oxygen would rip appart the component molecules or they would be eaten. However, the Earth's atmosphere has not always been like this. When recreating the Earth's early atmosphere in a laboratory it's found that complex molecules such as amino acids (and I believe, though I may be wrong, RNA) will sontanously form.

Yes, the chances of life forming in my puddle are one in a gazillion - but my puddle is just one of three gazillion on the planet.

 Written by: Patriarch917

If it did not occur randomly, it must have been done on purpose.



I refer you to Langton's Ant. The concept works on a few rules very simple rules that define how the ant moves dependent on its enviroment. It's not random - the ant runs on its rules. It eventually produces a complex pattern that is entirely without "purpose", meerly the continuation of a few simple rules and given time.


Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917

There are two objections to the idea that life arose from nonliving material by chance on Earth. One is that, assuming the right components were available, it is prohibitively unlikely that they would arrange themselves into a self replicating form. I say that it is unlikely, not impossible.

Right now, I'm sitting in a room that is about 21% oxygen. These oxygen molecules are bouncing around the room. It is theoretically possible that all of the oxygen molecules could randomly end up congregating in one corner of the room, and I could suffocate. This is not impossible, it is merely unlikely.


Good lord are you still trying to use this argument? You would've thought that this strawman would have been laid to rest after a dozen or more rebuttals. Natural selection relies on chance, but what you keep ignoring is that the probabilities for different outcomes are not equal, because a beneficial mutation increases the probability of the genes being passed onto the next generation. And when you combine that with the fact that biological components tend to form spontaneously given the right conditions and exponential growth then chance isn't an unsurmountable problem.

It's based on the roll of a dice, but the dice are loaded.

 Written by: Patriarch917

It would not happen by "chance," one could say. Each individual molecule would be following the laws of physics, and someone who could see and track them all could accurately predict their paths. However, I do not fear this because I know that, over time, random occurrences tend to lead to disorder and chaos rather than order.

It is the same way with the spontaneous generation of life. Even assuming the world was filled with oceans of the components needed, the odds against the components gathering together at the right place and the right time are prohibitive.


Shades of the old Creationist argument about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here...

 Written by: Patriarch917

However, you seemed to take issue with my statement that the conditions on earth would never have allowed for the creation of life. This is exactly what I meant to say. We can say authoritatively that life could never be created on Earth by chance at this time, because the environment as we see it would destroy the component parts before they could assemble. The Earth is well suited to support life right now, but not to create and sustain the component parts. On the other hand, the proposed environments suitable for manufacturing the component parts would tend to destroy any life that were to try to assemble itself.


But of course the environment then was not the same environment as it is today, so that's a non-argument.

 Written by: Patriarch917

It's like baking a cake. If you were to put all of the ingredients for a cake in the oven, and then try to start mixing them, it wouldn't work very well. On the other hand, you can't just mix the ingredients outside of the oven and then never put the cake in the oven. Two different environments are needed to properly make a cake, which is just one reason why cakes don't form in nature by chance, (another reason is that it is unlikely that the components of the cake would coincidentally arrive at the same location and mix themselves without intelligent intervention.) Making life is, of course, even more complex.


It's nothing like baking a cake, another classic Creationist analogy that doesn't work. We're back to trying to claim that evolution means that life arose through a pure random combination of constituent parts... i.e. ignoring natural selection and well, evoltion, entirely.

 Written by: Patriarch917

I've already given a number of quotes from authorities on evolution proudly proclaiming that chance is responsible for the initial creation of life and it's subsequent development (check page 23). These seemed to work for a little while (remarks were made such as "chance plays a role in evolution, but evolution is not chance.") I don't want to rehash a previous argument. If both ID and evolution agree that life did not occur by chance, then I will accept it and move on.


And yet you make lame cake analogies which represent an argument that contradicts what you've said here. Your post isn't even consistent from paragraph to paragraph.

 Written by: Patriarch917

It's not that crazy, I suppose, that two sides can seem to disagree so much but really be arguing over tiny details. For example, Richard Dawkins seems to like the theory that life may have been created from clay. The Bible agrees.


Woo, another strawman!


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted: Written by: faithinfire

I've said it before. ID does not exclude Evolution. the two are not mutually exclusive.


So why are ID proponents trying to get ID taught as an "alternative" to evolution? What you're saying makes ID pretty much meaningless as a position - because even someone who believes in evolution can still believe that god created the Universe.

Which in my opinion makes for a much more impressive god than a creationist one. If God created the Universe with just a few simple laws of nature that just so happened to allow the amazing diversity we see around us, now that is impressive.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:i'm sure He appreciates you thinking so

alternative because evolutionists seem to frequently insist the two cannot be held together in the same mind

and because creationists are confused with idist
and because evolutionists sometimes try to push the idea that it all happened by pure chance


i like the cake analogy and i think now and then He nudges the natural world


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

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Nudges implies that God didn't make things well enough originally to turn out as he wanted/expected.

And the cake analogy still doesn't match the way evolution works; it's not an analogy at all, it's a strawman.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Patriarch917, you bang on ad-nauseam about ID, yet there is not one single bit of credible evidence that proves the existence of God. In fact, God only came into existence 3500 years ago when Zoroaster suggested that the world was made by a single God. Before that time, there was no God; he didnt exist, its all a made up story.



On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the natural system is whole and complete, and functions rather well with out divine intervention. In fact, the only thing holding humankind back, preventing us from evolving to a higher state, is that all the believers in the one God keep trying to kill each other and might just blow up the planet in the process.



What would humankind look like if the believers in the one God stopped fighting each other and we had world peace?





rolleyes


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

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Start a thread entitled "Does God Exist" and I might join you. This one has enough complications on it's own.

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Why start a new thread Patriarch917 ?

Your whole argument of ID is based on the existence of a supreme being. If this being doesnt exist you have no case.


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

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Fatal Assumption wink



GAME OVER



Patriarch 917


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

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html
br>
Scientists show how an existing complex system evolved from a series of small steps i.e. that the system is not "irreducably complex" as ID proponents like to talk about.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:This isn't really directly related to ID, but I thought people who've been involved here might be interesting in reading it...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/the_proper_reverence_due_those.php


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Pen Draven


Pen Draven

Unofficial Lord Of Confusion And Pirate Extrodinaire
Location: Nuneaton

Total posts: 1363
Posted:Not ID but creationism related

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4110
br>
Rebuttals from people far more intelligent than I...


Some men see things and say why....

I Dream of things that never were and say Why Not....?

Oh No I'm going to get Shot Alive if he finds out - DA wink

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: Stone


Why start a new thread Patriarch917 ?

Your whole argument of ID is based on the existence of a supreme being. If this being doesnt exist you have no case.



That is incorrect. ID is not based on the existence of a supreme being. The existence of a supreme being is based on ID.

If, as the ID theory posits, certain features of the world are best explained by intelligent design, then we can infer from that evidence that an intelligent designer exists.

Naturalism suggests that even though things exist for which ID is the best explanation, we should still believe that they happened by chance.

Obviously, this cannot be based on any proof that there is no God (since it is logically impossible to prove such a thing). Thus, it must be based on a mere assumption that there is no God.

Research atheists who have thought through the matter (such as Asimov), and you will find this to be the case.

If you are walking through the desert, and you find a pocket watch, it is reasonable to infer from the nature of the watch that it was designed by an intelligent being. From the evidence you find, you can know something about the creator of the watch.

Dawkins may wish to believe that a watch could, with enough conincidences, be constructed by time and chance. Even if that were true in theory, it is a poor explanation. Suggest the idea that a pocketwatch could be constucted on this planet by chance to any reasonable person, and they will rightly reject such an absurd statement.

To suggest that something far more complex and far better designed than a watch could occur without an intelligent designer is even more silly.

If the existence of a watch is enough proof to convince you that an intelligent watchmaker exists, then the existence of life should be enough proof to convince you that an intelligent lifemaker exists. To believe that either a watch, or a living organism could be constructed by coincidence is the ultimate example of wishful thinking triumphing over reason.

When I see this, I can tell that it was created by design, and I consider it proof of the existence of an intelligence capable of creating such a masterpeice:

Non-Https Image Link


It is only reasonable that I should say the same thing when I see something even better designed, such as this:

Non-Https Image Link


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Can the Rushmore monument reproduce? Can pocket watches f**k?



No?



Then just perhaps the analogy is flawed. So flawed in fact that it proves nothing but the users desperation to disprove evolution, perhaps.



There is no non man-made feature of the universe for which ID is a better explaination than natural prosesses. There is no evidence for any intelligence at work in the world other than mans and beasts. Until creationists have actual evidence otherwise they will continue to be mocked as the fanatical zealots they are.



EDIT: Anyone who considers a living thing 'well designed' has obviously not studied it. Useless nipples, tailbones, optically imperfect eyes, bad neural wiring and jury rigged biochemistry. Truely, if this is the work of god he has been vastly overhyped.

EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1144694719)


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

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: , United Kingdom

Total posts: 15414
Posted:He's right you know...



wink



There is however, a high class pocket watch whore ubblol

Theres no way I would pay that much money.... eek

EDITED_BY: UraniumChipOxidationFacility (1144694875)


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:You have no idea how releived I am to discover there is no such thing as pocket watch porn.

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., United Kingdom

Total posts: 5276
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917


 Written by: Stone


Why start a new thread Patriarch917 ?

Your whole argument of ID is based on the existence of a supreme being. If this being doesnt exist you have no case.



That is incorrect. ID is not based on the existence of a supreme being. The existence of a supreme being is based on ID.

If, as the ID theory posits, certain features of the world are best explained by intelligent design, then we can infer from that evidence that an intelligent designer exists.

Naturalism suggests that even though things exist for which ID is the best explanation, we should still believe that they happened by chance.




Soooo, when I find a human in a desert, I'm supposed to believe that because they exist, a bit of a lazy alien thing that's a bad designer and that we can't see also exists? Cos it's not exactly 'intelligent' design is it? It's more like 'local farmboy messes around with the template a bit' design. Why don't I assume that there was a process that created the human in the desert, like I assume there was a process that created the desert?

And on a final note:

NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT BASED ON CHANCE OR RANDOMNESS OR THE NATIONAL LOTTERY MACHINES!!!!!!!!!

It's a PROCESS that finds a near-optimal solution, like the search function of HOP!


"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

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:Last I checked, people grew based on the construction of proteins, DNA and RNA, etc. and were not chiseled out of granite.

There is a recent study that tries to demonstrate evolutions adaptation of priorly existing mechanisms to new ways of functioning that was just published. This is on the NY Times site so requires registration, but: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
br>
ID proponents, like Mr. Behm (is that how you spell his name?) claim that this proves nothing (of course) and that demonstrating that "simple hormone systems" being adapted aren't complex enough to show that this works on MORE complex systems like eyes, etc. Even though the lock-key hormone system was once held up by them for just this sort of Ireducible Complexity... But I digress...

You're absolutly right though Patriatrch. Naturalistic explanations assume natural causes. Not supernatural ones. What a wonder that the natural sciences try and keep an implied supernatural creator out. You may reject my definition of science because it specifically limits it to studying the "natural world" and employs ideas such as "natural causes"... that's fine. But in my opinion, that is what science is. When you try and EXPAND on that into areas of untestability (as God is) and such you are moving out of the realm of Science and into Philosophy.

Of course there is an argument to be made here. Take theoretical physics for instance, which is really just Philosophical Metaphysics when you get down to it. It's just that the people talking about it are coming at it from a slightly different angle (and like to be called "Theoretical Physicists" instead of "Metaphysicians" smile )

But the principle stands. You have pointed to something specifically motovational in the ID movement. The fact that Ireduccable Complexity, originating with William Behe, is a rehash of an old, and flawed, argument called the "watchmaker" by Paley. It is the core foundation of ID, and when written, it had a specific purpose: it was a Teleological argument for the existence of God, which is exactly what ID is. It is a Philosophical argument, and not a scientific one.

Let's take a look at Behe's arguments for Irreduccable complexity. He uses the example of a mousetrap, which he says that we can not remove a part from without making it not work. But I can nail the parts into the floor instead of the base and give the base back to you. Now one can say that I am simply substituting a different base, and you'd be right, but this shows a general problem of IC (Irreduccable Complexity from now on... its hard to keep writing). This is a "God of the Gaps" argument. Everytime we show that we can remove a part, they can just say that our new state is actually IC. Any resemblance to Zeno's Paradox is apparently not intentional...

Meaning, that no matter how many times we disprove an IC system (like say hormones, cough cough) the IC proponent can just yell "Close but no cigar, because now THIS is IC!". Reducto ad Absrudum or whatever,

Next we can look at the problem of the 90 - 95% of useless genetics in the human genome. These pseudogenes resemble working genes but history has relegated them to a broken and useless existence because they no longer serve any purpose. Some of this comes from tandem duplication (unequal crossing over resulting in multiple copies of genes). Evolution predicts these (not sure if they can be properly called mutations) coming into and out of existence. Genetics provides the road to distinguish between true and psedugenes (by counting synonymous vs non-synonymous mutations). How does this represent Inteligent Design? 90-95% junk... that's a lot of junk. That seems like saying, "I have this awsome watch, it's just 95% useless parts that don't do anything and serve no purpose". Evolution not only allows for, but predicts this as a necessary byproduct. It does not seem ID can say the same.


These examples are just a few of my problems with the IC argument. Many more exist, like antibody development, the Kreb's cycle, etc. etc. These are all systems that IC has claimed are Iredduccably Complex, and yet once SCIENCE shows a mechanism whereby they can be explained as NOT being Irreduccably Complex, suddenly Behe and other proponents say "Oh no, that wasn't REALLY Iredducably Complex". So my open question: how do you recognize an irreducably complex system when "a system which can not function with the removal of any one of its parts" fails? Evolution argues that they were progressive adaptations of previously existing mechanisms, and has laboratiory evidence to back it up. ID, as a Philosophical argument, does not have nearly as strong evidence supporting it, and seems to NOT be in line with at the very least the 90% junk genome evidence above. Further, I'm going to go as far as saying it isn't even a strong Philosophical position, or at least the way people like Behe argue it, it isn't, because it simply falls into line of Zeno's Paradoxes.

==

ID is still creationism in disguise, and suffers tje same fallicious problem that Aristotle's first cause poses, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason, etc. If our life was designed by an intelligent designer, because intelligence seemingly implies complexity, then our life was designed by a more intelligent, more complex being, etc. etc. ad infinitum. You get to the point where you either have to say "There is a being that is NOT designed yet is intelligent enough to design other life", at which point you might as well say that the first starting point way before you started positing all these other intelligent beings back to that theoretical first one, was in fact intelligent but not designed (thus a self-defeating ID argument). Thank you Burrtrand Russell.


Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:You get to the point where you either have to say "There is a being that is NOT designed yet is intelligent enough to design other life"


First, why, why do you have to say that? Because he has more expansive intelligence and awareness somehow he must have been designed. Why? Because we believe that we were created by a being beyond our intelligence. I dont like to call it more intelligence. It is but it confines Him to the human sense of more and I believe that His more blows our more out of the water

Second
Its a syllogism or something isnt it?
We have intelligence
We were designed
God has intelligence
Therefore, God was designed

I hope I dont offend anyone but it is one of the first ones I learned:
Things that bleed for five days at the end of those days are dead
Things that are dead are buried
Women normally bleed for five days (a month)
Therefore, all women are dead and should be buried.
Lastly,
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--From Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
And I would add your science


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

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Hi Patriarch917, nice try but no cigar from me either. I think its fatal that ID creationists keep confusing inanimate objects with living beings. After all, where is the intelligent design in humans?



Open your eves, look around at whats happening in Iraq, Iran, Africa etcetc. Not good is it. Ill consider ID, when we achieve world peace.



Beefys quote does it for me we are in fact intelligent, but not designed



ubblol


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:Furthermore, one why the probability statistics of life are misleading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
br>


In essence, in Borel's own words (the statitician who is often drdged up as having said that 10^-50 was a cut-off point for probable happenings in pure coin-flip chance operations), these probability statistics are meaningless. I don't mean that in an insulting way, I just mean that: they mean nothing. The reasoning being because such staistics do not take into account non-random elements predetermined by the laws of physics and chemistry, they are meaningless. The above article will show why a common view that life is not "probable" is a falicious argument given what we know about basic chemical monomers forming polymers and then catalytic polymers (self-replicating). These are presented as having a probability close to 1. Further evolution of these basic elements past that point is lacking from the article.



However, it shows that thinking of early life as today's simplest bacteria is misleading, as this is 150 years out of date with current theory. At least the simple elements in the first few stages are almost assured to have composed themselves given the laws of chemistry. Beyond that I'm not exactly fluent and leave to others to research.



==



Why? ID's own premises. If you really want to go that route that's fine, but you have definitively stepped outside the bounds of science at that point. This is a philosophical discussion at this point, but I'll digress to help explain this point. An Intelligent Designer is theorized in this case because life is a complex system, and could not have been designed by an unintelligent thing, let's say a rock. Intelligence seems to imply a specific method of function: for instance there is a system to intelligence that is based on an inherrent complexity (for instance our intelligence arrises from the incredibly complex system of interconnecting neurons in our brains according to our current best scientific explanations...). Thus we have a bit of a problem.



That is, complexity implies intelligent design. Intelligence implies complexity. Circular logic, or at BEST an infinite regress of intelligence to explain ever increasing complexity. This is the first cause argument in another form (Some say a Cosmological Argument, though I say that it is such a clear relationship to a Telological Argument that the difference is very slim). Which is why I gave my reasoning for thinking it is better (and more parsimonious) to apply the "uncauses first cause" to the world, or the "undesigned first intelligence" to some natural lifeform than to supply a somewhat less plausible, less explicable, and less parsimonious supernatural explanation.



Which is why it doesn't work as science. Science implies certain things (without which science and all of it's findings are erroneous). One of those things is cause-effect. As this is an evolution / biology thread and not a metaphysics / theoretical physics thread, I hope that we may simply assume this for now without digressing into the cause-effect thread for deeper examination. Anywho, God by definition is "supernatural", meaning beyond the natural world and thus does not necessarily conform to such things as cause-effect, time, logic, etc. Thus as an explanatory force, explains nothing as it is outside of the given system.



You're syllogism, further, only demonstrates that the first premise is mistaken, or at least needs to be qualified. This is a DEDUCTIVE argumentand thus form-valid. Whether or not the content is valid is another matter. If you can show me that intelligence does not imply the complexity that IC argues means there is a designer, then you have not only defeated me, but yourself. That's a problem in the way the ID argument is formed, and why it isn't scientific: it requires that at least one part of itself does NOT conform to principles like cause-effect, logic, etc. And this is why it isn't science.



Piety is not a logical reason to imply something is wrong. I'm a natural skeptic, granted, but even a lot of the Medievals recognize the lack of strength such brute assertions have when discussing things logically. That's why they are religious and not philosophical, or science specifically. To say something is "basic", like say God, or "I think therefore I am", is to define your basic assumption. All knowledge rests on basic assumptions. The basic assumptions of science exclude supernatural phenomenon as being real.

EDITED_BY: i8beefy2 (1144709101)


Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: i8beefy2


The basic assumptions of science exclude supernatural phenomenon as being real.



That's not science, that's philisophical naturalism. Real science doesn't require committing youself to the assumption that a particular thing is true or not, since science itself is a method of searching for the truth.

One can say, perhaps, that the scientific method is incappable of finding out certain things (such as whether we were made by design, or by chance). However, one does not have to assume that the supernatural is not real in order to be a scientist.


Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

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


Can the Rushmore monument reproduce? Can pocket watches [reproduce]?




No. However, a reproducing pocket watch would be even better proof of an intelligent watchmaker than a regular watch, since it would clearly involve a more intricate design.


Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:Really? How many scientific theories do you know of that posit any sort of supernatural workings? Last I checked, science was confined to the natural universe. That isn't to say it can't infer things from its effects, but that is just the point: cause and effect is a necessary component. Supernatural phenomenon do not adhere to natural laws: therefore they are not part of the natural sciences.

Science is not a method of searching for the truth. Science is a method of developing models to explain how the natural world works. To assume that the finger pointing at the moon is the moon is a major mistake.

The scientific METHOD however has several assumptions that it makes. Actually, it has five, which can be expanded a bit.

The world is real.
The real world is knowable and comprehensible.
There are laws that govern the real world.
Those laws are knowable and comprehensible.
Those laws don't [radically] change according to place or time, since the early stages of the big bang.

If you step outside of these axioms, you step outside of science. Like say, positing a being who doesn't fit with "laws don't [radically] change according to place or time".

Another possible list:

Regularity. Events recur according to discoverable patterns.
Predictability. Future events can be predicted on the basis of past events.
Quantifiability. The universe can be described by simple mathematical relationships.
Causality. Events have discoverable causes.

Again, we have the problem where you have an unquantifiable relationship (God).

Science is a misleading term, as its short for "Natural Sciences". This is why science excludes supernatural phenomenon as being real. Once you step outside that bound, you aren't in the realm of science. You're in Religion, or Philosophy. Philosophy doesn't have such restrictions.

Which is why we should teach Philosophy in school as well as the natural sciences. smile


Delete

Chronofracture333


Chronofracture333

Hobo Gaylord
Location: I am worldwide and lush

Total posts: 329
Posted:CHINESE MUSIC





"Explain this happening!"



"It must have a 'natural' cause."



"It must have a 'supernatural' cause."



}Let these two asses be set to grind corn.



May, might, must, should, probably, may be, we may safely assume, ought, it is hardly questionable, almost certainly -- poor hacks! let them be turned out to grass!



Proof is only possible in mathematics, and mathematics is only a matter of arbitrary conventions.



And yet doubt is a good servant but a bad master; a perfect mistress, but a nagging wife.



"White is white" is the lash of the overseer; "white is black" is the watchword of the slave. The Master takes no heed.



The Chinese cannot help thinking that the octave has 5 notes.



The more necessary anything appears to my mind, the more certain it is that I only assert a limitation.



I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.





By FRATER PERDURABO





Reading through this thread reminded me of one of my favourite bits of poetry, just thought I'd share....


*no moves there are no moves there are no moves there are no moves there are no moves there are no*

"Oooh, what a shiny new move!"

Delete

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:In order to study the natural, one might have to assume that the natural exists. However, in order to study the natural, one does not have to assume that the supernatural does not exist.

Similarly, science is only capable of examining the things which humans can somehow sense and comprehend. This does not mean that a scientist must assume that things which he cannot sense or comprehend cannot exist.


Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:Oh dear God, we've brought the Occult writings of Mr Crowley in now... prepare for confusion smile

Delete

Page: 1...2122232425...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..