• You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...678910...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

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: spiralx



Wrong, sorry

Some sub-atomic particles decay; but certainly not all of them. Electrons and electron-neutrinos do not decay, protons may decay (but over incredibly long spans - their half-life is at least 10^32 years based on current evidence) and neutrons only decay if not bound up within an atomic nucleous.

So basically we'd only notice any kind of decay if protons do decay, and even then we'd have to wait for the Universe to be a thousand trillion trillion times as old as it is today for half of all protons to have decayed...





But, if matter had existed for ever, then all protons would have decayed by now.

However many thousand trillion, trillion...etc, times longer than the current estimated age of the universe the life-span of protons is; it's nothing compared to the infinite time-span of said matter having existed for ever.

Unless of course, we're assuming that the universe was created a set finite time ago- but, given that the notion of matter existing forever was brought to show that creation simply wasn't necessary (because, if matter has always existed it isn't in need of (in fact it can't be) created- then it's safe to assume that we're working on the hypothesis that any current matter has existed for an infinite length of time.

That being the case, the existence of particles like protons, if science has shown they have a finite life-span; effectively disproves the hypothsis.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:yes yes it was a QDA

but it was me with the whole entropy thing...

it's interesting having physics and biology and science in general taught by nuns and catholic school teachers

i was taught and believe that evolution is the how and the creationism (in the non crazy literalist group sense) is the why. intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. as was mentioned why not have it all designed and then give it all a good kick start (big bang) and then the system begins simply at first and then developing into more complex organisms. why can't a greater being have designed that? thus this being is the why it started and the evolution is how it continues even today
(oh and that whole in His image thing. that does not mean that He is human like in appearance. it is more like our humanity is in some way reminiscent of His divinity. we are creating problems, extinction is an alarmist view sort of like chicken little, but a Christian might say that it is because man cannot see clearly with the veil of sin in front of our eyes and so we destroy rather than create. we are created in His image and we each have great potential that very few people ever realize -mother theresa, ghandi, buddha, augustine, aquainus, oprah?-but it is still there and it is LIKE is image. like creating a simile-similar to but is not the object itself)


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

Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005

Patriarch917

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

Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: dream


One says that humanity is just one step from an omnipotent being

The other says we're just a complex organism which isn't really that special at all (except in our destructive capabilities)

As for 'we are like our mighty intelligent designer' or 'we are made in God's image'... No species which is currently altering environmental conditions so as to render itself extinct really has the right to call itself intelligent, let alone god-like.





I think your construction of the Bible's description of man is faulty. We are not one step below an omnipotent being, we are two steps ("a little lower than the angels" to quote the Bible).

And while it is true that man was originally created in God's image, that image was corrupted when man sinned. The reason we are not the good stewards of creation that we were originally commanded to be is because both we and creation were corrupted.


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:if we "were made in gods image" - this would implicate that the creator itself is corrupt umm or do I miss something?

the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:oh and by the way you can believe in intelligent design and evolution and one needs to be careful how one uses a creationist because many people think of those who are literalists and that may or may not be what you mean
a little offtopic


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, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:that might fit well into the free will forum
we have the choice to choose "good or evil" because you can't force someone to love you
but briefly and poorly explained
we are corrupt because after He created perfection on an earthly plane, we humans turned our back on him...some people describe God as complete Love an absence of Evil...we had the oppurtunity to feel the sun always on our face, but we stepped back into the shade and cowered at such Light
like i said poorly explained and hope someone, preferrably someone with similar beliefs so as the explination does not turn into a big sarcastic mess, might be able to explain it better...


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

Eminense


newbie
Location: Columbia, SC

Total posts: 5
Posted:Written by: Dream


Eminese... We've been over this already.



Natural selection and evolution are not one and the same thing.







I agree, however, I think you missed my point. Natural selection is the driving force for evolution even in a neo-darwinist view. The terms can be modified (e.g. punctuated equilibrium) but its still a manner of outlasting those incapable of adapting as quickly.



My point was to illustrate certain assumptions in naturalistic evolutionary theory that are no more scientific than to say that everything was teologically designed.



Written by: jeff(fake)


Theoretically organisms could have been intelligently designed at the begining. After that they would evolve in a neo-darwinian fashion. As I mentioned earlier though there simply isn't reason to supsect an intelligent designer.





Isn't the neo-darwinistic response a reason to suspect an intelligent designer? I don't mean for this to sound like an antagonistic or persnickety question. We formulate such theories based on the assumption of a coherent answer; absent an intelligent designer, why should there be an expectation of coherence in the natural order? To assert neo-darwinism is to appeal to a teleological argument which in its nature appeals to some sort of design.

EDITED_BY: Eminense (1138733678)


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Eminense

Written by: jeff(fake)

Eminese... We've been over this already.

Natural selection and evolution are not one and the same thing.





I didn't write that. Please be more careful with the quotation function

Written by: Eminense

My point was to illustrate certain assumptions in naturalistic evolutionary theory that are no more scientific than to say that everything was teologically designed.


The 'assumtions' of evolution are Heredity (offspring resembling parents) and Selection (organism which produce more offspring will have more offspring on average). Which of those two is unscientific?
Written by: Eminense

Written by: jeff(fake)

Theoretically organisms could have been intelligently designed at the begining. After that they would evolve in a neo-darwinian fashion. As I mentioned earlier though there simply isn't reason to supsect an intelligent designer.



Isn't the neo-darwinistic response a reason to suspect an intelligent designer? I don't mean for this to sound like an antagonistic or persnickety question. We formulate such theories based on the assumption of a coherent answer; absent an intelligent designer, why should there be an expectation of coherence in the natural order? To assert neo-darwinism is to appeal to a teleological argument which in its nature appeals to some sort of design.

Your post lacks a degree of coherence here, but I think that what you are asking is why do we assume that the world is ordered? The reason is that order is observable in the natural world. The sun rises ever day and water flows down hill. Likewise snow flakes form incredibly intricate and complex forms, all without the influence of a diety.
Written by: dream
One where you get pm's from Jeff saying your semantic wranglings mean that you're no longer talking about (his conception of) God.

Why call such a thing God?


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

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol, New Zealand

Total posts: 493
Posted:</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />

Natural selection is the driving force for evolution even in a neo-darwinist view





No. Neodarwinism is taking natural selection much further than Darwin ever intended... To the point where natural selection is evolution.



Are you talking about post-darwinism?



And who are you to tell people what is and isn't God. There are plenty of other faiths around the globe that worship natural systems as God(s). Or is this your perpetuation of Occidental cultural imperialism?

EDITED_BY: dream (1138733615)


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

Seye
SILVER Member since Mar 2005

Seye

Geek
Location: Manchester, UK

Total posts: 1261
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)

Written by: Seye
Jeff - "For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology." - This is an argument being used by some scientists in the US at the moment relating to the flagellum of a specific bacteria (this is a kind of "outboard motor" attached to the bacteria which cannot work without all 40 or so parts). Of course, this is not irreducible complexity though. It is just that we do not have any evidence of previous incarnations of such a creature. Its more to to with human stupidity than the lack of scientific ablity to prove the ID fanatics wrong.

There is a bacteria which uses a reduced flagellum motor as a means of toxin injection. It's a derived mechanism rather than a ancesteral form but it does show that the bacterial flagellus could have existed in a simpler form.


I know I was agreeing with you.
Hence - "Of course, this is not irreducible complexity though. It is just that we do not have any evidence of previous incarnations of such a creature. Its more to to with human stupidity than the lack of scientific ablity to prove the ID fanatics wrong."

Chill out man.
(insert other generic 'calm down' comments here)


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: dream

No. Neodarwinism is taking natural selection much further than Darwin ever intended... To the point where natural selection is evolution.


We mustn't forget the influences of sexual selection but that isn't really relevent to the discussion. The word evolution means change by defininition, even before Darwin had his big idea. Natural selection is selection by nature. Evolution occurs as the consequence of selection over time. Darwin's words are not considered law. Indeed he made many mistakes in his book, but these have since been corrected to create the modern concept of biological evolution. The errors in the Bible and Quran still stand however.
Written by: dream
And who are you to tell people what is and isn't God. There are plenty of other faiths around the globe that worship natural systems as God(s). Or is this your perpetuation of Occidental cultural imperialism?

I was happy talking this over in PMs dream. But the word God in our culture implies a consciousness and great supernatural power and knowledge. To transfer anouther cultures notion of the devine into ours and using the term God in a way that it isn't used in thier's is problematic.


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

Delete

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol, New Zealand

Total posts: 493
Posted:when posting on an global message forum, claiming the only schools of thought worth discussing are those of the White, Christian, Western European, male seems to me to be somewhat of a joke.

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

Eminense


newbie
Location: Columbia, SC

Total posts: 5
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)


I didn't write that. Please be more careful with the quotation function





Please accept my apologies...it was sloppy copy/pasting on my behalf. I've edited my original post.



Written by: jeff(fake)
The 'assumtions' of evolution are Heredity (offspring resembling parents) and Selection (organism which produce more offspring will have more offspring on average). Which of those two is unscientific?





None of the above as stated. This isn't my point of contention. The non-science as I percieve it is that these two assumptions can produce offspring of a species other than its predecessor.



Written by: jeff(fake)
Your post lacks a degree of coherence here, but I think that what you are asking is why do we assume that the world is ordered? The reason is that order is observable in the natural world. The sun rises ever day and water flows down hill. Likewise snow flakes form incredibly intricate and complex forms, all without the influence of a diety.





That isn't quite what I was asking. My question was more relating to the trascendental notion by which we arrive at the conclusion of order. You've addressed the empirical adequacy and experential relevance of the assumption...in other words, we've verified order, but have yet to justify it. If there is no design, then there is no basis to assume that the order as we percieve it will continue as we've observed. We assume it will because we have a telos in mind, and we construe order to adhere to it...but still, we are appealing to the telos.



Written by: dream




No. Neodarwinism is taking natural selection much further than Darwin ever intended... To the point where natural selection is evolution.





This isn't how I understood Neodarwinism, but I'm open for enlightenment. My understanding was that under Neodarwinism, evolution occurred primarily through mutations and genetic predispositions - still a form of natural selection; but I don't see how the two can be equivalent.



I am unfamiliar with the term "post-darwinism" so I may very well be confusing the issues.





Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: faithinfire



i was taught and believe that evolution is the how and the creationism (in the non crazy literalist group sense) is the why. intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. as was mentioned why not have it all designed and then give it all a good kick start (big bang) and then the system begins simply at first and then developing into more complex organisms. why can't a greater being have designed that? thus this being is the why it started and the evolution is how it continues even today
(oh and that whole in His image thing. that does not mean that He is human like in appearance. it is more like our humanity is in some way reminiscent of His divinity. we are creating problems, extinction is an alarmist view sort of like chicken little, but a Christian might say that it is because man cannot see clearly with the veil of sin in front of our eyes and so we destroy rather than create. we are created in His image and we each have great potential that very few people ever realize -mother theresa, ghandi, buddha, augustine, aquainus, oprah?-but it is still there and it is LIKE is image. like creating a simile-similar to but is not the object itself)




Yes, it can be said that evolution and creationism are compatible- though a fundamentalist couldn't as they believe things which aren't compatible.

But,fundamentalists aside, rather than the traditional view of God creating the Earth, it could be argued that he simply set everything up at the 'Big-Bang' and that the entire thing was automatic from then on.

However, many scientists may be reluctant to do so because-

1. As God has historically been driven back, step-by-step, as each new discovery of how processes previously assumed to require His intervention, have in fact been seen to have purely causal/scientific explanations- once He's been pushed back to the 'Big-Bang' they just question whether He's actually required at all.

2. Historically of course, scientists have been hounded, oppressed, censored and put to death by ignorant fundamentalist regimes- possibly the biggest cause of slowing scientific progress has been religious interference. I suspect that this lurks at the back of many scientists minds- they've basically had enough of what they see as interfering nonsense

3. Whilst creationism and evolution are compatible, we still need some really solid evidence to support creationism.

In particular, Patriarch, I think, if you wish to promote the creationist account, you should address the following two points which have arisen on multiple occasions in thsi thread-

a. why is the christian creationist account any more plausible than other creationist accounts (including the sphagetti monster account, which, though humerous, is raising a serious question- why is the christian account more plausible than just making up any random creation accont)

b. is there anything which can disprove creationism?

Written by: jeff(fake)


For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology. But by what means could intelligent design be disproven? Without providing a mechanism by which it can be disproved then it remains a matter of faith.



if yes, then what is it?

If no, then why do you think that creationism should be allowed to waiver this fairly fundamental requirement for scientific theories?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

jo_rhymes
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

jo_rhymes

Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdo...

Total posts: 4525
Posted:I think it's a certainty evolution happens. There's no denying it, so why argue about it? However, just because evolution occurs doesn't dispute the fact there's a God. Why do they have to contradict each other?

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

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:There isn't a contradiction- scientifically speaking evolution has been demonstrated; when creationists produce some evidence or reasonng to substantiate their claims, we can maybe get to work with incorporating them.

As far as I can see, they're too busy attacking aspects of evolution to actually come up with valid evidence or reasoning to substaniate the view that God created the world.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

jo_rhymes
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

jo_rhymes

Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdo...

Total posts: 4525
Posted:The problem with finding "evidence" for the argument of God, in my opinion, is it's subjective. What do you want as evidence? People have a pre-conceived view of God, and if you're looking for a pre-conceived God, then you won't find it. And continually reject anything that opposes your truth.
For me, evidence of God is everywhere. smile


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

Delete

Seye
SILVER Member since Mar 2005

Seye

Geek
Location: Manchester, UK

Total posts: 1261
Posted:Evidence of God is everywhere if you want it to be.

Evidence of lots of other things is only there when the police turn up...


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: dream

when posting on an global message forum, claiming the only schools of thought worth discussing are those of the White, Christian, Western European, male seems to me to be somewhat of a joke.

I'm actually slightly hurt by this. I wasn't discussing other culture's origin stories because noone has brought them up yet. I thought you were joking when you called me a diety fascist... frown


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, USA

Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave

In particular, Patriarch, I think, if you wish to promote the creationist account, you should address the following two points which have arisen on multiple occasions in thsi thread-

a. why is the christian creationist account any more plausible than other creationist accounts (including the sphagetti monster account, which, though humerous, is raising a serious question- why is the christian account more plausible than just making up any random creation accont)

b. is there anything which can disprove creationism?

Written by: jeff(fake)


For something to be considered science then it has to give some practicle way by which it could be disproven. Evolution could be disproven if a truely irriductibly complex system could be found in biology. But by what means could intelligent design be disproven? Without providing a mechanism by which it can be disproved then it remains a matter of faith.



if yes, then what is it?

If no, then why do you think that creationism should be allowed to waiver this fairly fundamental requirement for scientific theories?



a. The Bibles account is plausible because it does a good job of interpreting the evidence we find, is capable of being disproved, but has not been disproved. The next best rival theory, materialistic evolution, has serious flaws that make it very difficult to believe.
The spaghetti monster is not on par with the Bibles account, or evolution, since it claims that no experiment can be devised to disprove it.

b. the Creation account makes two predictions that could be disproved by observable, repeatable experiments.

First, the Bible says that animals reproduce after their own kind. We know that through natural and artificial breeding, huge variations in the manifested characteristics can be derived. For example, we have all different sorts of dogs. In order to disprove creation, one need merely observe dogs naturally turning into a different kind of animal, such as a cat.

A second prediction is that all humans have descended from a group of 8 common ancestors (and those 8 were descended from just two common ancestors a little further back.) If we could find that a branch of humans developed from a genetic source that is different from the rest of us (a different sort of monkey), this would disprove the creation account.

Does evolution make predictions that can be disproved?

Irreducible complexity seems to depend too much on the eye of the beholder. Is it not true that the simplest possible life form is itself an irreducibly complex system, requiring many simultaneous features to be present in order to sustain itself?
Bat wings seem to be another easy to understand candidate for something that is unlikely to have developed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that rat like creatures could have given birth to many generations with gradually larger and larger webbed forepaws that were not suited for either running, swimming, or flying. Ockhams Razor seems to suggest that the wings sprang up in a useful form at once.

However, most evolutionists are comfortable accepting that such things happened consistently, over and over again, for every feature we observed today. As a historical matter, this cannot be disproved. It must be accepted on faith.

Creationism, and Intelligent Design, do not waive the fundamental requirement of disprovable predictions any more than evolution does. It is not at all strange to find that many people accept them as being more plausible, and there is no justification for the government banning students from learning about them.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: jo_rhymes

The problem with finding "evidence" for the argument of God, in my opinion, is it's subjective. What do you want as evidence? People have a pre-conceived view of God, and if you're looking for a pre-conceived God, then you won't find it. And continually reject anything that opposes your truth.
For me, evidence of God is everywhere. smile



What I want is evidence for Gods existence.

(actually, it's not what I want, I feel no need whatsoever to be convinced- it's what creationists are going to have to produce if they want their ideas to be given scientific credence).

Bear in mind that you can't simply present the 'world' as evidence for God's existence, as there are currently scientific theories that account for the worlds existence just as well as the creationists view.

As a starting point, given that God is being invoked to explain the existence of the world, could you perhaps explain where God came from? Because otherwise you're just replacing one inexplicable with another.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
First, the Bible says that animals reproduce after their own kind. We know that through natural and artificial breeding, huge variations in the manifested characteristics can be derived. For example, we have all different sorts of dogs. In order to disprove creation, one need merely observe dogs naturally turning into a different kind of animal, such as a cat.

This is a basic misunderstanding of nature. 'Species' is just a convienient grouping name, like genus or class, based on recent descent. After all some taxonomists insist that birds should be classified as reptiles, it's just historical reasons we class them in a group of thier own. It would be impossible for one organism to change into a completly different one, like a dog into a cat. Evolution only works through descent, like a wolf into a dog, to provide an example of one species becoming anouther.
Written by: Patriach917

A second prediction is that all humans have descended from a group of 8 common ancestors (and those 8 were descended from just two common ancestors a little further back.) If we could find that a branch of humans developed from a genetic source that is different from the rest of us (a different sort of monkey), this would disprove the creation account.

a:human's evolved from an ape. In fact we are still apes.
b:the most recent common ancestor of humans is reconed to have lived about 150 000 years ago, much, much later than our most recent relative with the chimp genus.
Written by: Patriarch917

Bat wings seem to be another easy to understand candidate for something that is unlikely to have developed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that rat like creatures could have given birth to many generations with gradually larger and larger webbed forepaws that were not suited for either running, swimming, or flying. Ockhams Razor seems to suggest that the wings sprang up in a useful form at once.

You're right, they would be crap for runnin' or swimmin'. But they would be freakin great for gliding. Really now. rolleyes


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

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917



b. the Creation account makes two predictions that could be disproved by observable, repeatable experiments.

First, the Bible says that animals reproduce after their own kind. We know that through natural and artificial breeding, huge variations in the manifested characteristics can be derived. For example, we have all different sorts of dogs. In order to disprove creation, one need merely observe dogs naturally turning into a different kind of animal, such as a cat.





So, if we observed, under scientific conditions, a dog turn into a cat over, say, a period of an hour- do you think that creationists would consider themselves disproved?

Personally, I have doubts, I suspect that most of them would cite it as a 'miracle' and claim it as proof of Gods existence.

Waht do you think?


Written by: Patriarch917

Irreducible complexity seems to depend too much on the eye of the beholder. Is it not true that the simplest possible life form is itself an irreducibly complex system, requiring many simultaneous features to be present in order to sustain itself?
Bat wings seem to be another easy to understand candidate for something that is unlikely to have developed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that rat like creatures could have given birth to many generations with gradually larger and larger webbed forepaws that were not suited for either running, swimming, or flying. Ockham&#8217;s Razor seems to suggest that the wings sprang up in a useful form at once.

However, most evolutionists are comfortable accepting that such things happened consistently, over and over again, for every feature we observed today. As a historical matter, this cannot be disproved. It must be accepted on faith.

Creationism, and Intelligent Design, do not waive the &#8220;fundamental requirement&#8221; of disprovable predictions any more than evolution does. It is not at all strange to find that many people accept them as being more plausible, and there is no justification for the government banning students from learning about them.



I don't thnk the bat thing is a matter of faith- certain tree squirrels have gliding ability due to skin flaps joining their front legs to their back ones.

It's easy to see how such squirrels born with slightly larger flaps would have a survival advantage, possibly leading, over millenia, to fully functioning wings.

As for the government ban, it's probably based partly on precedent- the corruption, ignorance and cruelty inflicted on the scientific community by fundamentalist and oppressive religious regimes over several hundreds of years.

Historically, religious organisations have shown themselves to be not worthy of any kind of power- they are heavily mistrusted by much of the population.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Ade
SILVER Member since Mar 2001

Are we there yet?
Location: australia

Total posts: 1897
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917

Bat wings seem to be another easy to understand candidate for something that is unlikely to have developed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that rat like creatures could have given birth to many generations with gradually larger and larger webbed forepaws that were not suited for either running, swimming, or flying. Ockhams Razor seems to suggest that the wings sprang up in a useful form at once.




I give you the pentadactyl limb

Here's a link to some info in it:
Pentadactyl limb information


Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave
But, if matter had existed for ever, then all protons would have decayed by now.

However many thousand trillion, trillion...etc, times longer than the current estimated age of the universe the life-span of protons is; it's nothing compared to the infinite time-span of said matter having existed for ever.

Unless of course, we're assuming that the universe was created a set finite time ago- but, given that the notion of matter existing forever was brought to show that creation simply wasn't necessary (because, if matter has always existed it isn't in need of (in fact it can't be) created- then it's safe to assume that we're working on the hypothesis that any current matter has existed for an infinite length of time.


Which would put you apart from almost every physicist on the planet - steady-state theorists are vanishingly rare nowadays, relying on extremely speculative hypotheses in order to overcome fairly fundamental objections like Olber's paradox.

The Big Bang seems fairly solid, which implies that matter hasn't existed for an infinite time smile

Written by: onewheeldave
That being the case, the existence of particles like protons, if science has shown they have a finite life-span; effectively disproves the hypothsis.


To be honest the proton thing is a bit of a red herring really, seeing as how they're made up of up and down quarks, and those do not decay. So you've got all of the particles in the first family of the Standard Model (up and down quarks, electrons, electron-neutrinoes and all their antiparticles), all of which could in theory exist for an infinite amount of time.

Oh and the fact that these particles do not decay isn't due to showing that creation was unnecessary (which would be an odd goal for physicists who believe in the Big Bang anyway), it's to do with whether energetic pathways exist that allow decay while preserving various conservation laws e.g. conservation of energy, lepton number and colour.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: dream
From the OED



Written by:
Macroevolution



1.Major evolutionary change, usually over a long period; the evolution of genera or higher taxa.



1937 T. DOZHANSKY Genetics & Origin of Species i. 12 For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and micro-evolution









poor paranoid neodarwinists... they think the whole world's full of irrational ID types.



hug



Macroevolution is nothing more than a lot of steps of microevolution, where the end result is something obvious enough to be called a different species. Theories of orthogenetic evolution in which macroevolution is qualititively different from microevolution have long been discarded, they simply don't have any good case nowadays.



The whole micro/macroevolution argument is a red herring trotted out by IDers in order to claim to support the evidence available while not accepting its consequences.

EDITED_BY: spiralx (1138802366)


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.

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

Delete

jo_rhymes
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

jo_rhymes

Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdo...

Total posts: 4525
Posted:This topic amuses me. ok, evolution happens..granted. ok, God is out there (perhaps!). Some people disagree, some people agree.
What's the problem?! rolleyes


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

Delete

Seye
SILVER Member since Mar 2005

Seye

Geek
Location: Manchester, UK

Total posts: 1261
Posted:Written by: jo_rhymes

This topic amuses me. ok, evolution happens..granted. ok, God is out there (perhaps!). Some people disagree, some people agree.
What's the problem?! rolleyes


I have to admit that I am slightly scared that people believe in various religions or religious beliefs. To me its the equivalent of people still insisting that the world is flat or that the sun goes round the earth.
I am against anything that has no logical reasoning behind it.
(i.e. we shouldnt be trying to disprove the existence of God - there has never even been a shred of evidence to support the idea so there is nothing to disprove)

If I was in the US I think I'd be enraged by it to the point of political campaigning to keep ID out of schools.

I live in the UK though where even most of the people who claim to be religious only think about it when someone asks them. Even then most of them will have views that are totally out of line with whatever faith they are supposed to be affiliated to.

Apathy does have its good side...


Delete

jo_rhymes
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

jo_rhymes

Momma Bear
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdo...

Total posts: 4525
Posted:I agree with you their Seye, I'm one of those people who is spiritual in their own time and space. it's a private thing. I wouldnt impose my beliefs on anyone.
My parents aren't religious at all, and neither am i really. I just believe in Love, Light and Energy (what some people call God). It doesnt make me naive or stupid, just keeps me keeping on!
If they started teaching ID in the UK, yeah I'd have to get a protest board with you!
There's belief and there's truth. And truth is always more important smile


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

Delete

Page: 1...678910...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..