1
   

Intelligent design Vs Evolution

 
 
derve7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 05:45 pm
au, are you serious with that reply to your sides theory of our occular system.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 05:52 pm
The question is a very simple one. You made a claim. All I'm doing is trying to get a specific answer. Again, Show us what theory is being taught as "fact?"

If you are unable to specify what you claim is scientific theory as fact, and you can't back up that claim, you are the one missing the point.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 06:09 pm
Derve7
There is much evidence of evolution and not one shred that supports there being creator.
I am not saying that one does not exist however, that is based upon wishful thinking rather than proof. To use as proof the premise if I can't disprove it-it must be so is the same as believing in the tooth fairy.
0 Replies
 
derve7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 06:14 pm
ci, evolution is a theory taught as fact. Is that simple enough for you?
0 Replies
 
derve7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 06:23 pm
au, I'm not going to dispute that believing in God takes faith. I would say that it takes more faith to believe that a cell, against obsurd odds, materialized all by itself. Just because. Micro organisms such as bacteria are so amazingly detailed that it's hard for me to take seriously anyone who could think they just evolved with no plan. It's a far more preposterous statement than saying something (God) designed it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 07:49 pm
derve, How difficult was that? Evolution as a theory is supported by evidence in many fields of science. It's your fault that you don't wish to accept those facts.

You prefer to believe in a two thousand year old book about creation that has nothing to support it.

Your ability to balance evolutionary fact as unproved and your bible as fact is quite a feat. What other comic books do you believe are true?
0 Replies
 
Algis Kemezys
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 08:27 pm
The Cheriots of the GODS is still the best evidence of something pretty fishy and I don't mean something that came from the water.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 08:45 pm
derve, Read this piece by timber - posted on another thread on a2k.

timber wrote:
What the ID-iuots miss is the definition of a scientific theory. Their Creation/ID fairytale simply doesn't make the cut; it does not, and by the nature of its foundational core thesis cannot, fullfil the requirements. It is theology, not science. Period.

Ignorance drives the perception and contention that there is or can be a debate on the issue. The uneducated assume that something categorized a theory equates to a guess. In the real world of academics, a Scientific Theory is no "Guess" at all; it is something that has been extensively researched, conforms to the observed data, adequately serves both as descriptive and predictive, is not contraindicated, and is assumed to be the best available explanation of the issue at question; it is accepted as true.

A Scientific Law is a concise statement of fact, demonstrably true and descriptive or explanatory of some particular given thing, condition, or state of being. Scientific laws typically take the form of mathematic equations, often a single mathematic equation.

A Scientific Hypothesis best may be characterized as an educated guess, supported through deductive and inductive reasoning developed from critical consideration of observed evidence, and typically pertains to one specific single event or phenomenon. A valid hypothesis will conform to Scientific Laws and will meet expectations through either or both experiment or continued observation.

A Scientific Theory very nearly equates to a Scientific Law; it is based on a concatenation of validated hypotheses and proven laws, is readilly duplicable and has been multiply independently verified and demonstrated to consistently perform to expectation by unafilliated researchers over a period of time. Only a consensus of scientists, working through to the same conclusions using the same methodology, may establish a theory, one scientist or even a small group of scientists cannot estsblish a theory; an individual or smaller group may at best present a hypothesis.

A Scientific Law and a Scientific Hypothesis may be though of as components, sorta like the parts and sub-assemblies of a complex machine; any of them may be modified, ehanced, even replaced with a redesigned, improved sub-assembly or component, yet the complex machine remains essentially unchanged and continues as before to perform its design function.

A redesigned, improved windshield wiper assembly installed in place of one of earlier design and manufacture does not alter the fact a Buick is a Buick, nor materially alter the way that Buick performs its purpose; it simply improves the Buick's accomplishment of its design purpose. Its still a Buick, just a little bit better than it had been prior to the installation of the redesigned, improved parts.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 09:05 pm
I've been curious about the whole ID theory. If we are all created by a more "intelligent" creator, does that mean we are nothing more than a science experiment?

If, according to sucj beliefs there was one, and all created from that one, does that mean he/she used cloning?

If, as some people say, we should not teach theories, ie ID and that Darwin should also not be taught becuase it too is theory, does that mean we cannot teach the theory of relativety?

Some of you have viewed me as a right winger, now, to realy mess you up, I don't believe that ID should be taught in a science class. Conversely, I do not believe that religious discuss should be avoided in school either. I fee that if the discussion comes around, it should be discussed. However, and this is the tricky part, the teachwer should not inflict their belief. The teacher should only monitor thediscussion and ask questions that provoke thought.
0 Replies
 
derve7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 09:59 pm
I went away for a while. Don't you guys have lives? I'll try to go through all these answers that didn't really answer any of the points I brought up.
I still haven't heard any real answers, except for "you just base your beliefs on God". A typical liberal response to logic and reason. Lets deal with these issues point by point. Keep in mind that all I'm saying is that all this didn't just happen. It's absolutely impossible to explain away the mathematical odds against spontaneous life. Just read a little about the odds of one dna strand forming in some green pond. At least that's the theory for now. Until creation scientists blow them away and they have to come up with a new origin. Anyone that discounts design as a fairytale such as timber is not on the cutting edge of the debate. The fact that things show design has nothing to do with Bible. It has everything to do with evidence. Let's start with one point at a time so we don't get bogged down. I would really like to hear someone successfully deal with the odds of spontaneous life. They are truly astronomical numbers against it and these numbers are accepted on both sides.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 11:03 pm
What has "astronomical numbers" have anything to do with creation? Just because you think it's such a big number? That's your only offering?

We must believe in creation, because the chances for evolution is outstripped by the huge numbers?

You talk about logic and reason as if you understand the concept. LOL

Point by point? You really didn't offer anything.

1) "All this just didn't happen." Show proof that it didn't. 2) "It's impossible to explain away the mathematical odds..." Since you can't explain it, somebody must have designed it. 3) "Just read a little about the odds of one dna strand forming in some green pond." Please show us where to read this. 4) Anyone that discounts design as a fairytale such as timber is not on the cutting edge of debate." And you think you are? ROFLMAO

It's you who needs a life. Start with burning that comic book you call a bible, and you'll begin your life for real.

You lack logic, common sense, debating skills, and evidence for your claims. "Point by point." What a laugh!
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 11:10 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
What has "astronomical numbers" have anything to do with creation? Just because you think it's such a big number? That's your only offering?

We must believe in creation, because the chances for evolution is outstripped by the huge numbers?

You talk about logic and reason as if you understand the concept. LOL

Point by point? You really didn't offer anything.

1) "All this just didn't happen." Show proof that it didn't. 2) "It's impossible to explain away the mathematical odds..." Since you can't explain it, somebody must have designed it. 3) "Just read a little about the odds of one dna strand forming in some green pond." Please show us where to read this. 4) Anyone that discounts design as a fairytale such as timber is not on the cutting edge of debate." And you think you are? ROFLMAO

It's you who needs a life. Start with burning that comic book you call a bible, and you'll begin your life for real.

You lack logic, common sense, debating skills, and evidence for your claims. "Point by point." What a laugh!

Mr. Cicerone Imposter,

And how are you tonight fine sir? Laughing

Mr. C.I., I didn't know making fun of others was actually part of a good debate. http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/mad/011.gif Can you tell me where I can find the rules that state this?http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/sad/1346.gif

Mr. Cicerone Imposter, I really wish you didn't think of the Bible as a comic book. It is not a comic book.http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/mad/511.gif It is the Word of God and it really does offend some when you call it a comic book.

I hope you have a good night, Mr. Cicerone Imposter.http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/love/409.gif
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 11:29 pm
derve7 wrote:
I went away for a while. Don't you guys have lives? I'll try to go through all these answers that didn't really answer any of the points I brought up.
I still haven't heard any real answers, except for "you just base your beliefs on God". A typical liberal response to logic and reason. Lets deal with these issues point by point. Keep in mind that all I'm saying is that all this didn't just happen. It's absolutely impossible to explain away the mathematical odds against spontaneous life. Just read a little about the odds of one dna strand forming in some green pond. At least that's the theory for now. Until creation scientists blow them away and they have to come up with a new origin. Anyone that discounts design as a fairytale such as timber is not on the cutting edge of the debate. The fact that things show design has nothing to do with Bible. It has everything to do with evidence. Let's start with one point at a time so we don't get bogged down. I would really like to hear someone successfully deal with the odds of spontaneous life. They are truly astronomical numbers against it and these numbers are accepted on both sides.


You could have saved time by just posting the following:

"Okay, so who wants to waste their time trying to convince me that my moronic unsubstantiated drivel is wrong? I'll never address anything you say directly, or respond with anything even resembling rational thought, and I promise to take precious moments of your life away with absolutely nothing to be gained for you but a headache. So what do you say? Who's up for some aggravation?"
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 02:23 am
derve, with all respect, partner, the "Debate" exists only in the minds of the ID-iots. Statistically, over 99.8% of Earth Scientists endorse the standard model of evolution. Your argument against evolution simply has no basis apart from ignorance and religionist agenda.

I love your statement " ... Until creation scientists blow them away and they have to come up with a new origin ... "; I submit that firstly never has any such thing ever happened, and secondly that never can any such thing happen. To begin with, ID-iocy is not science, by any defintition, academic or legal, and then there is the insurmountable problem of there being no empirical research conductable under the tenets of ID-iocy, which is theology, not science. Not one, as in zero, zip, nada, none, instance of academically valid, peer-reviewed, accepted-and-published, investigated and duplicated piece of original Creationist/ID-iot research ever has been published. Not one, not ever - because there simply isn't any.

At this point, ID-iots often point to the infamous Meyers "Pre-Cambrian Explosion article" ... please do. The article has been withdrawn, repudiated by the journal which published it, and the editor who authorized its publication was terminated. Here is what the journal had to say of the article's publication:

Quote:
The Biological Society of Washington
September 7, 2004

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings. (emphasis added by timber)

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.
According to the PBSW's instructions for contributors, "Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees." It seems, therefore, that Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure.


Momma Angel wrote:
I didn't know making fun of others was actually part of a good debate ...

"Making fun of others" isn't a particularly well-regarded orensic technique, however, exposing to ridicule an assinine argument is perfectly legitimate. Generally the best way to deal with an absurdity is to demonstrate its inherent absurdity.
MA, going on disingenuously wrote:
I really wish you didn't think of the Bible as a comic book. It is not a comic book. It is the Word of God and it really does offend some when you call it a comic book

Granted the Bible is not a comic book; it has no illustrations. It is, however, a collection and redaction of myths common to the cultures of the Levant, Egypt, Greece, and the Mesopotamian Plains ... seasoned with a bit of (often mangled) history, but with no authentication or claim to authority other than that provided within itself. Now, I'll be the first to say that its a monumentally significant sociocultural artifact, deserving of great respect for the literary and philosophic traditions it has preserved, and worthy of respectful consideration for the impact it has had on humankind's development over the past 3 millenia or so, but thats it. Appreciated, respected, yes ... "The Word of God" ... says who? Says it. Period.

I'll repeat that while powerful, compelling arguments for the Christian Proposition can and have been made, none have been evidenced by any posting here on behalf of that proposition. The support so far offered here for that proposition, from an academic and forensic stadpoint, has been worthy of all the scorn and ridicule it has recieved on these pages. No doubt many, if not even overwhelmingly most, of the adherents of and apologists for that proposition on this forum are fine persons of excellent character and good intention. That in no way alters the fact support for the Christian Proposition, as presented in the discussions on these boards, predominantly has been pathetic, ridiculous, and fully deserving of dismissal and contempt, with occasional forays into such patent absurdity as to be considered inspired humor.
0 Replies
 
derve
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 07:48 am
I'm not trying to offend. I'm not even trying to win souls. I'm just trying to get you to explain how even one dna at the odds of 1x10 to the 40,000th could form by itself, millions and millions of times. This is just one aspect of the mathematical, factual odds against such a thing happening all by itself. These are #'s reported by secular journals as well. There are many board registered secular scientists who change there view from evolution to design(some with and some without God), but you would be hard pressed to find creation scientists make a change. All I am saying at this point is that according to physicists #'s ,it is mathematically impossible to say it happened with no cause.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 09:08 am
Evolution and life-system origins have nothing to do with each other. One is a means of passing on information with modification, the other is a theory about how it all began. Noone has the answer.
(PS what is a board certified scientist?)

All we can do is collect and analyze dat and evidence.
1We see numbers of key nucleotides in the spectra of distant galaxies. Does this imply purpose or is it an inescapable conclusion of a series of chemical reactions?

2The tropsch process can take very small molecules of carbon and Hydrogen (similar to our early atmosphere) and generate complex sugars, and with Nitrogen present as a later impurity, can generate nucleotides

3 Nucleotides in a wet clay maatrix (specifically bonding clays called smectites) can generate self replicating molecules that contain nucleotides and sugars

4Earliest life could have been almost entirely RNA. We often talk of an RNA world as a precursor to life before cells and nuclei.

5Fossils of earliest life "indcators" have found that life preferes using C12 instead of C13 in its structure. We have evidence of carbonaceous shales in the upper Canadian shield and Greenland that C12 enriched sediments existed with remnants of apatite and some other minerals that occur with biological remnants.
6Today is Thursday, because science hasnt gotten the answers for you today, check in next week, (no wait the labs are closed for the hol;idays) Maybe well have something for you after the beginning of the year.

Your argument is one of "one sided" equation tripping. Its a familiar one "Because you cannot answer this by your fancy "science", The real answer is.... (add super powerful special friend's name here)

There is work being done all over trying to see whether klife can spontaneously generate in the proper conditions. (This has some opportunities to be of modest use in things like medicine and robotics).
The large numbers of "Impossibility " hat you wish to use as "proof" must be modified with an understanding of every single molecule of carbon/ water/nitrogen salts and phosphorous salts on the planet. Each of these serve as a point of reaction to achieve life. So, if you wanna talk some bigass numbers think about the mass of the earth and the periodic table.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 09:24 am
I cant believe this thread existed contemporaneously with ABUZZ . I just sawit and Its neat how (MOST) everyone here saw the meaning of ID and presaged Judge Jones decision of 12/20. I suppose that the arguments will persist but the air of any acquired credibility by the IDers has been officially sanctioned by a federal judge.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 09:48 am
derve wrote:
I'm not trying to offend. I'm not even trying to win souls. I'm just trying to get you to explain how even one dna at the odds of 1x10 to the 40,000th could form by itself, millions and millions of times. This is just one aspect of the mathematical, factual odds against such a thing happening all by itself. These are #'s reported by secular journals as well. There are many board registered secular scientists who change there view from evolution to design(some with and some without God), but you would be hard pressed to find creation scientists make a change. All I am saying at this point is that according to physicists #'s ,it is mathematically impossible to say it happened with no cause.

There are several answers to this "dilemma."

One, which Farmerman addressed, is that the probability postulated here is wrong. New research is ongoing.

Another is that the universe is a wide, wide, old, old place. If life fails to form 1x10^40,000 times, no one is there to observe it. When life finally forms the 1x10^40,000 + 1th time, why it evolves, looks around, and says "well, golly, WTF just happened?"

You have here an observer phenomenon. The only time the process is observed, or even looked for, is when the process is "successful."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 09:50 am
Not to mention the gazillions of star stystems available for the try, try again method . . .
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 04:18 pm
Setanta wrote:
Not to mention the gazillions of star stystems available for the try, try again method . . .



Don't mention my method, or there will be a population explosion - that ain't no rocket in my pocket. Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Creationism and public schools - Question by plainoldme
Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Fighting to end Creationism - Discussion by rosborne979
Evolution VS. Creationism - Discussion by Palatidd
Creator - Question by Ali phil
A question about intelligent design - Discussion by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/18/2019 at 03:02:56