3
   

Intelligent Design Theory Solution

 
 
Secret Agent Man
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 10:26 am
Well, the separation of church and state will keep the government from forcing what Sunday School teaches. Public schools, on the other hand, is a different story. I believe that the schools should teach the facts as facts and theories as theories. Saying that creation (intelligent design, etc.) is fact or saying that evolution is fact is simply lying to the students. Teach the students all of the facts, and let the students come to their own conclusions.

I'm new, by the way.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 10:40 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
o.k, someone present one piece of credible evidence for evolution....just one.


The fossil record is just one of many credible pieces of evidence for evolution.
0 Replies
 
Milfmaster9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 03:05 pm
Yea why did god create dinosaurs... To test us!!!
0 Replies
 
Secret Agent Man
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 03:59 pm
Re: rosborne979
rosborne979 wrote:
The fossil record is just one of many credible pieces of evidence for evolution.

To which fossil record are you referring to? Could you perhaps give us a source (preferably a web site) that can verify your statement?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:20 pm
Re: rosborne979
Secret Agent Man wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
The fossil record is just one of many credible pieces of evidence for evolution.

To which fossil record are you referring to? Could you perhaps give us a source (preferably a web site) that can verify your statement?


Here are a couple for starters.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 06:43 pm
Re: rosborne979
Secret Agent Man wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
The fossil record is just one of many credible pieces of evidence for evolution.

To which fossil record are you referring to? Could you perhaps give us a source (preferably a web site) that can verify your statement?


I'm not referring to a written record of fossils. I'm referring to the fossils themselves as a record of life on this planet.

Just as a tree ring record tells us things about the life of the tree, so the fossil record tells us things about the life which existed long ago.

Much of what we find in the fossil record is predicted by evolutionary theory, and is therefor a piece of evidence which supports evolution (Scientific theories must make predictions).

In addition, despite countless fosssil discoveries, not a single one has ever been confirmed which conflicts with the general theory of evolution.

But, to list just one example of evidence for evolution as originally requested, doesn't do the body of evidence justice, for one of the hallmarks of evolutionary theory is the very fact that it is exceedingly multi-disciplinary. Many many overlapping scientific disciplines support the theory with not a single one in conflict. Together they weave an undeniable proof, far beyond any reasonable doubt. And that is why Evolution is a fact. To even attempt to deny evolution is to question the very nature of reality and of our ability to deal with it. And if that's the game people want to play, then we're no longer talking science, we're talking philosophy.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 12:51 am
Re: rosborne979
rosborne979 wrote:
Secret Agent Man wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
The fossil record is just one of many credible pieces of evidence for evolution.

To which fossil record are you referring to? Could you perhaps give us a source (preferably a web site) that can verify your statement?


I'm not referring to a written record of fossils. I'm referring to the fossils themselves as a record of life on this planet.

Just as a tree ring record tells us things about the life of the tree, so the fossil record tells us things about the life which existed long ago.

Much of what we find in the fossil record is predicted by evolutionary theory, and is therefor a piece of evidence which supports evolution (Scientific theories must make predictions).

In addition, despite countless fosssil discoveries, not a single one has ever been confirmed which conflicts with the general theory of evolution.

But, to list just one example of evidence for evolution as originally requested, doesn't do the body of evidence justice, for one of the hallmarks of evolutionary theory is the very fact that it is exceedingly multi-disciplinary. Many many overlapping scientific disciplines support the theory with not a single one in conflict. Together they weave an undeniable proof, far beyond any reasonable doubt. And that is why Evolution is a fact. To even attempt to deny evolution is to question the very nature of reality and of our ability to deal with it. And if that's the game people want to play, then we're no longer talking science, we're talking philosophy.


The fossil record doesn't "tell" us anything. We interpret or make inferences from it.

A "transitional" fossil to one, representing a bridge between an 'old' species and a 'new' species, for example, could just as easily be interpreted as a creature that was the offspring of two representatives of two (at that time) already existing species which were capable of interbreeding.

Some evolutionists are honest enough to admit that their phylogenetic trees are inferential. Many are not as forthright.

rosborne979 wrote:
To even attempt to deny evolution is to question the very nature of reality and of our ability to deal with it.


Yeah how DARE anyone question someone wearing a white lab coat. It's sacrilegious. They oughta be ashamed, dissing the priest thata way.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 07:49 am
Re: rosborne979
real life wrote:
The fossil record doesn't "tell" us anything. We interpret or make inferences from it.


Of course. This is the way humans learn things. In this particular case, the fossil evidence allows us to determine that the preditions of evolutionary theory are true.

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
To even attempt to deny evolution is to question the very nature of reality and of our ability to deal with it.


Yeah how DARE anyone question someone wearing a white lab coat. It's sacrilegious. They oughta be ashamed, dissing the priest thata way.


Wrong again Real. It's not the lab coat which deserves respect, scientists and lay people challenge ideas all the time which is exactly what leaves us with evolutionary theory instead of Poofism/Creationism.

What deserves respect is the evidence, and a respect for ourselves as thinking creatures who are able to determine the difference between fact and fiction. Evolution is fact. Creationism is fiction. And I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it anything other than a delusion.
0 Replies
 
Secret Agent Man
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 09:34 am
Re: rosborne979
rosborne979 wrote:
What deserves respect is the evidence, and a respect for ourselves as thinking creatures who are able to determine the difference between fact and fiction. Evolution is fact. Creationism is fiction. And I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it anything other than a delusion.

We can't claim anything of the origins of life as "fact." Fossils tell you one thing and one thing only: That it died at one point. I can find evidence that points to creation (i.e. young earth), but that doesn't make it a fact. Evidence supporting a theory does not make it a law. A scientific law is one that can be tested and observed. Since nobody was alive to observe the origin of life (either the Big Bang, special creation, or whichever theory you choose to believe), you cannot call it a fact.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 03:54 pm
Re: rosborne979
Secret Agent Man wrote:
Since nobody was alive to observe the origin of life (either the Big Bang, special creation, or whichever theory you choose to believe), you cannot call it a fact.


Everyone keeps getting hung on observation. Observation is not required for a scientific theory to be considered a fact. The ability to observe *evidence* is required, but observation of an event itself is not.

That is one reason why Evolution is considered a scientific fact.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 04:00 pm
Re: rosborne979
Secret Agent Man wrote:
We can't claim anything of the origins of life as "fact." Fossils tell you one thing and one thing only: That it died at one point.


If that's all you can get from a fossil, then you're not trying very hard. Fossils tell us enough about an organism for us to not only identify what it was, but also when it lived, and in many cases, what it's environment was like. We know it's predators, it's food, it's ancestors, and its decendents.

If you want to be blind about it, you can say that a fossil is just a rock because that's all it's made of, but it's pretty obvious to most people that a fossil is more than a rock. And the cumulative fossil record is far more than just *a* fossil. It all fits together.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 05:17 pm
Here is my very basic take on both ID and Evolution.

Intelligent Design basically says that if a thing, a cell for instance, won't work if only one component is taken away.

Evolution Theory says that the components can sometimes evolve into something else or be used in different ways by other organisms. In other words, evolution finds the most efficient way to develop an effective organism, often by borrowing components from other organisms.

Can anyone who favors Intelligent Design name ten scientists, with authentic credentials, who truly believe Intelligent Design has any place in a science classroom?

If this beomes accepted, I would also demand that theories of evolution developed by Native American, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Aborigines, or Pygmies be taught on an equal basis.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 05:20 pm
Their basic premise is wrong, Diane.

They claim the complexity of the world could not have happened by accident (i.e. without intelligent design).

It could have!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 05:24 pm
S. A. M. said
Quote:
I can find evidence that points to creation (i.e. young earth),

No you cant, I challenge you NAme one. NO LINKS .just your words please.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 05:25 pm
Frank, as usual, you put it succinctly and with indisputable 'frankness.'

How ya doin'?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 05:58 pm
Doin' better since Dys went back to New Mexico. He is very rough on the ribs.

Just posted to his new thread.

In response he told me his is opening his second bottle of booze and that he is (his words) hot to trot.

He may have been talking about the battle going on in the thread, but...

Do whatever you gotta.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 06:01 pm
Always do... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 06:44 pm
I don't understand how or why certain groups who believe that God is omniscient and omnipresent and created everything and is in 100% control of the universe needs their puny asses to defend Him?

If life is a gift from God then why not relax, be thankful and enjoy it instead of arguing all the time?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 09:59 pm
Diane wrote:
Intelligent Design basically says that if a thing, a cell for instance, won't work if only one component is taken away.


Hi Diane,

You are describing Irreducible Complexlty, not Intelligent Design. Irreducible Complexity is the falacious idea popularized by Michael Behe which has been used to support the idea of Intelligent Design.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 11:27 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Diane wrote:
Intelligent Design basically says that if a thing, a cell for instance, won't work if only one component is taken away.


Hi Diane,

You are describing Irreducible Complexlty, not Intelligent Design. Irreducible Complexity is the falacious idea popularized by Michael Behe which has been used to support the idea of Intelligent Design.


A little more on irreducible complexity. Basically part of the idea is that IF complex structures such as the eye or the ear evolved SLOWLY, piece by piece as evolution proposes, it would take a long time (many generations) for any benefit to the organism.

So if natural selection causes the better equipped to survive and thrive, why was the partially completed and non functional organ genetically transmitted from generation to generation until it was complete, when in the mean time it did the organism absolutely no good, and in some cases harmed it?

For instance the idea of a jawbone shrinking over time and becoming one of the bones of the inner ear-- how did the many generations of hapless creatures eat with a shrinking jawbone or hear without a fully developed ear in the mean time?

This problem is recognized by evolutionists, but their faith is strong. It MUST have been so. As in this quote:

Quote:
Exactly how therapsid and early mammal ears functioned is not clear. A remaining problem concerns exactly how the transition from a tympanum in contact with the stapes to a differently-oriented tympanum contacting the malleus took place. One authority has suggested that for a time, there may in fact have been two tympanic membranes, the old one located towards the back of the skull and touching the stapes, and a new one located more anteriorally and on the outside surface of the lower jaw, touching the reflected lamina of the articular (Allin, 1986). There is little doubt, however, that such a change took place; not only is it clear from the fossil record, but the sequence of changes from an articular-quadrate joint to a dentary squamosal joint with the articular and quadrate participating in the middle ear can actually be seen in the developing young of opossums.

Thus, the development of the middle ear of mammals and the their single-bone lower jaw are part of the same package. Why might these changes have occurred? We don't know, but we can speculate. And what follows is indeed speculation; we probably cannot know the answer to this question.


-----------

Irreducible complexity also is an issue at the level of cellular life. Before the first living cell could survive, it's sub-component parts must be present and functioning. The idea that sub-components of the cell formed themselves first and functioned without the support structure of the entire cell and patiently waited till the other sub-components also formed and then all sub-components joined together in a magic moment is just too funny for words.

(Also if you put sub-component parts of a cell singly into the same type of chemical environment from which they supposedly sprang and they will be chemically degraded in short order. They won't be able to wait around till other sub-components get their act together to form a cell.)

The cell's DNA, as an example:

Quote:
But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. ...... The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation.


In other words, the cell needs DNA to be successfully decoded to tell it how to build the components that will successfully decode the DNA.

------------

Irreducible complexity simply states the obvious, that to be useful to an organism some substances or structures are dependent on the presence and function of others. The idea that these things appeared singly, one at a time until all were present and VOILA they all started working together is completely illogical.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/28/2021 at 05:07:22