Specific info for debunk ID

ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Specific info for debunk ID

Hi to all the RSS.

I'd like to know which are the specific datum that I could use in a debate against the ID. Which facts coming from the evolution theory are useful to debunk the ID? Thanks.

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well, there is a great

 Well, there is a great huge volume of work that you can apply. In fact, the sheer volume is itself one large factor. How can there be work in biology, physical chemistry, physics, cosmology and pretty much the rest of science that all comes together and says that things happened in just this one specific way not be a compelling argument that we have something right going on?

 

For a quick overview, you could try reading “The Greatest Show On Earth” by Richard Dawkins and “The Big Bang” by Simon Singh. OK, those would take a while to work through but I assure you that they are bother entertaining reading that spells out the case for a nonID universe in small and easy to follow chunks.

 

Past that, it would also help hugely to know just who you are going to be debating and what specific nuttiness they have going on. The fact is that the ID people are about as united in telling one story as any other largish group of people, ie not really at all.

 

For example, you would not want to try to disprove the “young earth” crowd if you are debating an “old earth” creationist. Then if your opposite happens to be into the oomphallos conjecture, you might as well not bother as that particular bit of crap extends to simply denying that any evidence at all can ever be persuasive.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Here is a

Here is a quick link from scientist Vic Stenger that provides alot of summaries to why most science rejects  intelligent design :

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Fallacy/NoDesign.pdf

 

Like AnswersinGeneSimmons was saying, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports AGAINST design.

But, the key to remember, is the average joe on the street is not really going to have a good grasp of alot of these things. They generally come at me with the typical stuff :

How can you look around at all of this and say that it all happened by accident ?  If science can speculate why do you not allow Christians to ? Why is it irrational to believe that god created all of this ? Why do you wish to take away from my faith ? Blah Blah. For quick pointers and starters check out this :

 

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Battle/GreekInt.pdf

And here is a good rebutal to alot of the creationist arguments :

 

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

I have found that alot of religious people are not rejecting the actual truth of evolution. They are rejecting a WHOLE bunch of misconceptions about what evolution really is. Most people have a very small amount of knowledge about evolution because their preacher has told them :

"Hehe, the Atheists think that we all just came together from monkeys. Tell me brothers and sister in Christ, do you think we all came from monkeys ?,".

or

"Yes Brothers and sisters in Christ, the scientists think that a black hole caused a Big Bang and that's why we are all here. YES Brothers and Sisters, they think life is useless, but WE know the truth of what the Bible says and REAL scientists have proven it to be true. Can man create a piece of Earth ? Can man produce a rock ? NO, IT'S ONLY FROM GOD !!,".

I'm sure you get the idea of what I mean. Most rebuttals from the more educated Christians  are going to be nonsense about the second law of thermodynamics and philosophical speculation. All very easy to refute. Have fun debating the Intelligent Design people.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Thanks a lot!

Thanks a lot for the links you posted! I hope I can check them soon and learn more about this interesting topic. Laughing out loud

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Second Law of Thermodynamics

This is a rather lengthy read, but this gives you a good idea as to why the Second Law of Thermodynamics does NOT prove God.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

 

I am sure that I can find some easier links and quicker refutations.

Hehehe, I was reading through Dan Barker's Godless book, (has a lot of great arguments for the Atheist) and he pointed out that one way to almost always trap a theist when they start that thermodynamic stuff is just flat out ask them : How many laws of Thermodynamics are there ? (Most Theists actually don't know !!) . However it does not always work. I got into a heated argument with a fellow biker in a bar over this and when he brought up thermodynamics and I asked how many laws, his answer was : Nice try jackass I heard that one already ! (LOL).

More evolution quick facts :

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat04.html

http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/live.html

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Now the question is...

Hi! Thanks for the links. I've been reading almost all of them, the last one is a little bit longer and due the X-mas parties I haven't had enough time to continue. But finally I learned different things and also there appeared some questions:

1. Ok, there's no evidence of design. So Where did come from the universe? It is said there's a theory called the "multiverses", but in this case Where did come from that big network of universes? If we say it always was there is it not that similiar to the theist argument that claims a god always was there?

 

2. I had read in another forum that there's no evidence to prove evolution of mankind through transition links, as it was claimed that there was a "missing link" in Evolutive Darwinian Chain. However is stated in one of the hyperlinks you posted before there's evidence of transitional fossils for some species. In the matters of human evolution, as I can remember, the fossils records are not complete because some of them are lost. If it is supposed the changes in the form of a specie are given to their offspring without skips is logical to look for "missing links" related to the evolution of men or not?

I consider this are my main doubts by the moment. If I have new questions to debate, I'll make you know.

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nice links, Harley

 

Thanks for those...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote:2. I had

ManuAndres44 wrote:

2. I had read in another forum that there's no evidence to prove evolution of mankind through transition links, as it was claimed that there was a "missing link" in Evolutive Darwinian Chain. However is stated in one of the hyperlinks you posted before there's evidence of transitional fossils for some species. In the matters of human evolution, as I can remember, the fossils records are not complete because some of them are lost. If it is supposed the changes in the form of a specie are given to their offspring without skips is logical to look for "missing links" related to the evolution of men or not?

I consider this are my main doubts by the moment. If I have new questions to debate, I'll make you know.

 

It is not that the complete human fossil record is lost, it just isn't found yet. 

It may or may not be "logical" to look for "missing links", but it is an ongoing scientific inquiry.

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html#chart

There are gaps in this chart.  But we have an unbroken record for almost the last 1 million years.  And there have been additional discoveries.  For example, http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/04/australosediba.html  New fossils are being found every year.

The Smithsonian Museum - http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

But for me, the most complete record is our genetic code.  We share 98% of our genetics with chimpanzees.  We aren't missing pieces, there are no gaps in the genetics.  What fossils we have found complement what we have learned about the genes we share with our primate cousins.

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/1173/ape-vs-man-volatile-dna

For only one example of the research in this field.

If you want lots of pictures of fossil transitions for different species - including human - see Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero and Carl Buell. 

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293346391&sr=8-1

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote:Hi!

ManuAndres44 wrote:

Hi! Thanks for the links. I've been reading almost all of them, the last one is a little bit longer and due the X-mas parties I haven't had enough time to continue. But finally I learned different things and also there appeared some questions:

1. Ok, there's no evidence of design. So Where did come from the universe? It is said there's a theory called the "multiverses", but in this case Where did come from that big network of universes? If we say it always was there is it not that similiar to the theist argument that claims a god always was there?

 

I think, your referring to the First Cause argument. The Cosmological Argument. Hmm, let's see if these help :

http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/cosmological.htm

http://godlessons.com/2009/12/06/the-cosmological-argument-refuted/

http://godlessons.com/2009/12/07/the-teleological-argument-refuted/

Video :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWiVS4kTa7o

 

Hope this helps, if not just let me know.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
I'd attack it...

I'd attack the fact that ID is largely question begging: the rubric for detecting design is designed by ID proponents to detect design such that it collapses in on itself.

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/beggingquestion_2.htm

http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/id_talking_points.htm

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

ManuAndres44 wrote:

Hi to all the RSS.

I'd like to know which are the specific datum that I could use in a debate against the ID. Which facts coming from the evolution theory are useful to debunk the ID? Thanks. 

Two good books for anti-creationism/pro-evolution are Evolution Vs. Creationism by Eugenie Scott, and The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaac.  You can get a good look into the strategy and history of the situation from Not in Our Classrooms by Scott and Branch, and Creationism's Trojan Horse by Forrest and Gross. 

I think HarleySportster mentioned talkorigins.org.  Awesome website -- it covers a lot of issues.

The main thing you need to know when debating intelligent design theorists is that they're not presenting a theory, they're presenting a criticism of a theory.  They would be happy if evolution was merely taken out of the classroom without replacing it with intelligent design -- or even worse, full-blown creationism.  The only positive claim they're making is that an intelligence is responsible for designing life, but they offer no theory of how the designer created life. 

All they have are attacks on evolution.  So a better name for intelligent design theory is arguments-against-evolution theory... but that won't catch.

 

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:All they

Philosophicus wrote:
All they have are attacks on evolution.  So a better name for intelligent design theory is arguments-against-evolution theory... but that won't catch.

You're making the same mistake those ID clowns make -- a "theory" isn't a hunch, guess, good idea, or wishful thinking.

A scientific theory is something which has been tested and confirmed by observation.  They start as one or more hypotheses, and a hypothesis is also not a hunch, guess, good idea, or wishful thinking -- it requires that it can be tested.  It can start with a hunch, guess, good idea or even wishful thinking, but until a means of testing it is devised, it is NOT a hypothesis.

The real shame with these ID clowns is that there is so much "economy of design" in so many fields of the Natural Sciences that they could have a field day getting people to look at Nature and go "Ooooo!" all day long, and twice on Sunday.  I mean, there is an enzyme, "Sonic Hedgehog", which makes sure our fingers aren't stuck together and our eyelids are formed from the skin that grows over to enclose the eyeball.  They could get kids to look at this stuff and go "G-d is =so= smart" all day long, and learn how to function in the real world, but they are a bunch of Luddites.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:
All they have are attacks on evolution.  So a better name for intelligent design theory is arguments-against-evolution theory... but that won't catch.

... a "theory" isn't a hunch, guess, good idea, or wishful thinking.

I know.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

A scientific theory is something which has been tested and confirmed by observation.  They start as one or more hypotheses, and a hypothesis is also not a hunch, guess, good idea, or wishful thinking -- it requires that it can be tested.  It can start with a hunch, guess, good idea or even wishful thinking, but until a means of testing it is devised, it is NOT a hypothesis.

Here's a short journey through the philosophy of science (very short).  Theories explain laws and facts, facts are confirmed observations, laws are generalizations about regularities, hypotheses are testable propositions (usually conditional) that can be confirmed or disconfirmed.  Observations, facts, and laws don't explain -- theories do.  Hypotheses also explain facts, but they're smaller versions of theories; theories are well-supported, hypotheses aren't.

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2730
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote:Hi!

ManuAndres44 wrote:

Hi! Thanks for the links. I've been reading almost all of them, the last one is a little bit longer and due the X-mas parties I haven't had enough time to continue. But finally I learned different things and also there appeared some questions:

1. Ok, there's no evidence of design. So Where did come from the universe? It is said there's a theory called the "multiverses", but in this case Where did come from that big network of universes? If we say it always was there is it not that similiar to the theist argument that claims a god always was there?

2. I had read in another forum that there's no evidence to prove evolution of mankind through transition links, as it was claimed that there was a "missing link" in Evolutive Darwinian Chain. However is stated in one of the hyperlinks you posted before there's evidence of transitional fossils for some species. In the matters of human evolution, as I can remember, the fossils records are not complete because some of them are lost. If it is supposed the changes in the form of a specie are given to their offspring without skips is logical to look for "missing links" related to the evolution of men or not?

I consider this are my main doubts by the moment. If I have new questions to debate, I'll make you know.

1 - I used to think the same thing, "where did the come from the Universe" and I suspect its penis.

2 - Missing links exist in various stages, but unfortunately those "of ID" want a human/chimp skeleton. They want a chimp body with a small human skull. They want it to be definite, absolute.

I have realized that even if science does find that "perfect" fossil which shows the transition I already know the reply we will get from those "of ID". Their reply will be, "That doesn't prove any thing", "It's a fake", "God created that" and "Yeah but show us the missing link".

There is no discussing the matter with them because they are faith based and not science.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:
All they have are attacks on evolution.  So a better name for intelligent design theory is arguments-against-evolution theory... but that won't catch.

... a "theory" isn't a hunch, guess, good idea, or wishful thinking.

I know.

Then pretty please don't refer to Intelligent Design as a =theory=.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:
All they have are attacks on evolution.  So a better name for intelligent design theory is arguments-against-evolution theory... but that won't catch.

... a "theory" isn't a hunch, guess, good idea, or wishful thinking.

I know.

Then pretty please don't refer to Intelligent Design as a =theory=.

Ok, Furry.  I'll make an adjustment.  "A better name for intelligent design 'theory' is arguments-against-evolution 'theory.'"  Or how about this: "A better name for intelligent design is arguments-against-evolution."  I like the second one better. 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10334
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If it helps, irreducible

If it helps, irreducible complexity was a theory. It was what propped up ID in the first place.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If it helps,

Vastet wrote:
If it helps, irreducible complexity was a theory. It was what propped up ID in the first place.

I believe that "Irreducible Complexity" never made it past the "Hypothesis" stage.

But even if it was a true theory, in the Scientific sense, it's since been disproven.  Which happens.  Oh well.

A better name for "Intelligent Design" would be Intelligent Design Doctrine or Intelligent Design Dogma.

Usage might be "The doctrine of Intelligent Design teaches that an unknown, and potentially unknowable, designer fabricated the known Universe."

Intelligent Design has none of the characteristics of a Theory and all (or most ...) of the characteristics of dogma.  Even if I happen to believe that G-d is the Author of All Things ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
If it helps, irreducible complexity was a theory. It was what propped up ID in the first place.

A better name for "Intelligent Design" would be Intelligent Design Doctrine or Intelligent Design Dogma.

Usage might be "The doctrine of Intelligent Design teaches that an unknown, and potentially unknowable, designer fabricated the known Universe."

You could call them intelligent design proponents, or, Cdesign Proponentsists.

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
If it helps, irreducible complexity was a theory. It was what propped up ID in the first place.

A better name for "Intelligent Design" would be Intelligent Design Doctrine or Intelligent Design Dogma.

Usage might be "The doctrine of Intelligent Design teaches that an unknown, and potentially unknowable, designer fabricated the known Universe."

You could call them intelligent design proponents, or, Cdesign Proponentsists.

Or I could call them stupid idiots and not pretend there's anything intelligent about what they're proposing.

One of these days I'm going to corner one of those idiots and not stop asking them "Why couldn't G-d have done it the way Science says it happened?" until they are forced to admit G-d could have.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
If it helps, irreducible complexity was a theory. It was what propped up ID in the first place.

A better name for "Intelligent Design" would be Intelligent Design Doctrine or Intelligent Design Dogma.

Usage might be "The doctrine of Intelligent Design teaches that an unknown, and potentially unknowable, designer fabricated the known Universe."

You could call them intelligent design proponents, or, Cdesign Proponentsists.

Or I could call them stupid idiots and not pretend there's anything intelligent about what they're proposing.

One of these days I'm going to corner one of those idiots and not stop asking them "Why couldn't G-d have done it the way Science says it happened?" until they are forced to admit G-d could have.

Click here to see the transitional form!  Cdesign Proponentsists

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Or I could call them stupid idiots and not pretend there's anything intelligent about what they're proposing.

One of these days I'm going to corner one of those idiots and not stop asking them "Why couldn't G-d have done it the way Science says it happened?" until they are forced to admit G-d could have.

Click here to see the transitional form!  Cdesign Proponentsists

I love you people, I really do.  If I had a daughter, I'd let you marry her.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
If it helps, irreducible complexity was a theory. It was what propped up ID in the first place.

A better name for "Intelligent Design" would be Intelligent Design Doctrine or Intelligent Design Dogma.

Usage might be "The doctrine of Intelligent Design teaches that an unknown, and potentially unknowable, designer fabricated the known Universe."

You could call them intelligent design proponents, or, Cdesign Proponentsists.

 

hehe, the "missing" creationists to ID link Smiling it's been a while since I've read that, always a good laugh. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc