Non Religious position supporting ID

relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Non Religious position supporting ID

Hello all.

This is my first post here. I've looked around and a lot of intelligent people here. So I thought this would be a great place to banter some ideas back and forth. I tried having this debate with a group of friends, but they all ran away and I want to present something that I believe is a different take on the concept of ID. So bring your big guns out. Basically, I don't want any religion involved, only science, logic and reason. I know you're chucklin' as you read this, but I'm sincere. I think I can demonstrate why it requires more faith in "magic" to believe in what I'll call "pure" evolution than ID. To be clear I don't dispute most parts of evolution. Please read the essay, and I'd apprecitate your thoughts. Hopefully it will format ok. And let me know where you think I'm wrong.

Here it is.

To try and be fair, I looked at the issue from four sides.
1. What Evolutionists say about their theories?

2. What Evolutionists say about Intelligent Design theory?

3. What Intelligent Design says about its theories?

4. What Intelligent Design says about the Theory of Evolution?

After going through these different aspects and working through much research. I have come to the conclusions listed below. Before going into those, I’d like to clarify on some important concepts.

Evolution theorizes that everything in the universe, planets, stars, and all forms of life came about by random events over billions of years without any intelligent cause.

It is critical to learn to distinguish between two very different types of sciences.

Operational Science can be defined as any science that sets out to describe how something works. It uses the traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples of this sort of science would include physics and chemistry.

Historical Science can be defined as any science that attempts to piece together past events in order to explain those events. Examples of Historical Sciences would include Archaeology and Police Forensics.

All theories about the formation and creation of the universe, the world, life, and man fall into the category of historical science. The events of the past are all events which are not observable.

A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.

I would like to distinguish the difference between a theory and a law in science

Scientific law - A natural phenomenon that has been proven to occur invariably whenever certain conditions are met.

Scientific theory - An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs.

Even though there is some debate on these words and their meanings. It is important to understand that laws are rarely challenged in science, especially established laws. Many theories are widely accepted. Most of the theories of evolution are accepted. However, some of its larger assumptions it are frequently debated.

Science, by its own admission doesn’t allow for supernatural explanations. It starts with the premise that, if it is to be explained scientifically, it must also be explained naturally. Simply put,..Because intelligent design is outside of science, it gets dismissed by science. So where do you go if all the evidence, logic, and reason demonstrate intelligent design?

The Theory of Evolution has stood the test of time because science presumes a natural cause and the only thing that could shoot it down is a better theory of how it was caused naturally. Since the theory is basically true on most of its levels, it has remained unchallenged.

HERE’S THE RUNDOWN IN 6 SIMPLE STEPS

1. Something happened some billions years ago with no particular cause and resulted in the universe and all its physical laws.

Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.

2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life.
If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.

3. In the very beginning of the earth, life suddenly emerged from the soup. The earths oldest rocks contained fully formed cells.

SCIENTIFIC RULE BREAK. Life can not come from non-life. (The magic of evolution really kicks in here!) This breaks fundamental laws of science. Even though we have all of the ingredients, lots of intelligence and lots of technology. Nobody, no person, no one has ever duplicated, created or observed the phenomenon of creating life. Imagine if we were even able to create life in the laboratory. First off. Would it even survive on its own or would it have to be taken care of? Of course it would die. Just how and why did the first single cell organism(s) survive? How and why would the(y) reproduce without DNA? Remember evolution requires that life comes from chaos. How come is it that if you leave a human baby or babies alone in nature, it/they would die. Humans should be more advanced and adept at survival, wouldn’t you agree?

4. The earliest forms of life detected are extremely complex. The cell and DNA are more complex than any computer man has made.

No scientist can explain how these things originated fully formed.

1) Without DNA there is no self replication
2) Without self replication there is no natural selection
3) So one can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing (DNA) we are trying to explain

Without the information in DNA to turn amino acids into proteins in the proper manner, provide assembly instructions, and build micro-machines for the cell, we wouldn't have self replication.

The information came first. The real question is where did the information come from for the first DNA, or what is the origin of the information found in DNA?

In short - DNA had to precede self replication which had to precede even the possibility of natural selection, i.e. evolution.

What is the probability that DNA assembled by chance in the first cell? It is postulated that the first cell would need at least three hundred genes to become a functioning organism capable of replication the statistical probability of assembling a single gene190 So the answer is No! The likelihood that a functional DNA chain appeared by chance is essentially zero. The probabilistic resources to generate the information content in DNA for the first self replicating cell "by chance" do not exist.
coding for one hundred amino acids by chance alone has been calculated to be something in the order of 1x10-

SETI has spent a lot of time and money searching for signs of intelligence in the universe. What it will accept as proof of intelligence is far less complex than

what evolutionary scientists will accept as proof of intelligence?

5. Then the cell with no directions or guidance preceded to, with random mutation and millions of years, develop multitudes of miraculous things such as eyes to see, ears to

hear, wings to fly, teeth to chew, and brains to run it all.

Without instruction or guidance, how would it know what sight, hearing and flight are? It would need a slow steady set of mutations gradually building these complex parts. How did it know what it is making? Remember this is supposedly all done by random chance. But obviously it was written in its existing DNA code. Current observations of evolution, which no one here argues exist, only express what is already present in the DNA of its subject. Mutations are programmed.

6. Finally out of the billions of species that have lived on this planet coupled with man’s almost identical DNA with chimps as our common ancestor. What happened to we humans that made us so vastly more intelligent than the other chimps.

The assumptions mentioned above are in conflict with the laws of statistical probabilities. The large number of consecutive impossibilities that would be needed would be like four people drawing a perfect poker hand one hundred times in a row. After the second time you would be trying to figure out how they did it. By the third time, you’d realize something was behind it.

It is logical to confer that this universe has a design, pure and simple. Think about this. It is impossible for a creation to understand its creator. It follows that, In order to create something the creator(s) must operate on higher laws and be vastly superior.

Man has looked for the meaning of life since the beginning of our existence. Man has even invented religion to help explain the unexplainable. Everything from God to Allah, from Zeus to the flying spaghetti monster, everyone’s got their story. The only thing we can conclude is that it has been designed. As far as whom or what designed it is left to the imagination.

Pure evolution is a belief in magic. Intelligent design follows the laws of science, logic and reason. Just because science has no system for classifying intelligent design, does not take away the ultimate truth of it.

I realize that this is an extremely simplified explanation of the rationale behind intelligent design. I am very familiar with all of the evidence and mechanics of the theory of evolution and am happy to discuss them. But there is no need to get to the little details unless you get can past the big details.

Thanks for your time

Relrick


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
The moment you try to use

The moment you try to use the word 'random' or 'chance' to describe evolution, it's blatantly obvious that you do not understand it.

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
For someone claiming to be

For someone claiming to be non-religious, you sure are taking from the YEC's playbook.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
1. Something happened some

1. Something happened some billions years ago with no particular cause and resulted in the universe and all its physical laws.

Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.

I would disagree with the notion that the majority of the scientific community says someone fine tuned the universe and that it's perfect for life.  If  you honestly believe the universe is fit for life then go up in the space shuttle and while you are orbiting the planet take a walk outside without a space suit.  If the conditions were so optimal for life then we'd expect to see a lot more of it in our solar system alone.  However we don't.  So I really don't see your reasoning here.  Also, evolutionary scientists don't deal with issues of parallel universes since it's a concept outside of biology and in the real of astrophysics.

2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life.
If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.

Oh, no one argues this so I guess I can't.  Well actually I can.  You see the Earth isn't in a fixed location around the sun.  Sometimes the Earth is closer and sometimes it is further.  According to your notion and deviation from a certain distance would cause all life on the planet to instantly be extinguished.  It doesn't.  Also, your notion also would imply that life on any other planet is impossible however scientists are sending craft to Mars to explore for signs of life.  If, as you claimed, no scientist argues your notion then why are these craft being sent to Mars?

3. In the very beginning of the earth, life suddenly emerged from the soup. The earths oldest rocks contained fully formed cells.

Life didn't spontaneously generate into the form of life that we see now.  Even our current cells in our body aren't the same since mitochondria were added to our cells later on in development.  There's no reason to doubt that retroviruses couldn't have evolved into something else.  You are completely dismissing the evolution of RNA into DNA.  That's why evolutionists aren't creationists, evolutionists don't believe life appeared out of nothing.

4. The earliest forms of life detected are extremely complex. The cell and DNA are more complex than any computer man has made.

Computers aren't living beings I don't know why this had to be pointed out. 

5. Then the cell with no directions or guidance preceded to, with random mutation and millions of years, develop multitudes of miraculous things such as eyes to see, ears to hear, wings to fly, teeth to chew, and brains to run it all.

I'm not aware of any cell living for millions of years.  Cells do reproduce and there is a recombination of genetic material which can result in mutations through transcription errors.  So where's the problem?  However you insist that without guidance this is impossible so some being that didn't need guidance needed to evolve in order to direct cell division.  Your argument makes no sense with it's blatent contradiction.

 6. Finally out of the billions of species that have lived on this planet coupled with man’s almost identical DNA with chimps as our common ancestor. What happened to we humans that made us so vastly more intelligent than the other chimps.

We evolved differently.  'nuf said.

Thanks for not presenting a challenge to evolution, maybe next time. 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote: Evolution

relrick wrote:

Evolution theorizes that everything in the universe, planets, stars, and all forms of life came about by random events over billions of years without any intelligent cause.

I am not going to address the biological questions you may have because there are others here that are much more qualified than I in that area.

I am going to address the statement quoted above.

 Evolutionary theory says NOTHING about the universe, the stars, the planets or abiogenisis (the origin of life). The stars, planets, galaxies and universe are addressed by cosmology, not biology.

 


curiousjoe
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-10
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote:

D-cubed wrote:

1. Something happened some billions years ago with no particular cause and resulted in the universe and all its physical laws.

Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.

I would disagree with the notion that the majority of the scientific community says someone fine tuned the universe and that it's perfect for life. If you honestly believe the universe is fit for life then go up in the space shuttle and while you are orbiting the planet take a walk outside without a space suit. If the conditions were so optimal for life then we'd expect to see a lot more of it in our solar system alone. However we don't. So I really don't see your reasoning here. Also, evolutionary scientists don't deal with issues of parallel universes since it's a concept outside of biology and in the real of astrophysics.

I think what he meant was EARTH is fine-tuned and perfect for life. The fact that earth is the only planet wilth life within millions of light years of the universe is a testament to this.

2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life.
If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.

Oh, no one argues this so I guess I can't. Well actually I can. You see the Earth isn't in a fixed location around the sun. Sometimes the Earth is closer and sometimes it is further.

That is true but only to a certain degree. How far exactly is this deviation? By a few inches? Feet? Miles? Nature generally allows a certain margin of variation to allow a degree deviation.

According to your notion and deviation from a certain distance would cause all life on the planet to instantly be extinguished. It doesn't.

True, it would take a few minutes or hours, THEN life will be extinguished. Come on! Common sense dictates that if our planet was closer to the sun, we'd be french fries, and if we were farther, ice pops.

Also, your notion also would imply that life on any other planet is impossible however scientists are sending craft to Mars to explore for signs of life. If, as you claimed, no scientist argues your notion then why are these craft being sent to Mars?

Because though they agree that life in mars is CURRENTLY IMPOSSIBLE, they think that conditions on mars IN THE PAST allowed life. They are actually looking for EVIDENCE OF life IN THE PAST.

3. In the very beginning of the earth, life suddenly emerged from the soup. The earths oldest rocks contained fully formed cells.

Life didn't spontaneously generate into the form of life that we see now. Even our current cells in our body aren't the same since mitochondria were added to our cells later on in development. There's no reason to doubt that retroviruses couldn't have evolved into something else. You are completely dismissing the evolution of RNA into DNA. That's why evolutionists aren't creationists, evolutionists don't believe life appeared out of nothing.

So you're saying that evolutionists believe that life appeared out of something? And what is that something? LIFE! Basically, he's saying that in the beginning there was nothing. Then there was life. Evolution says it all happened by chance. That basically goes against the law of science and fact that life cannot come from non-life.

4. The earliest forms of life detected are extremely complex. The cell and DNA are more complex than any computer man has made.

Computers aren't living beings. I don't know why this had to be pointed out.

He isn't. You are. His point is that our most complex computers and programs which are made by very, intelligent men can't compete with the complexity of DNA which atheists say were made by chance.

5. Then the cell with no directions or guidance preceded to, with random mutation and millions of years, develop multitudes of miraculous things such as eyes to see, ears to hear, wings to fly, teeth to chew, and brains to run it all.

I'm not aware of any cell living for millions of years.

That wasn't his point and you know it. Its obvious that he's infering to cells developing over millions of generations, through millions of years.

Cells do reproduce and there is a recombination of genetic material which can result in mutations through transcription errors. So where's the problem? However you insist that without guidance this is impossible so some being that didn't need guidance needed to evolve in order to direct cell division. Your argument makes no sense with it's blatent contradiction.

Basically, he's saying that its impossible for cells to develop into specific parts like eyes, ears, nose etc. on their own and by chance.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote: To try and

relrick wrote:
To try and be fair, I looked at the issue from four sides.

1. What Evolutionists say about their theories?

2. What Evolutionists say about Intelligent Design theory?

3. What Intelligent Design says about its theories?

4. What Intelligent Design says about the Theory of Evolution?

You're forgetting side 5, what the evidence says.

Quote:
Evolution theorizes that everything in the universe, planets, stars, and all forms of life came about by random events over billions of years without any intelligent cause.

Are you sure you looked into evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html

Quote:
A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.

Ok, evolution is still going on.

Quote:
Science, by its own admission doesn’t allow for supernatural explanations. It starts with the premise that, if it is to be explained scientifically, it must also be explained naturally. Simply put,..Because intelligent design is outside of science, it gets dismissed by science.

No, its dismissed because it isn't science to begin with. Creationist start with their conclusion and find evidence to support it.

Quote:
The Theory of Evolution has stood the test of time because science presumes a natural cause and the only thing that could shoot it down is a better theory of how it was caused naturally. Since the theory is basically true on most of its levels, it has remained unchallenged.

No, completely false. It was challenged by the scientific and unscientific communities when it was introduced and continues to be challenged by people who support creationism.

Quote:
1. Something happened some billions years ago with no particular cause and resulted in the universe and all its physical laws.

Um, not evolution. Talk to PHYSICIST about this.

Quote:
Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.

Nope, look at other plants. Fine tuning is usually something creationist argue for.

Quote:
2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life. If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.

Doesn't this conflict with your idea that universe is perfect for life?

Quote:
3. In the very beginning of the earth, life suddenly emerged from the soup. The earths oldest rocks contained fully formed cells.

Again, not evolution. Talk to people about Abiogenesis for this.

Quote:
SCIENTIFIC RULE BREAK. Life can not come from non-life. (The magic of evolution really kicks in here!) This breaks fundamental laws of science.

I don't remember learning this was a law. Maybe you could show me were its written?

Quote:
Even though we have all of the ingredients, lots of intelligence and lots of technology. Nobody, no person, no one has ever duplicated, created or observed the phenomenon of creating life.

Scientists have created the building blocks of life in the lab, the life part just doesn't form over night.

Quote:
Imagine if we were even able to create life in the laboratory. First off. Would it even survive on its own or would it have to be taken care of? Of course it would die. Just how and why did the first single cell organism(s) survive? How and why would the(y) reproduce without DNA? Remember evolution requires that life comes from chaos. How come is it that if you leave a human baby or babies alone in nature, it/they would die. Humans should be more advanced and adept at survival, wouldn’t you agree?

4. The earliest forms of life detected are extremely complex. The cell and DNA are more complex than any computer man has made.

No scientist can explain how these things originated fully formed.

1) Without DNA there is no self replication

2) Without self replication there is no natural selection

3) So one can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing (DNA) we are trying to explain

Without the information in DNA to turn amino acids into proteins in the proper manner, provide assembly instructions, and build micro-machines for the cell, we wouldn't have self replication.

The information came first. The real question is where did the information come from for the first DNA, or what is the origin of the information found in DNA?

In short - DNA had to precede self replication which had to precede even the possibility of natural selection, i.e. evolution.

What is the probability that DNA assembled by chance in the first cell? It is postulated that the first cell would need at least three hundred genes to become a functioning organism capable of replication the statistical probability of assembling a single gene190 So the answer is No! The likelihood that a functional DNA chain appeared by chance is essentially zero. The probabilistic resources to generate the information content in DNA for the first self replicating cell "by chance" do not exist. coding for one hundred amino acids by chance alone has been calculated to be something in the order of 1x10-

You are attack a difference science here not evolution.

Quote:
SETI has spent a lot of time and money searching for signs of intelligence in the universe. What it will accept as proof of intelligence is far less complex than what evolutionary scientists will accept as proof of intelligence?

Um, how do you jump from complaining about dna to SETI?

Quote:
5. Then the cell with no directions or guidance preceded to, with random mutation and millions of years, develop multitudes of miraculous things such as eyes to see, ears to hear, wings to fly, teeth to chew, and brains to run it all.

You are talking about irreducible complexity.

Quote:
6. Finally out of the billions of species that have lived on this planet coupled with man’s almost identical DNA with chimps as our common ancestor. What happened to we humans that made us so vastly more intelligent than the other chimps.

The assumptions mentioned above are in conflict with the laws of statistical probabilities. The large number of consecutive impossibilities that would be needed would be like four people drawing a perfect poker hand one hundred times in a row. After the second time you would be trying to figure out how they did it. By the third time, you’d realize something was behind it.

Before you argued that life is not abundant. You can't argue about probabilities and how there is something more to it when its not happening everywhere. If it has low probability then we would expect it to happen in few places, which is whats happening.

Quote:
It is logical to confer that this universe has a design, pure and simple. Think about this. It is impossible for a creation to understand its creator. It follows that, In order to create something the creator(s) must operate on higher laws and be vastly superior.

And the creator comes from?

Quote:
Man has looked for the meaning of life since the beginning of our existence. Man has even invented religion to help explain the unexplainable. Everything from God to Allah, from Zeus to the flying spaghetti monster, everyone’s got their story. The only thing we can conclude is that it has been designed. As far as whom or what designed it is left to the imagination.

Yes, myth is used to explain the unknown, but that doesn't mean myth is the answer.

Quote:
Pure evolution is a belief in magic.

Says the person who thinks myth is the answer.

Quote:
Intelligent design follows the laws of science, logic and reason. Just because science has no system for classifying intelligent design, does not take away the ultimate truth of it.

How many other myths are the ultimate truth?


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: For someone

MrRage wrote:
For someone claiming to be non-religious, you sure are taking from the YEC's playbook.

I don't think he is claiming that, at least I would hope he wouldn't.

 

BTW relrick feel free to introduce yourself in General Conversation, Introductions, and Humor


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote: All theories

relrick wrote:
All theories about the formation and creation of the universe, the world, life, and man fall into the category of historical science. The events of the past are all events which are not observable.

False. All observation is observation of evidence. You cannot observe anything directly, only the effects of those things, i.e. the evidence. Even looking at an apple is not really looking at the apple itself, but responding to the photons that were reflected by the apple. When you dig up a fossil, you are observing the effects of a previously living organism. You are observing the past. The events of the past are observable because the evidence of those events is still around. Fossils are very good evidence of past evolution. DNA is even better.

Quote:
A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.

Also false. To test a theory, all you need to do is make a prediction about future observations. When you predict that an apple will fall, you are predicting that in the future, you will observe the apple at a lower altitude. When you later actually observe the predicted observation, you confirm the prediction, and hence validate the theory which generated the prediction.

Historical sciences can make predictions about future observations of the past. You can predict that when we dig at such-and-such fossil layer, you will discover creatures of types A, B, and C, because the layer represents a time period when A, B, and C were alive. Likewise you can predict that you will NOT find creatures of type D, E, and F, because those species have not been evolved yet, or because they have gone extinct. When you later dig and find fossils of type A, B, and C, but no D, E, or F, then your prediction is confirmed and this validates the theory that generated the prediction, namely evolution. 

Furthermore, historical sciences can also generate predictions about events that have not yet happened. Evolution predicts that when a new anti-biotic is introduced, the bacteria will evolve resistance. This has been observed and it confirms and validates evolution. 

Now, with this groundwork laid out, I will point out where you went wrong, and why ID is bunk and why evolution wins:

The theory of evolution makes testable predictions that come true. ID does not.

The end.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I have studied this topic

error


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Most scientists

Quote:

Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.

2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life.
If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.

Ok, the "chance" argument again.  Let me put it this way.  Lets say that I put 10 billion tickets into a bucket.  I then draw one of them.  The chances of that ticket being drawn were 1 in 10 billion, but it still happened.  The same view can be applied to the earth.  We are one planet in literally millions (or billions) of planets in the entire universe.  Perhaps we just happened to be the right planet to sustain life, the one that was perfect out of billions.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote: I have

relrick wrote:

I have studied this topic

error

I found this to be particularly funny, especially in the context of the first post.

 

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.

2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life.
If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.

Ok, the "chance" argument again. Let me put it this way. Lets say that I put 10 billion tickets into a bucket. I then draw one of them. The chances of that ticket being drawn were 1 in 10 billion, but it still happened. The same view can be applied to the earth. We are one planet in literally millions (or billions) of planets in the entire universe. Perhaps we just happened to be the right planet to sustain life, the one that was perfect out of billions.

I think your numbers are too low, there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and (estimated*) billions of galaxies in our Universe.

 

[Edit: added the estimated*] 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: Master Jedi

Magus wrote:
Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.

2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life.
If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.

Ok, the "chance" argument again. Let me put it this way. Lets say that I put 10 billion tickets into a bucket. I then draw one of them. The chances of that ticket being drawn were 1 in 10 billion, but it still happened. The same view can be applied to the earth. We are one planet in literally millions (or billions) of planets in the entire universe. Perhaps we just happened to be the right planet to sustain life, the one that was perfect out of billions.

I think your numbers are too low, there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and (estimated*) billions of galaxies in our Universe.

 

[Edit: added the estimated*]

Interesting, I didn't know that scientists had found billions of planets.  I didn't want to shoot too high in the numbers and then be brought down.  Cool point though, it only strengthens the argument.  Thanks! :D 

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:   Pure

relrick wrote:
 

Pure evolution is a belief in magic.

You're projecting the flaws of theism onto science.

By the way, is it really that aversive an idea to go to a library and read about the science (evolution) that you're attempting to critique, before you critique it? 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Family_Guy on Fri, 2007-08-10 12:59. Said..

Quote:
The moment you try to use the word 'random' or 'chance' to describe evolution, it's blatantly obvious that you do not understand it.

 

I've studied this topic pro and con for years and I fully understand it. I also understand the meaning of the words "random" and "chance". For your benefit here are the typical definitions.

 

Web definitions for random

lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance

Therefore if evolution is not "random" ie planned, ordered, or with purpose, then it must be designed.

 

 

Web definitions for chance

opportunity: a possibility due to a favorable combination of circumstances

 

Is this not your argument? Why can I not use these words?? Are we not speaking the same language?

 


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Submitted by MrRage

Quote:

Submitted by MrRage on Fri, 2007-08-10 13:21.

For someone claiming to be non-religious, you sure are taking from the YEC's playbook.

 

The YEC's playbook is the Bible. I don't use that book. Also, if you read my post, you would have seen I state the universe is billions of years old. All of my arguments are based on science, logic and reason. Similar to Albert Einstein who said:

(not a Christian, but a believer in an intelligent designer), when commenting about the universe:  "the harmony of natural law...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly-insignificant reflection." ... Albert Einstein, The World As I See It, (1974), Bonanza Books, New York, page 40.

 

If you are keeping up with this topic, you will find more and more non-religious scientist are seeing the logic of ID because of the complexities we are unraveling. Eventually, only those that want to cling to mythology will remain. 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote: If you are

relrick wrote:
If you are keeping up with this topic, you will find more and more non-religious scientist are seeing the logic of ID because of the complexities we are unraveling. Eventually, only those that want to cling to mythology will remain. 

Show me the data to support this statement. I can guarantee you that this claim is not founded in anything other than the imagination of nutball ID proponents. I am keeping up with the topic and there is absolutely no truth to this. IDists are considered the lunatic fringe now just as they have been.

 Anyway, whenever you want to provide the data that shows the scientific community finding evolution lacking as the one and only reasonable and evidenced explanation for the variety of life we see on the planet today, I will take this claim seriously. Until then, it is simply more dishonest propoganda from someone who is uniformed of the actual scientific perspective.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
 Hope this formats ok. 

 Hope this formats ok. 

D-cubed wrote:

1. Something happened some billions years ago with no particular cause and resulted in the universe and all its physical laws.

Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.

I would disagree with the notion that the majority of the scientific community says someone fine tuned the universe and that it's perfect for life. If you honestly believe the universe is fit for life then go up in the space shuttle and while you are orbiting the planet take a walk outside without a space suit. If the conditions were so optimal for life then we'd expect to see a lot more of it in our solar system alone. However we don't. So I really don't see your reasoning here. Also, evolutionary scientists don't deal with issues of parallel universes since it's a concept outside of biology and in the real of astrophysics.


 

I am speaking in terms of being perfect for life here on earth. Obviously, you haven't studied this, because the number of factors that need to be "perfect" are quite numerous. Evolutionary scientist do in fact say that there are parallel universes. This is the more recent (excuse) used by many including Stephen Hawking to help cover up the more recent discoveries of the complexities of the universe.

Quote:
2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life.
If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.

Oh, no one argues this so I guess I can't. Well actually I can. You see the Earth isn't in a fixed location around the sun. Sometimes the Earth is closer and sometimes it is further. According to your notion and deviation from a certain distance would cause all life on the planet to instantly be extinguished. It doesn't. Also, your notion also would imply that life on any other planet is impossible however scientists are sending craft to Mars to explore for signs of life. If, as you claimed, no scientist argues your notion then why are these craft being sent to Mars?

 

I apologize, no legitimate scientist argues this. You're not keeping up with the latest. Remember, I've studied your side too. Let me give you an example. If you were to extend a ruler from here to the end of the known universe. If the properties of gravity were equivelant to one inch on the ruler. Gravity would not work. Is this not fine tuned enough?? If this was the only factor, I'd be hip to thinking it could be... But there are dozens more.

Quote:
3. In the very beginning of the earth, life suddenly emerged from the soup. The earths oldest rocks contained fully formed cells.

Life didn't spontaneously generate into the form of life that we see now. Even our current cells in our body aren't the same since mitochondria were added to our cells later on in development. There's no reason to doubt that retroviruses couldn't have evolved into something else. You are completely dismissing the evolution of RNA into DNA. That's why evolutionists aren't creationists, evolutionists don't believe life appeared out of nothing.


 

As previously stated I am perfectly fine with micro evolution. It is programmed into the DNA of all living creatures. I am not dismissing the evolution of RNA into DNA. I have seen this many times and I find that to be a ridiculous argument. But I ask you!? What is making these improvements? and more importantly WHY?? That being said, RNA in itself is a miracle. It is the evolutionist that believe life appeared out of nothing "with no cause". ID states that it came from something. Evolution is the belief system here.

Quote:
4. The earliest forms of life detected are extremely complex. The cell and DNA are more complex than any computer man has made.

Computers aren't living beings. I don't know why this had to be pointed out.

 

Let me explain. Computers are complex. Computers are designed. Nothing complex can be created without design. When things are left to themselves, chaos is the result, not order. I suggest reading some science. (2nd law of thermodynamics)

Quote:
5. Then the cell with no directions or guidance preceded to, with random mutation and millions of years, develop multitudes of miraculous things such as eyes to see, ears to hear, wings to fly, teeth to chew, and brains to run it all.

I'm not aware of any cell living for millions of years. Cells do reproduce and there is a recombination of genetic material which can result in mutations through transcription errors. So where's the problem? However you insist that without guidance this is impossible so some being that didn't need guidance needed to evolve in order to direct cell division. Your argument makes no sense with it's blatent contradiction.

 

You understand context dont ya?? I am not saying one cell last for millions of years. You know that. I am speaking in terms of darwinian evolution that speaks in terms of random mutations and natural selection over millions of years. I am asking you HOW without direction did these cells know what to do. Let me quote a popular scientist. Perhaps you've heard of him.

“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.

 

Here's another one.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," 1872, Sixth Edition, Senate: London, 1994, pp.142-143. My emphasis)

 

"The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder." (Darwin C.R., Letter to Asa Gray, February, 1860, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,"

Quote:
6. Finally out of the billions of species that have lived on this planet coupled with man’s almost identical DNA with chimps as our common ancestor. What happened to we humans that made us so vastly more intelligent than the other chimps.

We evolved differently. 'nuf said.


Wow, you're scientific brilliance amazes me. Thanks for clearing it up.

Thanks for not presenting a challenge to evolution, maybe next time.

This is what I don't like about creationist or evolutionist. Both feel they alread know the answer are not willing to consider alternatives. Both cling to myths.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Relrick, you haven't replied

[Edit: Pardon. I didn't realize you were writing a lengthy reply to D-Cubed. I'll wait for your reply.]

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Submitted by BGH on

Quote:
Submitted by BGH on Fri, 2007-08-10 13:25.

 

relrick wrote:

Evolution theorizes that everything in the universe, planets, stars, and all forms of life came about by random events over billions of years without any intelligent cause.

I am not going to address the biological questions you may have because there are others here that are much more qualified than I in that area.

I am going to address the statement quoted above.

 Evolutionary theory says NOTHING about the universe, the stars, the planets or abiogenisis (the origin of life). The stars, planets, galaxies and universe are addressed by cosmology, not biology.

Wrong. You are only speaking of biological evolution. This is only one of several stages of evolution. Please see the following link.  http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

I understand your confusion because biological evolution is the one that "evolutionist" talk about 90+ percent of time. But they don't have a clue about the rest of it. You can't get to biological evolution without first explaining all the stages that proceed it.  Plus this conversation is about ID not micro evolution. ID only proposes that something was behind it. 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I am speaking in terms of

I am speaking in terms of being perfect for life here on earth. Obviously, you haven't studied this, because the number of factors that need to be "perfect" are quite numerous. Evolutionary scientist do in fact say that there are parallel universes. This is the more recent (excuse) used by many including Stephen Hawking to help cover up the more recent discoveries of the complexities of the universe.

     I apologize, no legitimate scientist argues this. You're not keeping up with the latest. Remember, I've studied your side too. Let me give you an example. If you were to extend a ruler from here to the end of the known universe. If the properties of gravity were equivelant to one inch on the ruler. Gravity would not work. Is this not fine tuned enough?? If this was the only factor, I'd be hip to thinking it could be... But there are dozens more.

Your argument states that life is impossible anywhere that fits outside the limited parameters that are present on this ever changing planet.  There are life forms on this planet which exist in extreme settings.  Life can exist in radioactive waste, on the bottom of the ocean, in arctic settings and in the desert.  Your argument is based upon the assumption that finding signs of life on other planets like Mars is impossible without even looking for evidence of life.  Tell me, how many planets have we looked on for signs of life?  And based on that amount of information how can you conclude there is no life elsewhere in the universe?

The only way to reinforce your position is to give evidence that there was manipulation of the universe and planet to produce the conditions that are present without which life would be impossible.  As it is the conditions that are present developed over billions of years and life evolved in the setting that was present without any influence from magic beings that managed to live despite someone not needing to fine tune their setting.  Your argument is illogical in it's contradiction. 

There is no evidence for parallel universes so until some actually comes in then it'll be worthy of discussion.

 

As previously stated I am perfectly fine with micro evolution. It is programmed into the DNA of all living creatures. I am not dismissing the evolution of RNA into DNA. I have seen this many times and I find that to be a ridiculous argument. But I ask you!? What is making these improvements? and more importantly WHY?? That being said, RNA in itself is a miracle. It is the evolutionist that believe life appeared out of nothing "with no cause". ID states that it came from something. Evolution is the belief system here.

Oh, so you are fine with evolution.  That would close the case then wouldn't it?  As for your claim that evolution advocates spontaneous generation that is a simple lie and not necessary in this discussion.  Creationism posters that a magic being created everything instantly in the void of nothingness.  It appears you have the two notions completely backwards.

Let me explain. Computers are complex. Computers are designed. Nothing complex can be created without design. When things are left to themselves, chaos is the result, not order. I suggest reading some science. (2nd law of thermodynamics)

I'll point out again that computers aren't living being.  They are incapable of reproduction so the comparision is meaningless.  I'm perfectly aware that computers break down over time, I worked in tech support.  How does this actually relate to the subject you brought up?  Now, if you care to actually present a living Imac that can reproduce either sexually or asexually then I'll regard your notions with interest.  Until then I'll be bewildered by your stretch of imagination.

You understand context dont ya?? I am not saying one cell last for millions of years. You know that. I am speaking in terms of darwinian evolution that speaks in terms of random mutations and natural selection over millions of years. I am asking you HOW without direction did these cells know what to do. Let me quote a popular scientist. Perhaps you've heard of him.

“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.

Isaac Newton lived before the theory of natural selection was developed and never even heard of DNA. 

 Here's another one.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," 1872, Sixth Edition, Senate: London, 1994, pp.142-143. My emphasis)

 Care to include the rest of the quote?  I know you pulled that excerpt from a dishonest creationist website but here's the rest of it.

      "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."

If you have to reinforce your position with dishonesty then that just reveals much about your character. 

"The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder." (Darwin C.R., Letter to Asa Gray, February, 1860, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,"

Do you understand the meaning of this quote?  Every scientist is presented with the unknown and revel in the chance in conquering the unknown by acquiring more knowledge.  If you are truly clueless to think that biological science hasn't acheived anything in the following 140 years then you are simply retarded.  The theory of natural selection didn't end with Darwin's first book on the subject so it's rather absurd to quote Darwin as if he's some prophet like Jesus is to Christianity.  I would have figured you creationists wouldn't feel the need to project your limitations on the rest of us.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:

relrick wrote:
Wrong. You are only speaking of biological evolution. This is only one of several stages of evolution. Please see the following link. http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

I understand your confusion because biological evolution is the one that "evolutionist" talk about 90+ percent of time. But they don't have a clue about the rest of it. You can't get to biological evolution without first explaining all the stages that proceed it. Plus this conversation is about ID not micro evolution. ID only proposes that something was behind it.

If the evolution that most people talk about is the wide range as you claim then why does it have to say cosmic evolution there? If its just evolution why wouldn't they just say evolution?

The thing is though is that you are the one that seems confused. Everyone here is talking about biology and you want to talk about everything from Abiogenesis to Memes. Those are good topics but when people talk about evolution they mean biology unless they add something to phrase, say "Cosmic." This however doesn't help your case. What it does is show that other fields see the basic idea of evolution, things changing slowly with time, and how it applies to their field.

You also bring up some common arguments from creationist, its the same thing as ID, such as irrducible comlplexity, 'evolution is just chance', or 2nd law of thermodynamics. This doesn't make people think you've done your research like you claim so forgive us if we don't assume you're an expert on the topic.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

 I'm putting my responses in red to try to help make easier to read. Still learning this formatting thing. relrick 

Quote:
Submitted by Voiderest on Fri, 2007-08-10 15:57.

 

relrick wrote:
To try and be fair, I looked at the issue from four sides.

1. What Evolutionists say about their theories?

2. What Evolutionists say about Intelligent Design theory?

3. What Intelligent Design says about its theories?

4. What Intelligent Design says about the Theory of Evolution?

You're forgetting side 5, what the evidence says.

All sides are looking at the same evidence it's the interpretaions that differ.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Evolution theorizes that everything in the universe, planets, stars, and all forms of life came about by random events over billions of years without any intelligent cause.

Are you sure you looked into evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html

In referecne to your link. I've seen this argument thrown around many times. Usually with a computer program that mystically comes up with a "meaningful result" purportedly coming from a random program. First, it was a "program" and second it was programmed to have that result. Let's tie that in to the article you reference. From that article:

Evolution and Chance by John Wilkins

Genetic changes do not anticipate a species' needs, and those changes may be unrelated to selection pressures on the species. Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.

It uses the following as an example...

Sober [1984:99] illustrates the process in this way: imagine a child's toy that has numbers of three different size balls in a container, with two internal layers that have increasingly smaller holes in them. Shaking the toy (a randomising process) increases the likelihood that the smaller balls will pass through the first filter, and that the smallest balls through the second. The smallest balls are, in effect, the most "fit" (or make the best fit) and make it through to the bottom. There has been a selection, or sorting, process which results in the smallest balls making it to the bottom.

Here is the problem with that. Once again the toy, the container and balls were designed. The only thing random is the shaking. The balls in the container are only fulfilling what they were designed and capable of doing.

Secondly, Just curious. Who is this John Wilkins, and what is his authority? What has he contributed to science? I mean, everybody has an opinion. Myself, I like to stick to the big ones. Einstein, Iassac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Kepler and so on. These are the fathers of science. They also believe in ID. Plus, I am sure if they were armed with the knowledge of what we now know concerning DNA, they would be even more convinced.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.

Ok, evolution is still going on.

Umm, I'm speaking in terms of macro evolution. NOT micro. I have said many times. I understand the principles of micro evolution and agree with them IT IS THE PART THAT GETS YOU TO MICRO WHERE I DISAGREE WITH YOU.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Science, by its own admission doesn’t allow for supernatural explanations. It starts with the premise that, if it is to be explained scientifically, it must also be explained naturally. Simply put,..Because intelligent design is outside of science, it gets dismissed by science.

No, its dismissed because it isn't science to begin with. Creationist start with their conclusion and find evidence to support it.

 

Really,...?? This is what BOTH creationist and evolutionist do. I am neither of these. Both start with conclusions and find evidence to support it.

 

Quote:
Quote:
The Theory of Evolution has stood the test of time because science presumes a natural cause and the only thing that could shoot it down is a better theory of how it was caused naturally. Since the theory is basically true on most of its levels, it has remained unchallenged.

No, completely false. It was challenged by the scientific and unscientific communities when it was introduced and continues to be challenged by people who support creationism.

I'm not saying it's not being challenged. I'm saying the only reason it's made it this far is because on most levels it's true and it is unwilling to accept even the possibility of ID. Plus when ID was introduced it was not put through peer review and the scientific community didn't accept it because of it.

 

Quote:
Quote:
1. Something happened some billions years ago with no particular cause and resulted in the universe and all its physical laws.

Um, not evolution. Talk to PHYSICIST about this.

I'm referring to cosmic evolution. It is definitely related in this context. We are talking about ID. ID inherently requires direction. Let's stop playing games. I'm saying this universe got here with direction. You are saying it did not. Are you admitting there might have been a cause? No, you are saying there was no cause or direction. This is a game of semantics.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.

Nope, look at other plants. Fine tuning is usually something creationist argue for.

I assume you are referring to planets not "plants". I would argue that there isn't any credible scientist who say the universe, and more specifically the earth's placement in it, isn't finely tuned. And once again, I'm not a creationist.

 

Quote:
Quote:
2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life. If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.

Doesn't this conflict with your idea that universe is perfect for life?

Once again, I said the universe is perfect for life on THIS planet.

 

Quote:
Quote:
3. In the very beginning of the earth, life suddenly emerged from the soup. The earths oldest rocks contained fully formed cells.

Again, not evolution. Talk to people about Abiogenesis for this.

Really?? You must be kidding! You mean to tell me that theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life on earth??

 

Quote:
Quote:
SCIENTIFIC RULE BREAK. Life can not come from non-life. (The magic of evolution really kicks in here!) This breaks fundamental laws of science.

I don't remember learning this was a law. Maybe you could show me were its written?

I didn't say that life coming from non-life was a law. I'm saying it breaks the fundamental "LAWS" of science. See below.

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp 

In spite of the overwhelming empirical and probabilistic evidence that life could not originate by natural processes, evolutionists possess an unwavering belief that some day they will have an answer to how life could spontaneously generate. Nobel laureate Christian de Duve (1995) argues that life is the product of law-driven chemical steps, each one of which must have been highly probable in the right circumstances. This reliance upon an unknown “law” favoring life has been postulated to replace the view that life’s origin was a freakish accident unlikely to occur anywhere, is now popular. Chance is now out of favor in part because it has become clear that even the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years (Spetner, 1997). Furthermore, natural selection cannot operate until biological reproducing units exist. This hoped for “law,” though, has no basis in fact nor does it even have a theoretical basis. It is a nebulous concept which results from a determination to continue the quest for a naturalistic explanation of life. In the words of Horgan:

One day, he [Stanley Miller] vowed, scientists would discover the self-replicating molecule that had triggered the great saga of evolution....[and] the discovery of the first genetic material [will] legitimize Millers’s field. “It would take off like a rocket,” Miller muttered through clenched teeth. Would such a discovery be immediately self-apparent? Miller nodded. “It will be in the nature of something that will make you say, ‘Jesus, there it is. How could you have overlooked this for so long?’ And everybody will be totally convinced” (Horgan, 1996, p. 139).

 

The creationist say our God must exist and one day Jesus will come and show the whole world the truth. The evolutionist says there cannot be a creator and someday we will be able to prove it. Intelligent Design people say the laws of science demonstrate that there is a design, but don't claim to know what design/er is. Let me ask you. Which two sides have made up their minds and which one is just looking at the science?  
Quote:
Quote:
Even though we have all of the ingredients, lots of intelligence and lots of technology. Nobody, no person, no one has ever duplicated, created or observed the phenomenon of creating life.

Scientists have created the building blocks of life in the lab, the life part just doesn't form over night.

see above. It's obvious you really want to beleive in this.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Imagine if we were even able to create life in the laboratory. First off. Would it even survive on its own or would it have to be taken care of? Of course it would die. Just how and why did the first single cell organism(s) survive? How and why would the(y) reproduce without DNA? Remember evolution requires that life comes from chaos. How come is it that if you leave a human baby or babies alone in nature, it/they would die. Humans should be more advanced and adept at survival, wouldn’t you agree?

4. The earliest forms of life detected are extremely complex. The cell and DNA are more complex than any computer man has made.

No scientist can explain how these things originated fully formed.

1) Without DNA there is no self replication

2) Without self replication there is no natural selection

3) So one can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing (DNA) we are trying to explain

Without the information in DNA to turn amino acids into proteins in the proper manner, provide assembly instructions, and build micro-machines for the cell, we wouldn't have self replication.

The information came first. The real question is where did the information come from for the first DNA, or what is the origin of the information found in DNA?

In short - DNA had to precede self replication which had to precede even the possibility of natural selection, i.e. evolution.

What is the probability that DNA assembled by chance in the first cell? It is postulated that the first cell would need at least three hundred genes to become a functioning organism capable of replication the statistical probability of assembling a single gene190 So the answer is No! The likelihood that a functional DNA chain appeared by chance is essentially zero. The probabilistic resources to generate the information content in DNA for the first self replicating cell "by chance" do not exist. coding for one hundred amino acids by chance alone has been calculated to be something in the order of 1x10-

You are attack a difference science here not evolution.

Once again evolution does talk about all of these things. We'll call it abiogenesis for your comfort. All's I'm saying is there is a cause for life here on earth. Once again you're playing semantic games.

 

Quote:
Quote:
SETI has spent a lot of time and money searching for signs of intelligence in the universe. What it will accept as proof of intelligence is far less complex than what evolutionary scientists will accept as proof of intelligence?

Um, how do you jump from complaining about dna to SETI?

I'm showing you that other fields of legitmate science can see the difference between intelligence and non intelligence.

 

Quote:
Quote:
5. Then the cell with no directions or guidance preceded to, with random mutation and millions of years, develop multitudes of miraculous things such as eyes to see, ears to hear, wings to fly, teeth to chew, and brains to run it all.

You are talking about irreducible complexity.

Yes, of course I'm talking about irreducible complexity. This concept supports ID. It simply means life is to complex not to have a design.

 

Quote:
Quote:
6. Finally out of the billions of species that have lived on this planet coupled with man’s almost identical DNA with chimps as our common ancestor. What happened to we humans that made us so vastly more intelligent than the other chimps.

The assumptions mentioned above are in conflict with the laws of statistical probabilities. The large number of consecutive impossibilities that would be needed would be like four people drawing a perfect poker hand one hundred times in a row. After the second time you would be trying to figure out how they did it. By the third time, you’d realize something was behind it.

Before you argued that life is not abundant. You can't argue about probabilities and how there is something more to it when its not happening everywhere. If it has low probability then we would expect it to happen in few places, which is whats happening.

I never said that life wasn't abundant. Also, it's not happening in a "few" places, just on this planet.

 

Quote:
Quote:
It is logical to confer that this universe has a design, pure and simple. Think about this. It is impossible for a creation to understand its creator. It follows that, In order to create something the creator(s) must operate on higher laws and be vastly superior.

And the creator comes from?

Creations are not capable of understanding their creator. What lies outside of this universe is not bound by the laws of this universe. Your guess is as good as mine.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Man has looked for the meaning of life since the beginning of our existence. Man has even invented religion to help explain the unexplainable. Everything from God to Allah, from Zeus to the flying spaghetti monster, everyone’s got their story. The only thing we can conclude is that it has been designed. As far as whom or what designed it is left to the imagination.

Yes, myth is used to explain the unknown, but that doesn't mean myth is the answer.

Dude, I'm not claiming an answer. Evolution is claiming an answer. Evolution like all religions try to explain that which is not known. You are the believer in myths. It takes more "FAITH" to state you believe that life spontaneously generated, when that has never been witnessed or duplicated or anything, than to believe that it was created with purpose and design.

 

Quote:
Quote:
Pure evolution is a belief in magic.

Says the person who thinks myth is the answer.

Quote:

 

Intelligent design follows the laws of science, logic and reason. Just because science has no system for classifying intelligent design, does not take away the ultimate truth of it.

How many other myths are the ultimate truth?

That'd be you buddy. I don't believe in fairy tales. I'll stick to the science.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

relrick in red  

Quote:
Submitted by natural on Fri, 2007-08-10 19:08.

 

relrick wrote:
All theories about the formation and creation of the universe, the world, life, and man fall into the category of historical science. The events of the past are all events which are not observable.

False. All observation is observation of evidence. You cannot observe anything directly, only the effects of those things, i.e. the evidence. Even looking at an apple is not really looking at the apple itself, but responding to the photons that were reflected by the apple. When you dig up a fossil, you are observing the effects of a previously living organism. You are observing the past. The events of the past are observable because the evidence of those events is still around. Fossils are very good evidence of past evolution. DNA is even better.


What do you mean you can't directly observe anything. I'm observing my fingers typing this. I am knowledgeable that it is that action that is creating this text that you are now reading. There is a clear cut difference in observing something in the present than observing the remnants of something from the distant past. Let's use your apple example. If we oberve (see its photons) an apple in the present. Not only can we see it, we can taste it, smell it, slice it, dice it and say with certainty state that it's what is commonly referred to as an apple. If we look at the fossil of an apple millions of years later it doesn't give us anywhere near the same amount of information. Possibly even some wrong information. Perhaps it's just the same shape. There are multitudes of examples of fossils which were thought to be one thing and then later determined to be something else.

Quote:
Quote:
A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.

Also false. To test a theory, all you need to do is make a prediction about future observations. When you predict that an apple will fall, you are predicting that in the future, you will observe the apple at a lower altitude. When you later actually observe the predicted observation, you confirm the prediction, and hence validate the theory which generated the prediction.

Historical sciences can make predictions about future observations of the past. You can predict that when we dig at such-and-such fossil layer, you will discover creatures of types A, B, and C, because the layer represents a time period when A, B, and C were alive. Likewise you can predict that you will NOT find creatures of type D, E, and F, because those species have not been evolved yet, or because they have gone extinct. When you later dig and find fossils of type A, B, and C, but no D, E, or F, then your prediction is confirmed and this validates the theory that generated the prediction, namely evolution.

Furthermore, historical sciences can also generate predictions about events that have not yet happened. Evolution predicts that when a new anti-biotic is introduced, the bacteria will evolve resistance. This has been observed and it confirms and validates evolution.

Now, with this groundwork laid out, I will point out where you went wrong, and why ID is bunk and why evolution wins:

The theory of evolution makes testable predictions that come true. ID does not.

The end.

Let's get clear. Predictions and testable theories can only be applicable to future events. They cannot be used for the past. ID accepts micro evolution and everthing that happens present and future. ID only questions the original events as does macro evolution. Using your example: If you know that if you dig to a certain level to get a certain type of fossil you are only predicting what is already known. You have done absolutely no predicting. You are only reverifying what you already know. When a bacteria develops a resistance to an antibiotic, it is carrying out the function of its DNA.

Since the origin of life has only happened once, it cannot be tested and predictions cannot drawn.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:

relrick in red again.  

Master Jedi Dan wrote

Quote:

Most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned and perfect for life. Currently, there are many evolutionary scientists that believe there must be many parallel universes and ours is only perfect by random selection. It starts getting difficult here.

2. The earth formed in the exact location from the sun and the moon and with the exact tilt of its axis necessary to allow life.
If any of these things were even slightly different. Life would not exist. No one argues this.

Ok, the "chance" argument again. Let me put it this way. Lets say that I put 10 billion tickets into a bucket. I then draw one of them. The chances of that ticket being drawn were 1 in 10 billion, but it still happened. The same view can be applied to the earth. We are one planet in literally millions (or billions) of planets in the entire universe. Perhaps we just happened to be the right planet to sustain life, the one that was perfect out of billions.

I think your numbers are too low, there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and (estimated*) billions of galaxies in our Universe.

 

[Edit: added the estimated*]

 

Having taken several courses on statistics let me explain how statistics work. If you take ten billion tickets, put them in a bucket and then draw one out. Each one of the ten billion tickets has an equal chance of being drawn out. The only thing done is the reading of the number on the ticket you drew out. If you were to successfully predict which one of the ten billion tickets would be drawn out in advance. Then you would have your 1:10,000,000,000 probability.

 

As far as applying this to life on earth. If only one ingredient was necessary to generate life and there were billions of planets, then yes spontaneous life would be statistically possible. It is the number of successive properties and their perfect arrangement which are necessary to create life that makes for it to be statistically impossible.

For example lets go back to the 10 billion tickets in a bucket. If someone could successfully predict the first 100 tickets drawn in advance and in a row, would you not agree that that would be statistically impossible??

Well my friend. It would be easier for that to occur, than what your theory proposes.

 

New layer..


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: relrick

todangst wrote:
relrick wrote:

Pure evolution is a belief in magic.

You're projecting the flaws of theism onto science.

By the way, is it really that aversive an idea to go to a library and read about the science (evolution) that you're attempting to critique, before you critique it?

I don't have to go to the library. I have a computer. But seriously, I've watched at least 50 debates, read hundreds of papers studies and articles. Both pro and con, how much have you done. I'm fully capable, give me what you got!


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Relrick I'm wondering if

Relrick I'm wondering if you could actually apply your creationist idea to a real world scenario.  According to godless science those with the mutated gene CCR5-32 have a natural resistance to the AIDS virus.  The mutation appears in about 1% of the population.

Mutations results naturally from changes in allele frequency according to the scientific fact of evolution and is quite predictable.  Being that evolution is science one could use the theory of natural selection to predict that as the AIDS virus spreads those with a natural immunity would have higher chances to reproduce and the number of people in the population with the mutation would increase as those without the resistant gene would die off.

Now according to your creationist notion there is an invisible being who magically makes this gene appear and isn't a result of mutation and doesn't get passed on to future generations unless your magic man in the sky wills it.  So is my understanding of creationism but perhaps you could give a example of how creationism explains this genetic mutation that is beneficial to society since  you claim evolution is merely a silly myth. 


Teresa Nichols
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 2007-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Yawwwnnn . . .

I'm gonna' go finish reading The Ancestor's Tale.  If you want to borrow it when I'm done, maybe I could send you a copy.  Of course, you could probably get it at richarddawkins.net or amazon or some place like a library, where they have all kinds of science books   . . .  nighty night.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote: In

relrick wrote:
In referecne to your link. I've seen this argument thrown around many times. Usually with a computer program that mystically comes up with a "meaningful result" purportedly coming from a random program. First, it was a "program" and second it was programmed to have that result. Let's tie that in to the article you reference.

So you know a lot about computers too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86fHSU6jqbY (an example of what I think you're talking about)

What the programmer tries to do is put the same kinds of processes that go on in the real world on a computer. The end result is not programmed in... But you don't need a computer to show you examples of this kind of evolution you already said you agree with "micro".

Quote:
Here is the problem with that. Once again the toy, the container and balls were designed. The only thing random is the shaking. The balls in the container are only fulfilling what they were designed and capable of doing.

They are trying to use analogy to explain how a random process and a not so random selection process interact. For a program to do something completely different then it would have to have a programing method or at least a mutation method. Such things wouldn't be too hard and are done. The only hard part is creating the selection bit, make so things reproduce or die off. The limits of a computer program is basically data and speed, but they can still show someone how the concept is suppose to work. Again though you already said you agree with what you call "mirco evolution." Its kinda foolish for you to argue something you've already agreed to.

Quote:
Secondly, Just curious. Who is this John Wilkins, and what is his authority? What has he contributed to science? I mean, everybody has an opinion. Myself, I like to stick to the big ones. Einstein, IassacNewton, Louis Pasteur, Kepler and so on. These are the fathers of science. They also believe in ID. Plus, I am sure if they were armed with the knowledge of what we now know concerning DNA, they would be even more convinced.

Thats a first someone asked me to commit a logical fallacy then did it themselves. You say they didn't know what we know now so using them holds even less weight then it normally holds, little to none.

Quote:
Umm, I'm speaking in terms of macro evolution. NOT micro. I have said many times. I understand the principles of micro evolution and agree with them IT IS THE PART THAT GETS YOU TO MICRO WHERE I DISAGREE WITH YOU.

Your argument is that we can't walk 10,000 steps 1 step at a time.

Quote:
Really,...?? This is what BOTH creationist and evolutionist do. I am neither of these. Both start with conclusions and find evidence to support it.

ID is creationism. If you think they are different explain the difference. BTW old earth creationism is still creationism.

Quote:
I'm not saying it's not being challenged. I'm saying the only reason it's made it this far is because on most levels it's true and it is unwilling to accept even the possibility of ID. Plus when ID was introduced it was not put through peer review and the scientific community didn't accept it because of it.

Yeah, peer review is kinda important.

Quote:
I'm referring to cosmic evolution. It is definitely related in this context. We are talking about ID. ID inherently requires direction. Let's stop playing games. I'm saying this universe got here with direction. You are saying it did not. Are you admitting there might have been a cause? No, you are saying there was no cause or direction. This is a game of semantics.

You haven't asked me anything about the origins of the universe and assume you know what I think. When most people talk about evolution they are talking about biology. See my other post about how you shouldn't be trying to drag other sciences into this.

Quote:
Really?? You must be kidding! You mean to tell me that theory of evolution doesn't address the origin of life on earth??

Who told you otherwise?

Quote:
I didn't say that life coming from non-life was a law. I'm saying it breaks the fundamental "LAWS" of science. See below.

Such as?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Quote:
The creationist say our God must exist and one day Jesus will come and show the whole world the truth.

Christianity isn't the only creation story so that isn't what all creationist say.

Quote:
The evolutionist says there cannot be a creator and someday we will be able to prove it.

No they don't. Show me who does and explain the christian evolutionist.

Quote:
Intelligent Design people say the laws of science demonstrate that there is a design, but don't claim to know what design/er is.

So pick your god right?

Quote:
see above. It's obvious you really want to beleive in this.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but here is something one the building blocks of life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

Quote:
Once again evolution does talk about all of these things. We'll call it abiogenesis for your comfort. All's I'm saying is there is a cause for life here on earth. Once again you're playing semantic games.

If you're going to have that broad of definition of evolution I'll just assume you mean science the next time you say the word evolution.

Quote:
Yes, of course I'm talking about irreducible complexity. This concept supports ID. It simply means life is to complex not to have a design

To bad for you're argument that isn't the case.

Quote:
I never said that life wasn't abundant. Also, it's not happening in a "few" places, just on this planet.

When you talked about the universe I'm going to think you are talking about the universe as a whole, not just earth. I said few, not a few. This means not abundant.

Quote:
Creations are not capable of understanding their creator. What lies outside of this universe is not bound by the laws of this universe. Your guess is as good as mine.

You talk about a intelligent design, but you can't explain the designer?

Quote:
Dude, I'm not claiming an answer. Evolution is claiming an answer. Evolution like all religions try to explain that which is not known.

"everyone’s got their story. The only thing we can conclude is that it has been designed." Even if you are talking about something else in which you are drawing your conclusion bring up stories in a supposed non-religious argument for the origins of life shouldn't be done. Also evolution is a religion now?

Quote:
You are the believer in myths. It takes more "FAITH" to state you believe that life spontaneously generated, when that has never been witnessed or duplicated or anything, than to believe that it was created with purpose and design.

Science doesn't require faith, try again.

Quote:
That'd be you buddy. I don't believe in fairy tales. I'll stick to the science.

Your science doesn't holding up. That is why it isn't accepted by science. 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Let's try this Relrick.

Let's try this Relrick. Tell everyone what you think designed the universe, what designed the universe creator (since by your reasoning it would need an intelligent designer), how this thing goes about making a universe, and how this thing can turn non-life into life (which you claim is impossible), and how this designer further interacts with life to produce the varied species we see on the planet today.

And, while you are at it, show an example of an irreducibly complex biological system, explain the criteria by which we can tell something was created as opposed to that which is uncreated (we need a frame of reference to make such a claim), and tell why an intelligent creator would need to create certain parameters within which our life form might exist instead of just creating any existence, with any physical laws, and making life fit those parameters.

When you can answer these questions you might have something worthy of discussion. Until then you are simply saying, "I don't believe in evolution therefor I will insert a big question mark in its place and call this question mark intelligent design."  

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Relrick, I must say, for a

Relrick, I must say, for a person who claims to be well read on the subject, you come across an aweful lot like some one who has never studied anything about evolution ever. Your arguments are barely above Ray Comfort level in terms of articulation and substance. I don't mean to be confrontational, just straightforward. Perhaps you should go away for a while and do a bit more research.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
For the sake of clarity.

For the sake of clarity. Specifically what are you referring to??


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:For the sake

relrick wrote:
For the sake of clarity. Specifically what are you referring to??

[I'm assuming this question was meant for me]
Well, a lot of the other board members have pointed out the flaws in your initial post, not the least of which is your apparent understanding of evolution, which you summarized thusly: 
Evolution theorizes that everything in the universe, planets, stars, and all forms of life came about by random events over billions of years without any intelligent cause.
As has been pointed out, this is not an accurate summary of the theory of evolution. Not even close.
You predicate the rest of your post on this straw man, which technically allows anyone to dismiss the entirety of your argument out of hand. Luckily for you, though, some board members have been nice enough to point out the flaws in your argument. I suggest you take their suggestions to heart and do some follow up research.
I have a few gripes of my own with your position. You say you're not a creationist, which I would assume means you haven't taken any of your source material from creationist sources. That is remarkable, considering your RUNDOWN OF SIX SIMPLE STEPS, as well as a few other points you made, seem to have been lifted - almost verbatim - from Kent Hovind's website, specifically this article:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67&kws=250,000 
(this article is thoroughly trounced here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html if you're interested)
Sorry I can't be too specific. I personally can not, WILL not take you seriously when you say you've studied evolution if this is the kind of horseshit you're going to try and pass of as real science. The arguments you present are virtually indistinguishable from the kind any Hovind-parroting troll would rattle off on this board.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I would like to address an

I would like to address an issue I see repeating itself after my initial post. The issue is the definition of evolution. I am constantly being berated for using the term “evolution” in referring to evolutionary processes outside of biological evolution. This is an attempt to dodge the issue.  Please consider the following points.

 

1. There are several types of evolution. cosmic, planetary, stellar, biological etc.

2. If you read articles and watch debates on the topic of evolution, you will see both sides using terminology that speak to all types of evolution. Furthermore you will see/hear reference to the big bang, abiogenesis and other related topics.

3. Being that this is an atheist web forum and not a biological/evolution site. It would follow that you believe in a naturalistic beginning. It boils down to this. It’s all about whether there was a creator/designer or not.

4. I’ve seen many on this site link to talkorigins.com. It seems to be a popular site around here. If you go to their index you will see many of these terms and many other non biological terms. If you go to their search function, key in evolutionary time line, you will see it starts with the: formation of the approximately homogeneous solid Earth by planetesimal accretion. See link. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

 

After being in many forums I have never seen a group so averse to using commonly used terms. Nobody knit-picks terms like you guys do. This detracts from the actual debate. To   imply that I use the word “evolution” incorrectly (by your standards) and that I have not researched this topic and do not understand it is absurd and childish.

 

Furthermore, the crux of the Evolution/Creation controversy is the major assumptions put forth about the very beginning of our universe, the formation of the earliest life on earth, how that life evolved into more complex life, and the common ancestry of every living thing on earth today from those early forms. It is not about the universally accepted principles of microevolution.

 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote: I would

relrick wrote:

I would like to address an issue I see repeating itself after my initial post. The issue is the definition of evolution. I am constantly being berated for using the term “evolution” in referring to evolutionary processes outside of biological evolution. This is an attempt to dodge the issue. Please consider the following points.

1. There are several types of evolution. cosmic, planetary, stellar, biological etc.

No, this is not an attempt to dodge the issue. Biological evolutionary processes are very different from the "evolution" of stars. You are conflating two definitions of the word "evolution".

It's like arguing that the mathematical idea of a group is ridiculous because I can have a group of people without a binary operation, identity element, etc. that defines a mathematical group.

relrick wrote:

2. If you read articles and watch debates on the topic of evolution, you will see both sides using terminology that speak to all types of evolution. Furthermore you will see/hear reference to the big bang, abiogenesis and other related topics.

Generally, the only side bringing up abiogenesis are IDers. Evolution != abiogenesis.

The theory of gravity (which has rather shaky evidence itself) will not explain why you are not currently holding a roasted red pepper and olive loaf sandwich.

relrick wrote:

3. Being that this is an atheist web forum and not a biological/evolution site. It would follow that you believe in a naturalistic beginning. It boils down to this. It’s all about whether there was a creator/designer or not.

 

4. I’ve seen many on this site link to talkorigins.com. It seems to be a popular site around here. If you go to their index you will see many of these terms and many other non biological terms. If you go to their search function, key in evolutionary time line, you will see it starts with the: formation of the approximately homogeneous solid Earth by planetesimal accretion. See link. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

Attacking evolution (the biological phenomenon) does not equal attacking the big bang theory. They are two different theories.

relrick wrote:

After being in many forums I have never seen a group so averse to using commonly used terms. Nobody knit-picks terms like you guys do. This detracts from the actual debate. To imply that I use the word “evolution” incorrectly (by your standards) and that I have not researched this topic and do not understand it is absurd and childish.

If two sides of a debate are using different definitions of words, it's like two teams using different rules for a sport when playing against one another. The result is a ridiculous waste of time. The "nit-picking" serves to make sure people are on the same page. If you say "evolution is wrong" and, by "evolution", you mean "the big bang, formation of the solar system, abiogenesis, and evolution"... well some confusion will occur. Pick a word and change the definition of it, then use the word with the new definition for a few days and see if you don't have some problems.

relrick wrote:

Furthermore, the crux of the Evolution/Creation controversy is the major assumptions put forth about the very beginning of our universe, the formation of the earliest life on earth, how that life evolved into more complex life, and the common ancestry of every living thing on earth today from those early forms. It is not about the universally accepted principles of microevolution.

This is only the crux because IDers have claimed it to be so. I think it's called a "composition fallacy". Even if some incomprehensible entity started life on Earth, that wouldn't prevent evolution from occuring.

-Triften


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Should we be expected to

Should we be expected to argue for the evolution of jazz music to rock music?  Just because it has the word evolution in the phrase doesn't equate it with biological evolution. 

I'm quite familiar with conman Kent Hovind's technique to incorporate varies types of 'evolution' like cosmic and chemical evolution and challenging any evolution supporter to explain it all or else biological evolution is false.  It's sad that you feel it necessary to repeat it here.  Even AIG thinks Hovind is a laughing stock.


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:I would

relrick wrote:

I would like to address an issue I see repeating itself after my initial post. The issue is the definition of evolution. I am constantly being berated for using the term “evolution” in referring to evolutionary processes outside of biological evolution. This is an attempt to dodge the issue.  Please consider the following points.

 

1. There are several types of evolution. cosmic, planetary, stellar, biological etc.

2. If you read articles and watch debates on the topic of evolution, you will see both sides using terminology that speak to all types of evolution. Furthermore you will see/hear reference to the big bang, abiogenesis and other related topics.

3. Being that this is an atheist web forum and not a biological/evolution site. It would follow that you believe in a naturalistic beginning. It boils down to this. It’s all about whether there was a creator/designer or not.

4. I’ve seen many on this site link to talkorigins.com. It seems to be a popular site around here. If you go to their index you will see many of these terms and many other non biological terms. If you go to their search function, key in evolutionary time line, you will see it starts with the: formation of the approximately homogeneous solid Earth by planetesimal accretion. See link. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

 

After being in many forums I have never seen a group so averse to using commonly used terms. Nobody knit-picks terms like you guys do. This detracts from the actual debate. To   imply that I use the word “evolution” incorrectly (by your standards) and that I have not researched this topic and do not understand it is absurd and childish.  

 

Furthermore, the crux of the Evolution/Creation controversy is the major assumptions put forth about the very beginning of our universe, the formation of the earliest life on earth, how that life evolved into more complex life, and the common ancestry of every living thing on earth today from those early forms. It is not about the universally accepted principles of microevolution.

 

 So... you came into a forum called "Evolution of life", but your gripe is not necessarily with the Theory of Evolution, but rather the implications of the word "evolution" itself and how it is used in other areas of study that have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual Theory... then you expect us to cater to your ignorance by engaging you in these unrelated subjects... in a forum clearly labeled "Evolution of life"... and when this is pointed out to you, your only response is to restate your position, if somewhat louder.

In other words, you have absolutely no interest in educating yourself. Thanks for making that clear. I will not waste one more second in this thread.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Eight Foot Manchild, if I

Eight Foot Manchild, if I remember right it was moved here because that was the term he used. Your argument still works though as its pretty clear most people think of biology when someone uses the word evolution. I mean darwin's book wasn't "THE BIG THEORY OF ALL!!!!" is it?