Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[skilts]

There already is an answer, its just the creationists haven't got it yet.

It would appear the answer provided is not answer enough for some.

Agree with you about the footy though. For some reason, the pre-season comp. is leaving me underwhelmed this year.

 

[The rabbi]

The most devestating attacks that I have read on the ID movement have come from Christians themselves. It is felt that ID fails to impress in the philosophical and theological as well as scientific arena.

They generally feel that ID is the wolf of Creationism trying to pass for a lamb by dressing up in scientific garb. It's main argument is based on the god of the gaps.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

On a more musical note (I love this song and the clip is awesome).

[YOUTUBE]ZAL-VpxKWsA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Contra Mundum]

It's staggering that people still believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism over Evolution. This is borne out of incredulity through ignorance. As if some of the solutions nature arrives at to solve problems would be the approach from an intelligent designer.

It's a false binary because you can believe in a creator and nonetheless believe in the entirety of the developed theory of natural selection and the process of evolution. As I have said before false binary are overused tool of propgandists. Do you like cuddly kittens or Hitler!!! Do you believe in Science or Witchdoctors - Pteradactyls on the Ark or scientific rationality

 

[The rabbi]

It's a false binary because you can believe in a creator and nonetheless believe in the entirety of the developed theory of natural selection and the process of evolution. As I have said before false binary are overused tool of propgandists. Do you like cuddly kittens or Hitler!!! Do you believe in Science or Witchdoctors - Pteradactyls on the Ark or scientific rationality

As for example the Roman Catholic Biologists like Kenneth Miller, or from the other extreme Stephen Mapleson from those Reformed rebels. To the Cambridge Prof of Paleobiology and Anglican, Simon Conway Morris to the other theological extreme of the Pentecostal biologist (Pentecostal! aren't they supposed to be all fundies) Denis O. Lamoureux.

The Christian church is a diverse group. This diversity extends to the various denominations within it.

Oh, and then there is Ken Ham.

 

[The rabbi]

CM, when I read "Intelligent Design" or ID, I think specifically of the movement connected with the Discovery Institute (Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, Bill Dembski). Not Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creation or whatever.

I think that the mention of Intelligent Design or anything that sounds like it conjures up the idea of "Creationism" in peoples minds. The term is encrusted with too much baggage. It is a bit like the term "Fundamentalist". The original fundamentalists were certainly not what most people think of today when they hear the word.

 

[Fire Storm]

Oh yeah. The Bloods is a champion. Why?


Because scientists - many evolustionist - say that's it's imposibble for a 'simple' organsim to happen by chance? Nice one, The Bloods.


They say that because it is, has, was and still is. No evidence only wishful dreaming.

Oh hang on. It did happen. Of course!


That's why with a hundered million fossils there is NO example and ANY species - animal or plant showing ANY signs of transitional phases into another species.



Evolutionist's know it. They clutch at straws so thin you'd think they'd be clutching at air.




Hot air.

 

[TheBloods]

Your arguments are so aimless and clueless that it's staggering.

Name some scientists that say it is impossible for a simple organism to appear. It's believed widely that the first organisms were prokaroytes, which developed into eukaryotes.

But again, you are confusing (hardly surprising) abiogenesis with evolution.

But I'll leave you with just one transitional fossil (of many) - archaeopteryx.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

It's a false binary because you can believe in a creator and nonetheless believe in the entirety of the developed theory of natural selection and the process of evolution. As I have said before false binary are overused tool of propgandists. Do you like cuddly kittens or Hitler!!! Do you believe in Science or Witchdoctors - Pteradactyls on the Ark or scientific rationality

Not a fan of Levi-Strauss and his fellow structuralists?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Oh yeah. The Bloods is a champion. Why?


Because scientists - many evolustionist - say that's it's imposibble for a 'simple' organsim to happen by chance? Nice one, The Bloods.


They say that because it is, has, was and still is. No evidence only wishful dreaming.

Oh hang on. It did happen. Of course!


That's why with a hundered million fossils there is NO example and ANY species - animal or plant showing ANY signs of transitional phases into another species.



Evolutionist's know it. They clutch at straws so thin you'd think they'd be clutching at air.




Hot air.

Where is the evidence for creationism?

Is this it?

 

[Fire Storm]

Partly.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Partly.

Hardly strong evidence. A book of fiction. Surely this is not the only evidence for creationism?

 

[TheBloods]

Partly.

Your arguments become more laughable by the post... What a nerve you have to be so critical of evolutionary theory...

 

[Fire Storm]

My arguments, The Bloods? No actually the arguments of scientists INCLUDING evolusionists who actually look at the facts rather then the assumptions of others.


You've seen the facts. Now i guess YOUR the expert? You explain how a 'simple' organisim can evolve FROM NOTHING into some of the most complicated things in the universe including the universe itself. All in order with laws governing itself. Allowing us to live on the ONLY planet that can sustain life?


THAT all happened by chance? For no reason? Despite credible scientists admitiing it simply cant happen. Impossible.



The FACT, The Bloods, not my argument, regarding the fossil record that show NO evolving species AT ALL.




Facts, The Bloods. Not fiction. Not my views. Scientific FACT. Do I need to repeat it?


You're saying all those scientists are wrong? Are you? Tell us you're answer to those above FACTS and why credible scientists involving STUDIES - not assumptions - to get these facts are wrong and you're right?


Maybe you should go public with it. If you're so correct and all these guys are all soooo wrong, maybe you should do it.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I posted this on another thread where myself and Fire Storm are debating, but anyway. It pertains to the fossil evidence of transitional species.

This footage is taken from, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"

[YOUTUBE]vcJQ7-yT5N4[/YOUTUBE]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

 

[Richo83]

You've seen the facts. Now i guess YOUR the expert? You explain how a 'simple' organisim can evolve FROM NOTHING into some of the most complicated things in the universe including the universe itself. All in order with laws governing itself. Allowing us to live on the ONLY planet that can sustain life?

Mate you're like a broken record, evolution does not say (neccesarily) that the first organism came from nothing. If organisms develop within scientific guidelines then it makes sense that they developed only on earth. You complain of evolutionists complaining about believing that organisms follow scientific processes, why?

THAT all happened by chance? For no reason? Despite credible scientists admitiing it simply cant happen. Impossible.

Reasoning for the development of species is irrelevant to evolution, which answers the question how organisms developed, not begun.

The FACT, The Bloods, not my argument, regarding the fossil record that show NO evolving species AT ALL.

Err, I'm not quite sure about that, but anyway.

Science generally accepts the theory of evolution. If you use scientific arguments then you're arguing with bloods, java and others.

 

[TheBloods]

My arguments, The Bloods? No actually the arguments of scientists INCLUDING evolusionists who actually look at the facts rather then the assumptions of others.


You've seen the facts. Now i guess YOUR the expert? You explain how a 'simple' organisim can evolve FROM NOTHING into some of the most complicated things in the universe including the universe itself. All in order with laws governing itself. Allowing us to live on the ONLY planet that can sustain life?


THAT all happened by chance? For no reason? Despite credible scientists admitiing it simply cant happen. Impossible.

No one has said it can't happen. Absurd argument, and yet that's all you have.

The FACT, The Bloods, not my argument, regarding the fossil record that show NO evolving species AT ALL.

You continue to blather without actually addressing any arguments. You haven't commented on archaeopteryx and there are plenty of other transitional fossils.

Facts, The Bloods. Not fiction. Not my views. Scientific FACT. Do I need to repeat it?

All you do is repeat nonsense. Scientific evidence strongly supports the evolutionary theory, which you've constantly failed to address.

You're saying all those scientists are wrong? Are you? Tell us you're answer to those above FACTS and why credible scientists involving STUDIES - not assumptions - to get these facts are wrong and you're right?

All which scientists and which facts?

Maybe you should go public with it. If you're so correct and all these guys are all soooo wrong, maybe you should do it.

You mean like the hundreds of scientists who support evolutionary theory with their publications...?

 

[Fire Storm]

Um....no. Yes scientists support evolution. But based on ASSUMPTIONS. Not facts. Like the facts on the law of gravity. etc. Aerodynamic facts. We know why an aircraft will fly. Its been studied. And tested. Not assumed.


I've post the scientific facts from those that have STUDIED 'simple' organisms.


I've posted the facts of those that have STUDIED the fossil record.



From scientists. Evolusionists.


Yet YOU have ingnored them. And can't refute them. I'v asked you too. Yet you won't. Won't? Can't?


There not from me, The Bloods. They're documented scientific facts. Maybe you should write to all those scientists - INCLUDING EVOLUSIONISTS - who studied, tested and documented their finds.


Like I said, you're the expret right?

 

[blues4flag]

Your arguments are so aimless and clueless that it's staggering.

Name some scientists that say it is impossible for a simple organism to appear. It's believed widely that the first organisms were prokaroytes, which developed into eukaryotes.

But again, you are confusing (hardly surprising) abiogenesis with evolution.

But I'll leave you with just one transitional fossil (of many) - archaeopteryx.

Surely then there are scientists across the world trying to simulate the conditions of the primordial soup? If abiogenesis did occur, then there's no reason that we can't "create" simple organisms, right?

And Pawtucket Patriot, how can you prove or disprove a believe in a higher being? So long as science cannot answer some questions, then the idea of a higher being remains plausible. Myself - I don't buy into the theory that life came from a chance mix of chemicals.

Without wanting to steer this discussion into a different direction, how can we possibly explain the origin of the universe through science? Surely if we go back far enough, time began somewhere - but from what? We can theorize what happened at the instant of the Big Bang, but can science tell us what came before?

Atheists will ask, who created the Creator? Why must we assume, that if there is a divine being, He plays by our rules? If we assume that the God did in fact create the universe, surely we can acknowledge that there are things we simply cannot comprehend? Is it not possible that the concept of time as we know it is "contained" to our universe and that God isn't bound by it?

To borrow a metaphor, someone had to topple that first domino, be it in the creation of the universe or the creation of life. While I don't discount evolution, I find it hard to believe that the process started by a chance arrangement of chemicals, resulting in the manifestation of life.

 

[Richo83]

To borrow a metaphor, someone had to topple that first domino, be it in the creation of the universe or the creation of life. While I don't discount evolution, I find it hard to believe that the process started by a chance arrangement of chemicals, resulting in the manifestation of life.

That's not what evolution says though, evolution says how organisms developed, it doesn't say why or from what source though. There is room within evolution to say that it was started or guided by god.

 

[Chief]

Simple organisms?

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1985, 261.

Odd's that a free-living, single-celled organism (a bacterium, for example) could result from a chance combining of life building blocks (amino acids, for example)? Harold Morowitz, from Yale University puts the odds or any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10 -100,000,000,000.

Whats the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747? About 10 - 40,000. Remember thats 10 with 40,000 zeros after it!


All more then the "Impossibility Standard".

Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate George Wald : One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.


yep. Impossible.

If you had valid arguments people would listen to you.

The 744 from a tornado through a junk yard analogy shows a complete - and I mean complete in every sense of the word - lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

Evolution is incremental. It is not random - it is driven by environmental factors.

No single celled organism ever spontaneously popped into being. Ever. The theory of evolution just does not say that. Research has shown that a particular environment like the early Earth environment was more than capable of producing protein chains with the application of energy such as that found in naturally occurring lightning. That's a reproducible experiment.

You just don't understand it, and you are quoting someone who misrepresents the theory to sell books to people like you.

Fossil gaps are a reality due to the tiny fraction of any species (indeed the tiny fraction of all species) that is fossilised and the fact that species migrate. A fossil might be found half a world away from where speciation first occurred, giving the impression to the layman that a species sprang up from nowhere in, say, the middle of Africa.

None of this is a secret. All of this information is available in books.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

And Pawtucket Patriot, how can you prove or disprove a believe in a higher being? So long as science cannot answer some questions, then the idea of a higher being remains plausible. Myself - I don't buy into the theory that life came from a chance mix of chemicals.

I respect peoples' right to believe in whatever higher being they so chose, but I take exception to slanderous attacks on a well founded scientific theory (the theory of evolution by means of natural selection). I encourage constructive criticism and questioning of evolutionary theory, but dismissing it due to one's belief in religious dogma is a pointless exercise.

It is very true that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher being, yet this is not just a problem for science. It is also highly problematic for monotheism.

 

[blues4flag]

That's not what evolution says though, evolution says how organisms developed, it doesn't say why or from what source though. There is room within evolution to say that it was started or guided by god.

Guess I should have been more clear. I was referring more to abiogenesis as being a chance occurrence. Theistic evolution I don't discount.

 

[Fire Storm]

No single celled organism ever spontaneously popped into being. Ever. The theory of evolution just does not say that.

It did before it was proven that it can't happen.

Research has shown that a particular environment like the early Earth environment was more than capable of producing protein chains with the application of energy such as that found in naturally occurring lightning. That's a reproducible experiment.

That's resulted in organisims that turned into fish then reptiles then apes then humans? Let me guess, it happended in Tasmania?

You just don't understand it, and you are quoting someone who misrepresents the theory to sell books to people like you.

Theory : proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.



I get it all right. Real good.

 

[Richo83]

Guess I should have been more clear. I was referring more to abiogenesis as being a chance occurrence. Theistic evolution I don't discount.

Abiogenesis and evolution are two different subjects and should be treated as such, so please treat them as such.

People often confuse the two subjects when often people think that evolution is a blind process, yet still believe that god a) started the big bang and b) placed the first "seed". Evolution tells the story of how the first seed developed, not how the first seed came about. It's an important distinction which firestorm continues to ignore. If you want to believe in theistic evolution I'm not stopping you, it's a common belief. However, the key word in that phrase is evolution, theistic evolution by its name still believes in the process of evolution. The point that one can be a theist and an evolutionist is lost on firestorm, hopefully, it isn't lost on you either.