Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[Chief]

Weak argument as far as I'm concerned. You roll dice one trillion times and you're going to end up with a number, irrespective of what it might be. I could mix elements a hundred trillion ways and where's the proof that I'll get a living organism of some sort?

It has been shown to be relatively easy to zap a mixture of chemicals and get amino acids.

In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system.

If you can do that in a beaker in a lab, how easy would it be to do if you had the entire surface of the Earth bombarded with constant lightning strikes?

Please look up the term "protein" somewhere. The internet is a good place to start.

A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous.
...

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

* Evolution has never been observed.
* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* There are no transitional fossils.
* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.

Read on. Educate yourself: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

 

[Smell The Glove]

When will people realise that the concept of intelligence is fundamentally an abstract concept. It is the ability to think on a non-linear path. It reqiures an abnomality to be possible. It cannot be defined. It has nothing to do with chemicals, or God. Just shut up and let it be.

For god's sake.

 

[Chief]

When will people realise that the concept of intelligence is fundamentally an abstract concept. It is the ability to think on a non-linear path. It reqiures an abnomality to be possible. It cannot be defined. It has nothing to do with chemicals, or God. Just shut up and let it be.

For god's sake.

Anomaly? Abnormality?

You say it can't be defined but start to define it by eliminating explanations.

 

[Smell The Glove]

Anomaly? Abnormality?

You say it can't be defined but start to define it by eliminating explanations.

Right. So your answer is to pick on typing mistakes. Your parents must be thrilled.

 

[blues4flag]

Is it just me, or have an abnormally large amount of new users been hit with red lately?

Evolution not doing its job too well, is it?

 

[Total Power]

It

Read on. Educate yourself: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

thats a great website, love reading from that site.Also EvC forum an awesome forum to discuss such issues.

Firestorm just quit, before you embarrass yourself any further

 

[Butane]

The Bloods? the WHOLE argument IS based on their being nothing and then somethind and that little old 'simple' organism you keep talking about turing into life.


It cant happen. Ever. I've shown evidence from science that say it cant. And doesn't.



It can't happen in a soup. It didn't happen then and doesnt happen now with EVERYTHING already that we have to support life.


By the way? When is the last time you were at the beach and have seen a fish walk out of water and turn into a reptile? Please tell me which zoo I can go too to see these kinda creatures?


Anyone?

Wait right there. You are talking about something completely different. We are talking about evolution here not what started the first organism. Your ignorance has blinded you. Even if we can't fully explain what kicked off the first cell(and we can - we just can't recreate it yet) you still have to accept that natural selection exists(Enter your grey bearded man here lol). You can argue to the cowfrogs come home what started it all but you cannot, i repeat simply cannot say evolution doesn't happen. You are only insulting yourself and really need to pick up a book - it's undeniable.

This is why natural selection has to be taught in schools. Some people don't even understand the basics.

(And for the record - plenty of animals can live both in the water and on land. Frogs, crocodiles, penguins are all at the zoo and that's off the top off my head) Who knows where they will be in 100mil years.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Although this paper was written over 30 years ago it still has a lot to contribute to the various debates involving evolution (in particular those relating to the teaching of evolutionary theory and the alternatives).

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution - Theodosius Dobzhansky (The American Biology Teacher: 1973)

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/DownLoads/Dobzhansky_1973.pdf

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

Thanks bro ... I have some reading to do. Never actually read anything about ID before, as I have only studied science, but have my own thoughts which I have been happy to associate with the principle (at least) of ID.

A number of people in here have shown me that ID out there in the world seems to be like everything else and hindered by political and religious agendas.

ID was created by religious agendas, H2F.

Of the most sinister kind.

 

[H2F]

ID was created by religious agendas, H2F.

Of the most sinister kind.

ID sucks
Religion sucks
Cosmologists who don't study gravity suck

thanks mate, i had some egg on face in here in relation to that, but have really enjoyed being educated.

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

Is it just me, or have an abnormally large amount of new users been hit with red lately?

Evolution not doing its job too well, is it?

No. Its doing very well.

 

[evo]

This is why natural selection has to be taught in schools. Some people don't even understand the basics.

.

I was thinking the same thing on reading his posts.

I could've sworn we learnt this stuff in year 8 or 9 Science,which was a mandatory class at State High School.

Don't they even teach the basics these days?

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

Will everyone please stop replying to ShitStorm?

He doesn't want to learn, he's just another dogmatised ****wit who has no ****ing idea.

As far as locus or whatever his name is, if he really is genuine (not some dogmatised ****wit like firestorm), his problem is he just doesn't fully understand evolution. Read up on it without your God-blinkers on. You too BluesFlag.

H2F, i'm not sure wether your being facetious or not; but good . And dont think me, thank Richo and The Bloods and Chief and all them...they know thier stuff

And Figgy, you seem pretty intelligent and all, but I think your wishful-thinking is clouding your judgement regarding higher powers and all.

 

[H2F]

Will everyone please stop replying to ShitStorm?

He doesn't want to learn, he's just another dogmatised ****wit who has no ****ing idea.

As far as locus or whatever his name is, if he really is genuine (not some dogmatised ****wit like firestorm), his problem is he just doesn't fully understand evolution. Read up on it without your God-blinkers on. You too BluesFlag.

H2F, i'm not sure wether your being facetious or not; but good . And dont think me, thank Richo and The Bloods and Chief and all them...they know thier stuff

And Figgy, you seem pretty intelligent and all, but I think your wishful-thinking is clouding your judgement regarding higher powers and all.

Azzballz I have always (since school anyway) believed in evolution, but I do not believe that it is the be all and end all of life. I have however been shown in this thread that mainstream ID is not for me either.

However I still need to maintain to all that .............. bold above

Darwin = Newton. I good guesser with little foundation for his theories. We need another Einstein type to actually tell us what has gone on.

If we did .............................. massive, hypnotic drumroll ........

I think we'd find an evolutionary constant (like Einsteins cosmological version) that might set us on the path to find evolutions version of dark matter and dark energy.

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

Azzballz I have always (since school anyway) believed in evolution, but I do not believe that it is the be all and end all of life. I have however been shown in this thread that mainstream ID is not for me either.

However I still need to maintain to all that .............. bold above

Darwin = Newton. I good guesser with little foundation for his theories. We need another Einstein type to actually tell us what has gone on.

If we did .............................. massive, hypnotic drumroll ........

I think we'd find an evolutionary constant (like Einsteins cosmological version) that might set us on the path to find evolutions version of dark matter and dark energy.

Geez, mate, i dont think anyone really believes that evolution is the be all and all as you put it. Its just a scientific theory (which is stronger than a mere fact, mind you) that explains how we humans (or any other life-forms) developed from one species to another. Thats it, really.

Now I dont believe in Gods or a consious higher power or anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I cant empathize with people who do; as long as they try and rationalize it through intelligent and scientific reason, and not flatly ignore scientifically proven theories (which again, are the most solid ideas of all).

Haha, I actually agree with you about Darwin. He just happened to be the guy who discovered the concept of evolution through the process of Natural Selection. I'm suprised it hadn't been discovered earlier. But what you've got to understand is, the theory of evolution has evolved () since Darwin, and we have found mountains of evidence to back the basic tenents of the theory up, astoundingly so. Almost perfectly!

As for your last point, I'm happy to wait and see.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

Like i said, NO evidence of evolution. None.

Im with you buddy.

Whats doing with the missing link? Can someone help out?

 

[likka]

Like i said, NO evidence of evolution. None.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

... or maybe this is a more accurate depiction...

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Geez, mate, i dont think anyone really believes that evolution is the be all and all as you put it. Its just a scientific theory (which is stronger than a mere fact, mind you) that explains how we humans (or any other life-forms) developed from one species to another. Thats it, really.

Now I dont believe in Gods or a consious higher power or anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I cant empathize with people who do; as long as they try and rationalize it through intelligent and scientific reason, and not flatly ignore scientifically proven theories (which again, are the most solid ideas of all).

Haha, I actually agree with you about Darwin. He just happened to be the guy who discovered the concept of evolution through the process of Natural Selection. I'm suprised it hadn't been discovered earlier. But what you've got to understand is, the theory of evolution has evolved () since Darwin, and we have found mountains of evidence to back the basic tenents of the theory up, astoundingly so. Almost perfectly!

As for your last point, I'm happy to wait and see.

In the historical preface to The Origin of Species, Darwin goes into some detail about the people who influenced his thinking and it seems that the theory of natural selection had been hinted at before Darwin. However, it was Darwin, and, might I add, Wallace, that developed a comprehensive theory of natural selection. In addition, if people (primarily H2F) are of the persuasion that evolution is not the be all and end all, then I would avoid Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, which even Darwin thought was taking things a bit far.

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

 

[H2F]

In the historical preface to The Origin of Species, Darwin goes into some detail about the people who influenced his thinking and it seems that the theory of natural selection had been hinted at before Darwin. However, it was Darwin, and, might I add, Wallace, that developed a comprehensive theory of natural selection. In addition, if people (primarily H2F) are of the persuasion that evolution is not the be all and end all, then I would avoid Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, which even Darwin thought was taking things a bit far.

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

Hey Pawtucket you are a gun mate ...



You've been the best contributor to this thread, besides Karl and me of course...

 

[The rabbi]

I would hazard a guess that Firestorms' problems with Evolution are a matter of his theology and interpretive method and have nothing to to with any analysis of Evolution whatsoever.

Firestorm, have you ever thought of reading something from Christian scientists/biologists sympathetic to Evolution? I would avoid the Creation Research Institute, Answers in Genesis and their clones like the plague. There are no answers to be found there.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I would hazard a guess that Firestorms' problems with Evolution are a matter of his theology and interpretive method and have nothing to to with any analysis of Evolution whatsoever.

Firestorm, have you ever thought of reading something from Christian scientists/biologists sympathetic to Evolution? I would avoid the Creation Research Institute, Answers in Genesis and their clones like the plague. There are no answers to be found there.

Maybe he should try back issues of Creation Ex Nihilo.

 

[JavaBlue]

Darwin = Newton. I good guesser with little foundation for his theories. We need another Einstein type to actually tell us what has gone on.

If we did .............................. massive, hypnotic drumroll ........

I think we'd find an evolutionary constant (like Einsteins cosmological version) that might set us on the path to find evolutions version of dark matter and dark energy.

What the **** are you crapping on about? Give up this ridiculous pretense that you're a scientist for christ's sake.

Newton - good guesser with little foundation for his theories? Are you kidding me? There probably wouldn't be science as we know it if it wasn't for Newton.

Newtonian mechanics were subsumed by Albert's GR Theories, not destroyed - they still exist as a subset of GR if I'm not mistaken. They were good enough to get man to the moon and back and could do the same for a Mars trip. Albert of course did revolutionize the way we look at the universe (Newton's universe basically) especially in terms of time and space.

Despite Albert's breakout 1905, Newton's Principia Mathematica remains man's greatest scientific masterpeice.

If we did .............................. massive, hypnotic drumroll ........

I think we'd find an evolutionary constant (like Einsteins cosmological version) that might set us on the path to find evolutions version of dark matter and dark energy.

You're talking meaningless twaddle again. Einstein himself called his cosmological constant his "biggest blunder". His 'god' was his much-loved concept of a static, finite yet unbounded universe but to keep it (from collapsing) he needed to tweak GR by introducing a force to oppose gravity - antigravity. His cosmological constant was the value given to antigravity so that it could act as a counterbalance to gravitational attraction and keep his static universe in a state of equilibrium. Once Hubble showed the universe was expanding, Albert had to admit his mistake.

It is true that his cosmological constant did make a comeback in the 1990s when dark energy was postulated to explain the exponential expansion of the universe. Altho there are similarities between Albert's antigravity and dark energy, dark energy has little to do with Einstein and the cosmological constant did not "set us on the path to find" it (and Einstein and the constant have nothing to do nothing to do with dark matter). The cosmological constant is just a value that can be given to dark energy.

Interestingly, Albert's love of his static universe prevented him from seeing that his GR theory predicted an expanding universe (and therefore a big bang theory). If he had have seen that, he may have moved a bit closer to Newton as the greatest scientist. He also rejected much of quantum (esp the uncertainty bit) because of his concept of the universe.

Now with all that you've got wrong, it's hard to see that your "evolutionary constant" and the references to "dark matter and dark energy" is anything other than unmitigated crap. Unless you'd like to expand on it....

We should introduce a Hodge2Franklin Constant as a value for how much shit you talk in each post.

 

[likka]

Ouch.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Newton - good guesser with little foundation for his theories? Are you kidding me? There probably wouldn't be science as we know it if it wasn't for Newton.

[YOUTUBE]7laHxv4vIcw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Kompany]

"The design of life" by Richard Dawkins

[youtube]VxGMqKCcN6A[/youtube]

http://blog.ted.com/2007/04/richard_dawkins_2.php

Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case, fall back on the popular phobia against atheism.

The standard creationist argument - there is only one, they're all reduced to this one - takes off from statistical improbability. Living creatures are too complex to have come about by chance, therefore they must have had a designer. This argument of course shoots itself in the foot - any designer capable of designing something really complex has to be even more complex himself. And that's before we even start on the other things he's expected to do, like forgive sins, bless marriages, listen to prayers, favour our side in a war, disapprove of our sex lives and so on.

Quoting Douglas Adams, explaining how science works through the testing of hypotheses that are framed to be vulnerable to disproof. "Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy. What it means is- here is an idea or emotion that you are not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not." (laughter) Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the universe began, about who created the universe- no, that's holy. So we're used to not challenging religious ideas. And it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it." He meant me, not that one. "Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it. Because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally, there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other. Except that we've agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."

In my view, not only is science corrosive to religion, religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural, non-explanations, and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp. It teaches them to accept authority, revelation, and faith, instead of always insisting on evidence.

Now there's a typical scientific journal, The Quarterly Review of Biology, and I'm going to put together as guest editor a special issue on the question "Did an Asteroid Kill the Dinosaurs?" And the first paper is a standard scientific paper presenting evidence (reading list of paper descriptions from a fake "Contents" page): "Iridium layer at K/T boundary and potassium argon dated crater in Yucatan indicate that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." Perfectly ordinary scientific paper. Now the next one: "The president of the royal society has been vouchsafed a strong inner conviction that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." (laughter) "It has been privately revealed to professor Huckstain (sp?) that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." (laughter) "Professor Haldley was brought up to have total and unquestioning faith that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." (laughter) "Professor Hawkins has promulgated an official dogma, binding on all loyal Hawkinsians, that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs." (laughter)

In 1987, a reporter asked George Bush, Sr. whether he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who were atheists. Mr. Bush's reply has become infamous- "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens. Nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation, under God."

Bush's bigotry was not an isolated mistake, blurted out in the heat of the moment, and later retracted. He stood by it in the face of repeated calls for clarification or withdrawal. He really meant it. More to the point, he knew it posed no threat to his election. Quite the contrary. Democrats, as well as Republicans, parade their religiousness if they want to get elected. Both parties invoke "One Nation, Under God." What would Thomas Jefferson have said?

In practice, what is an atheist? An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor, or Baal, or the golden calf. As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further.