Intelligent Design vs. Viral Mutation

[zhack27]

Hey guys,

I'm by no means a scientist so let's see if I'm right about ID...

My understanding of ID is that ultimatly, all it means is that there is no such thing as mutation. That things remain in a constant state.

So does the fact that virus's mutate all the time in and of itself defeat ID ???

[Borodog]

That's not ID. ID basically boils down to argumentum ad ignorantium. "Because I personally cannot think of a way that this particular structure or behavior could have evolved, it couldn't have, therefor it must have been designed."

It's just one big fallacy.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> "Because I personally cannot think of a way that this particular structure or behavior could have evolved, it couldn't have, therefor it must have been designed." </font>

I wonder if this is correct. Is it,

" Because I personally cannot think of a way..." Or,

"Because I personally cannot think of a way, and neither can anyone else..."

Let's be honest.. There still are a lot of things that evolution has yet to explain.

[Lestat]

My understanding of ID (and I'm also not a scientist), is that there are things which are too complicated, too beautiful, and too poetic, for them to have occured randomly through mutation and/or natural selection. I don't think that just because a virus mutates, it defeats ID.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> "Because I personally cannot think of a way that this particular structure or behavior could have evolved, it couldn't have, therefor it must have been designed." </font>

I wonder if this is correct. Is it,

" Because I personally cannot think of a way..." Or,

"Because I personally cannot think of a way, and neither can anyone else..."

Let's be honest.. There still are a lot of things that evolution has yet to explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you mean of course is, "Because I personally cannot think of a way, and neither has anyone else...", which I just think is redundant. Besides, the vast majority of examples cited by IDers have completely plausible evolutionary explanations. They don't know enough about the subject they're arguing against to know about them, or know about them and simply ignore them so that they can continue to argue.

[Sharkey]

The arguments for ID are similar to those that would apply when determining a watch found in the sand to be artificial rather than natural.

Evolution is a pseudo-science whose epistemological foundations couldn’t support your local bamboo tea hut. Most people believe in it as they would any dogma of their age: unquestioningly. Another category, composed of half-baked pretend intellectuals, just can’t quit playing with themselves. (A third, less talkative, sort are sincere students who happen to be mistaken.)

About mutation, nowhere has a mechanism been actually observed (in the real world, not fairyland) to produce life from inanimate matter or develop one mutually fertile group into another in a manner sufficient for the creation of the present diversity of species. In other words, there’s a posture of scientism, but no science.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not ID. ID basically boils down to argumentum ad ignorantium. "Because I personally cannot think of a way that this particular structure or behavior could have evolved, it couldn't have, therefor it must have been designed."

It's just one big fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
More than a fallacy, its a tactic used by those who wish to obscure the fact that their interpretation of their religon can be shown to be wrong.

chez

[Lestat]

I don't disagree with you. The only point I was trying to make was that there is a big difference between "I can't think of a way" and "No one can think of a way". I don't think this is redundant. It is the difference between almost zero and 100% of the population.

[Borodog]

I didn't say there wasn't a difference between "I can't think of a way" and "No one can think of a way". I said there is little difference between "I can't think of a way" and "No one has thought of a way".

Anyway, I think we're on the same wavelength here.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
The arguments for ID are similar to those that would apply when determining a watch found in the sand to be artificial rather than natural.

[/ QUOTE ]

except we know the process by which a watch is made, and we have other watches to compare it to, neither of which is true of the universe.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a pseudo-science whose epistemological foundations couldn’t support your local bamboo tea hut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly all the biologists (which is to say, 99.9% or so) who will tell you evolution has more evidence than gravity are part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Most people believe in it as they would any dogma of their age: unquestioningly. Another category, composed of half-baked pretend intellectuals, just can’t quit playing with themselves. (A third, less talkative, sort are sincere students who happen to be mistaken.)

[/ QUOTE ]

the irony here is delicious.

[ QUOTE ]
About mutation, nowhere has a mechanism been actually observed (in the real world, not fairyland) to produce life from inanimate matter or develop one mutually fertile group into another in a manner sufficient for the creation of the present diversity of species. In other words, there’s a posture of scientism, but no science.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you concluded this how? have you looked at talkorigins.org, it's clearly addressed there. i'm sure you wouldn't be one of those dogma believers that you mentioned earlier.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Evolution is a pseudo-science whose epistemological foundations couldn’t support your local bamboo tea hut. </font>

Seriously.. How the heck can you make such a ridiculous statement Sharkey? You seem far too intelligent.

Pseudo-science? You can't possibly be that naive! Exactly how are you so comfortable bucking what 99% of scientists think? What do you think YOU know that THEY don't?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
we know the process by which a watch is made, and we have other watches to compare it to

[/ QUOTE ]

If a visitor from Mars were to land in the desert and find a watch, even then it would be obviously manufactured.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly all the biologists (which is to say, 99.9% or so) who will tell you evolution has more evidence than gravity are part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truth by consensus?

[ QUOTE ]
have you looked at talkorigins.org, it's clearly addressed there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and it has been brought up here several times. The issue remains: nowhere has a mechanism been observed to either produce life from inanimate matter or develop one mutually fertile group into another in a manner sufficient to account for the present diversity of species.

[zhack27]

Thanks for responding guys,

I often hear creationists refer to the awesome diversity of life as evidence of God, I wonder, am I the only one that doesn't see that much diversity, i mean so much of the life thats out there seems to have very similar tissues and organs. and seem frankly , related.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly how are you so comfortable bucking what 99% of scientists think?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, anytime 99% of scientist think something, it’s correct?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly how are you so comfortable bucking what 99% of scientists think?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, anytime 99% of scientist think something, it’s correct?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, I would say so. Or put it this way...

When 99% of professionals in a given field believe a theory is true, the chance of that theory being true, is much greater than it being false. In other words, the chance that a small minority of people such as yourself (who lack knowledge in the field), and who still believe evolution is some kind of a pseudo-science are right over all these scientists, borders on ludicrous.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
When 99% of professionals in a given field believe a theory is true, the chance of that theory being true, is much greater than it being false.

[/ QUOTE ]

No argument there.

[ QUOTE ]
the chance that a small minority of people such as yourself (who lack knowledge in the field), and who still believe evolution is some kind of a pseudo-science are right over all these scientists, borders on ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are being ludicrous by begging the question. Whether my position is correct or not is just what we’re here to prove. You don’t make your side “the winner” simply by wishing it so.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Now you are being ludicrous by begging the question. Whether my position is correct or not is just what we’re here to prove. You don’t make your side “the winner” simply by wishing it so. </font>

Well, the 2nd part you quoted was simply meant to add weight to the first part you quoted. Maybe I should've left well enough alone. But if you agree with the first part (that 99% of professionals believing a theory is true make it more likely to be true), how do you still hang on to your grass-hut analogy? And why am I being ludicrous to make the point that you are probably wrong and the 99% of scientists are right?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you agree with the first part (that 99% of professionals believing a theory is true make it more likely to be true), how do you still hang on to your grass-hut analogy? And why am I being ludicrous to make the point that you are probably wrong and the 99% of scientists are right?

[/ QUOTE ]

The 99% argument is purely statistical and doesn’t address the merits of your theory in particular, and that’s bad science.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Evolution is a pseudo-science whose epistemological foundations couldn’t support your local bamboo tea hut. </font>

Seriously.. How the heck can you make such a ridiculous statement Sharkey? You seem far too intelligent.

Pseudo-science? You can't possibly be that naive! Exactly how are you so comfortable bucking what 99% of scientists think? What do you think YOU know that THEY don't?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sharkey's clearly intelligent so the reasons for his misleading posts dont easily sit with being naive.

but we don't need to bring scientists onto it. Their job is to produce theories and find evidence of the particular path evolution takes - lots of interesting and difficult stuff and there's no question that bits will be got wrong and blind-alleys taken.

However, the logic behind and evidence for natural selection being able to provide an inevitable path from random stuff happening to apparantly organised complexity is overwhelming. Its also very simple to understand and applies to just about everything.

Sure there could be some supernatural intervention but there's no evolutionary problem that requires a deity.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Evolution is a pseudo-science whose epistemological foundations couldn’t support your local bamboo tea hut. </font>

Seriously.. How the heck can you make such a ridiculous statement Sharkey? You seem far too intelligent.

Pseudo-science? You can't possibly be that naive! Exactly how are you so comfortable bucking what 99% of scientists think? What do you think YOU know that THEY don't?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sharkey's clearly intelligent so the reasons for his misleading posts dont easily sit with being naive.

but we don't need to bring scientists onto it. Their job is to produce theories and find evidence of the particular path evolution takes - lots of interesting and difficult stuff and there's no question that bits will be got wrong and blind-alleys taken.

However, the logic behind and evidence for natural selection being able to provide an inevitable path from random stuff happening to apparantly organised complexity is overwhelming. Its also very simple to understand and applies to just about everything.

Sure there could be some supernatural intervention but there's no evolutionary problem that requires a deity.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Another point I would make is that theories last until there is something better. To me, this is what truly distinguishes Intelligent Design from Evolution. Evolution makes a claim and provides incomplete evidence for it. Intelligent Design seems to just be adopting the position that Evolution is wrong. Scientific theories are adopted on pragmatic grounds - ie because they work. If Intelligent Design is just saying "Evolution is wrong, there's no instances of speciation" or whatever then it is patently not science.

Obviously I am no expert in Intelligent Design - I'd be interested to here what are the falsifiable hypotheses it makes though if there is anyone who believes it does constitute a science.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously I am no expert in Intelligent Design - I'd be interested to here what are the falsifiable hypotheses it makes though if there is anyone who believes it does constitute a science.

[/ QUOTE ]
We had a long thread about this some time ago when discussing ID being taught in science classes. It seemed that even those supporting ID being taught in science classes didn't believe it was science but just wanted to prevent the theory of evolution being taught in science classes.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Another point I would make is that theories last until there is something better. To me, this is what truly distinguishes Intelligent Design from Evolution. Evolution makes a claim and provides incomplete evidence for it. Intelligent Design seems to just be adopting the position that Evolution is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

ID does not accept a better answer coming along and does not provide any evidence for itself. ID seems to adopt the position that they are right regardless of scientific evidence. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously I am no expert in Intelligent Design - I'd be interested to here what are the falsifiable hypotheses it makes though if there is anyone who believes it does constitute a science.

[/ QUOTE ]
We had a long thread about this some time ago when discussing ID being taught in science classes. It seemed that even those supporting ID being taught in science classes didn't believe it was science but just wanted to prevent the theory of evolution being taught in science classes.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I find this extraordinary. Even if evolution is poor science, if it's the best we have then it should be taught in science classes.

What do you think Sharkey (as the most recent ID advocate anyway)? Do you think Intelligent Design is scientific and should therefore be taught alongside evolutionary theory? Or do you think that neither is scientific?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another point I would make is that theories last until there is something better. To me, this is what truly distinguishes Intelligent Design from Evolution. Evolution makes a claim and provides incomplete evidence for it. Intelligent Design seems to just be adopting the position that Evolution is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

ID does not accept a better answer coming along and does not provide any evidence for itself. ID seems to adopt the position that they are right regardless of scientific evidence. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
This is how it seems to me too. This is a fine way to live if you dont want to trouble yourself with hard questions. It's so much more rewarding to allow the possibility you are wrong though.

It surprises me if they are really making this claim though. I thought they were suggesting Intelligent Design was some sort of "alternative" to evolution.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Sharkey's clearly intelligent so the reasons for his misleading posts dont easily sit with being naive. </font>

I understand that Sharkey's intelligent. So naive sits a lot better than anything suggesting not being smart.


<font color="blue">but we don't need to bring scientists onto it. </font>

But why not bring scientists into it? If 99% of all physicians say excerise is good and a shoe salesman tells me it doesn't matter, I'm going with the doctor. This is my whole point. How can Sharkey (or anyone), be so pompous as to ignore what 99% of educated professionals have to say on the matter? How do people like Sharkey and godBoy come to think they have a better grasp of the subject?

[Lestat]

Bunny, I'm sure you know much more than I about this, but isn't it true that is extremely rare for a scientific theory to be proven completely wrong? I understand theories are refined, but I can't think of a modern scientific theory that has turned out to be wrong. Even Newton's theory on gravity which turns out, needed quite a bit of refining (and still does), still hasn't turned out to be flat out wrong.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if you agree with the first part (that 99% of professionals believing a theory is true make it more likely to be true), how do you still hang on to your grass-hut analogy? And why am I being ludicrous to make the point that you are probably wrong and the 99% of scientists are right?

[/ QUOTE ]

The 99% argument is purely statistical and doesn’t address the merits of your theory in particular, and that’s bad science.

[/ QUOTE ]

But with few exceptions, you won't find the "meat" your looking for on this forum. I certainly can't claim to have the understanding and knowledge to "prove" evolution to you. I do however, trust what 99% of the world's scientist have to say over laymen. I couldn't prove that eating burgers and fries every day is bad for you either, but I'll believe what 99% of doctors say about it. Are you saying this is unjustified?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey's clearly intelligent so the reasons for his misleading posts dont easily sit with being naive.

I understand that Sharkey's intelligent. So naive sits a lot better than anything suggesting not being smart.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but a rhetorical device sits even better.

[ QUOTE ]
But why not bring scientists into it? If 99% of all physicians say excerise is good and a shoe salesman tells me it doesn't matter, I'm going with the doctor. This is my whole point. How can Sharkey (or anyone), be so pompous as to ignore what 99% of educated professionals have to say on the matter? How do people like Sharkey and godBoy come to think they have a better grasp of the subject?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can if you want but the general idea is so simple that we don't need to bring experts into it. Its not rocket science.

chez

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
If a visitor from Mars were to land in the desert and find a watch, even then it would be obviously manufactured.

[/ QUOTE ]

and? we know methods by which that watch is created (unless it was the type of watch we'd never seen before, which is likely), how does this contradict anything i've said?


[ QUOTE ]
Truth by consensus?

[/ QUOTE ]

if virtually everyone that actually studies the field for a living (unlike say, you) agrees, don't you just find that a bit odd? if evolution were a lie, wouldn't they all be clamoring to prove it? imagine the prestige of debunking biology's most well known theory!

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and it has been brought up here several times. The issue remains: nowhere has a mechanism been observed to either produce life from inanimate matter or develop one mutually fertile group into another in a manner sufficient to account for the present diversity of species.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know that how? I'm sure this has been addressed by scientists in the field, what have they had to say?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think Sharkey (as the most recent ID advocate anyway)? Do you think Intelligent Design is scientific and should therefore be taught alongside evolutionary theory? Or do you think that neither is scientific?

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of the main published arguments, it appears both approaches are faith-based and neither qualifies as a science.

Not SCIENTISM, which is the appearance or posture of science, a mere representation of science, but SCIENCE.

What’s the difference? To simplify, it’s replicable SUFFICIENT CAUSE.

Perhaps it’s impossible to grasp one’s origin using only syllogism.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly can't claim to have the understanding and knowledge to "prove" evolution to you. I do however, trust what 99% of the world's scientist have to say over laymen.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your belief in evolution is based on faith.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
we know methods by which that watch is created (unless it was the type of watch we'd never seen before, which is likely), how does this contradict anything i've said?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if someone didn’t know the methods by which the watch was created, it would still be evident that it’s intelligently designed.

[ QUOTE ]
if virtually everyone that actually studies the field for a living (unlike say, you) agrees, don't you just find that a bit odd? if evolution were a lie, wouldn't they all be clamoring to prove it? imagine the prestige of debunking biology's most well known theory!

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that general rule to be true in this instance? (Your answer must be scientific.)

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure this has been addressed by scientists in the field, what have they had to say?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have more faith in so-called “experts” than I do. You should pull back the curtain and look for yourself.

[siegfriedandroy]

The idea is obviously simple. But so what? This does not make it true. In my view, some of the issues are incredibly complex. I've read on both sides of the debate, and there are very smart people on either side.

Im not sure about the trite claim that virtually all scientists believe in evolution. I know there are many scientists (not sure exactly how you define 'scientist'- perhaps there are many here who did not get degrees in biology, yet know far more than your typical life science grad) who grapple deeply with the issues and are on the fence. Not sure its quite true that 99% of 'scientists' believe in evolution. Can you demonstrate that statistic for me?

Also, Chez, can you please provide me with a healthy dose of some of this conclusive evidence that you speak of in favor of evolution? I constantly hear folk on these boards about how clear and persuasive the evidence is. Yet I just about never actually see any of this evidence here. Where can I go to assuage my disbelief? I've read biology textbooks, etc, and never have I been struck with anything anywhere near persuasive. I am of fair intelligence. Go to one of the best law schools in the country. So I feel my analysis of what I read is as fair as the next 2 plus 2'ers. Why am I not convinced? Why do you really think Sharkey is not convinced? Pretty sure he isn't naive, unintelligent, etc. So what is it? Show us this overwhelming evidence. Vague appeals to the 'fossil record', [censored] habilus/erectus, etc, ad infinitum. Great. I understand the theory. Why should I be at ease, though, and be assured that all of this actually occurred? Most all I ask do not even really know very much at all about the nuances and specifics involved in the debate, yet are somehow convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. Educate me!

[siegfriedandroy]

I agree that it is important to seek truth tenaciously and not shy away from the tough issues. I believe there are many ON BOTH SIDES who do just that. There are Christians who believe it unnecessary to address these concerns and simply believe blindly. Likewise, though, there are evolutionsists (and I know some personally), with the same type of 'blind' presuppositions which exclude all possibility of anything but natural explanations. My friend, for instance, does not look at the issues squarely, and does not even understand some of the basic underlying tenets of evolutionary theory. Yet he is incredibly adamant and absolutely certain that Darwin's theory is sound. Yet he does not even have a firm grasp on what this theory entails. How can this be?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea is obviously simple. But so what? This does not make it true. In my view, some of the issues are incredibly complex. I've read on both sides of the debate, and there are very smart people on either side.

[/ QUOTE ]
If your talking about the theory of evolution rather than evolutionary theory then we're not talking about whether its true or not but whether its science.

The relationship between science and truth is another matter. Theory of relativity, quantuum theory, newtonian physics etc etc - all science but you could say they are not all true.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Chez, can you please provide me with a healthy dose of some of this conclusive evidence that you speak of in favor of evolution? I constantly hear folk on these boards about how clear and persuasive the evidence is.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's been so much I suggest you just search. If you tell us what you would count as evidence then I or someone else might guide you to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Why am I not convinced? Why do you really think Sharkey is not convinced? Pretty sure he isn't naive, unintelligent, etc. So what is it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sharkey has a different motivation than me, LeStat, Bunny, etc etc. We are trying to understand something and reason to the best of our abilities. Sharkey is trying to defend a set of belief using any tactic available. What about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Most all I ask do not even really know very much at all about the nuances and specifics involved in the debate, yet are somehow convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. Educate me!

[/ QUOTE ]
Misunderstanding here. What is you think I am convinced about beyond a shadow of a doubt?

chez

[siegfriedandroy]

Not that Im one of them, but many believe that modern health care practice in this country is completely backwards, and that the multitudes of endlessly prescribed miracle drugs on the market actually promote poor health and facilitate sickness as opposed to well being. Thus, there are many who think that 99% of American doctors are misled and ill informed, even though many are very intelligent people. Only way we can get to the truth of either American health practice or evolutionary theory is to examine all of the relevant ourselves the best we can. I dont think many truly do this with unbiased intent.

[siegfriedandroy]

Not you in particular. Just many I come across (like my friend I mentioned) who are so utterly convinced that evolutionary theory is true, but without really knowing much at all about it.

Id say that the one's only true motive in studying these issues should be to get to the truth of how (and why) we came to exist. Im certain that many, if not most, do not approach with such pristine motivation.

[siegfriedandroy]

Where do you get this 99.9% figure?

[siegfriedandroy]

what is addressed at talk origins? that guy writes with the venom typical of those i referred to above, whose biases and naturalistic presuppositions are transparent in everything he says. He seems like a smart dude, but he is surely the antithesis of scientific objectivity. His hatred of all those who respectfully disagree with Darwinian theory is not difficult to pick up on.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Id say that the one's only true motive in studying these issues should be to get to the truth of how (and why) we came to exist. Im certain that many, if not most, do not approach with such pristine motivation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree many have very unpristine motivations but they rarely add much to understanding. Mostly they just contribute noise.

[ QUOTE ]
Not you in particular. Just many I come across (like my friend I mentioned) who are so utterly convinced that evolutionary theory is true, but without really knowing much at all about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm generally with you on this one and have very little sympathy with those who are convinced anything is true based on very little understanding.

I've also argued against the appeal to what experts believe which is often a good way of being wrong or a gaining a little dangerous knowledge. If people want to understand, than the best use of experts is to read their works and try to understand. If you just want an answer for practical purposes then your best bet is to rely on an expert

chez

[siegfriedandroy]

What's behind the curtain, Sharkey!?

[siegfriedandroy]

Lestat, I appreciate your openmindedness, objectivity, etc!

[siegfriedandroy]

I think your last sentence applies just as well to many adamant evolutionists. Probably the majority of evolutionists (as in, much more than 50%), know very little about evolutionary theory. But they absolutely KNOW it's true.

[siegfriedandroy]

personally, i see incredible and enormous diversity throughout our planet, as well as incredible similarity. maybe im zen /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey is trying to defend a set of belief using any tactic available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. My motives are not in evidence here.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey is trying to defend a set of belief using any tactic available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. My motives are not in evidence here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I may be wrong but there's plenty of evidence as to your motives.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
What's behind the curtain, Sharkey!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Find your own path.

[bunny]

I guess it's semantics really - I would say Newton's theory is wrong, but it's a good approximation often enough to still be useful. The theory that the earth is the centre of the solar system seems like another....Early atomic theory (where electrons, protons and neutrons were the be fundamental particles)..I think all of these are scientific theories that have been proved completely wrong.

With regard to this topic - I think current thinking in evolutionary biology is clearly wrong too - but it is the best we have so should be taught until it is refined appropriately. If Intelligent Design advocates are suggesting it should be abandoned as it is not perfectly proven then it surprises me. I had heard intelligent design was a clever attack on evolution and this position doesnt seem particularly clever to me at all.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the main published arguments, it appears both approaches are faith-based and neither qualifies as a science.

[/ QUOTE ]
Evolutionary theory has explanatory power - one simple idea explaining many apparently disconnected facts. It also seems testable to me (certainly your speciation requirement may ultimately be testable, although not provable). This seems scientific (even if it's poor science).

[ QUOTE ]
What’s the difference? To simplify, it’s replicable SUFFICIENT CAUSE.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming this is the difference between evolution and intelligent design? Or between science and scientism?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it is important to seek truth tenaciously and not shy away from the tough issues. I believe there are many ON BOTH SIDES who do just that. There are Christians who believe it unnecessary to address these concerns and simply believe blindly. Likewise, though, there are evolutionsists (and I know some personally), with the same type of 'blind' presuppositions which exclude all possibility of anything but natural explanations. My friend, for instance, does not look at the issues squarely, and does not even understand some of the basic underlying tenets of evolutionary theory. Yet he is incredibly adamant and absolutely certain that Darwin's theory is sound. Yet he does not even have a firm grasp on what this theory entails. How can this be?

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that your friend is adopting the view that he will believe what the experts tell him to save himself the time in having to work it all out himself. This is a rational way to make a decision given there is very little controversy within the field as to the reality of evolution, merely in the detail. It seems to me that his passionate belief in the consensus view is probably irrational without any real understanding of his own.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your last sentence applies just as well to many adamant evolutionists. Probably the majority of evolutionists (as in, much more than 50%), know very little about evolutionary theory. But they absolutely KNOW it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you look at life on the small scale, (bacteria, virus, etc), it is impossible to deny that evolution takes place (is true). It's one of the reasons you get sick when you drink unboiled water in Mexico but the mexicans do not get sick. A fair amount of medical science is necessary because of diseases caused by the mutation and adaptation of lower life forms. Because the mutation and life cycles occur very rapidly, experiments can be done to verify that evolution takes place. So you don't really need to know about evolutionary theory to know that it occurs. However if you are going to select parts of the evolutionary theory that you think are wrong, then at that point you do need to have more knowledge about the subject.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionary theory has explanatory power - one simple idea explaining many apparently disconnected facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, yet the believability of after-the-fact explanations can lead along many a primrose path of scientific shoddiness.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming this is the difference between evolution and intelligent design? Or between science and scientism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Replicable sufficient cause would be the difference between science and scientism.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if someone didn’t know the methods by which the watch was created, it would still be evident that it’s intelligently designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

no that's not evident, since in the case of the universe you have nothing to compare it too. this also leads to the problem of asking who designed the designer.

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know that general rule to be true in this instance? (Your answer must be scientific.)

[/ QUOTE ]

a person who rejects science, asking for science, when i'm asking a logical question not a scientific one. cute. so again, why the hell, if evolution was false, wouldn't scientists be rushing to disprove it? is there a conspiracy or not?

[ QUOTE ]
You have more faith in so-called “experts” than I do. You should pull back the curtain and look for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah nice dodge

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionary theory has explanatory power - one simple idea explaining many apparently disconnected facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, yet the believability of after-the-fact explanations can lead along many a primrose path of scientific shoddiness.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's why to be science it has to also be testable.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
that's not evident, since in the case of the universe you have nothing to compare it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like you’re trying to sneak in the assumption that artifice can only be recognized as such by comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
a person who rejects science, asking for science

[/ QUOTE ]

I reject bad science.

[ QUOTE ]
if evolution was false, wouldn't scientists be rushing to disprove it? is there a conspiracy or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. The motives of scientists are not science.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like you’re trying to sneak in the assumption that artifice can only be recognized as such by comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think this is false? How can you recognise artifice without comparison? Can you give an example?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you recognise artifice without comparison? Can you give an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

Artifice is recognizable by an efficient functionality that cannot be accounted for in terms of physical phenomena alone.

An example would be the famous pocket watch found in the sand: obviously an instrument designed to perform a function.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Artifice is recognizable by an efficient functionality that cannot be accounted for in terms of physical phenomena alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems circular to me - like saying we can recognise things which are made through unnatural methods as those we cant explain occuring naturally.

[ QUOTE ]
An example would be the famous pocket watch found in the sand: obviously an instrument designed to perform a function.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never found this argument particularly compelling - I cant see why it is obviously designed to perform a function just because it does.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems circular to me - like saying we can recognise things which are made through unnatural methods as those we cant explain occuring naturally.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s not a matter of mere inexplicability, but the (virtual) impossibility of natural processes present in the environment arraigning such an orderly mechanism.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never found this argument particularly compelling - I cant see why it is obviously designed to perform a function just because it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

How else besides through a designer could the raw materials of the watch simulate half a solar day?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It’s not a matter of mere inexplicability, but the (virtual) impossibility of natural processes present in the environment arraigning such an orderly mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I mean though - given two complicated structures how can we label this one designed and this one not without comparison? It seems like saying it couldnt have occurred by chance is begging the question.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never found this argument particularly compelling - I cant see why it is obviously designed to perform a function just because it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

How else besides through a designer could the raw materials of the watch simulate half a solar day?

[/ QUOTE ]
The raw materials of the solar system do it - I cant see anything purely contained in the watch that suggests it is designed, only by comparing it with other things that I know did have a designer.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It’s not a matter of mere inexplicability, but the (virtual) impossibility of natural processes present in the environment arraigning such an orderly mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I mean though - given two complicated structures how can we label this one designed and this one not without comparison? It seems like saying it couldnt have occurred by chance is begging the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument is not based on complexity, but the efficient use of materials toward a differentiated function.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never found this argument particularly compelling - I cant see why it is obviously designed to perform a function just because it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

How else besides through a designer could the raw materials of the watch simulate half a solar day?

[/ QUOTE ]
The raw materials of the solar system do it - I cant see anything purely contained in the watch that suggests it is designed, only by comparing it with other things that I know did have a designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, not complexity, efficiency.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never found this argument particularly compelling - I cant see why it is obviously designed to perform a function just because it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

How else besides through a designer could the raw materials of the watch simulate half a solar day?

[/ QUOTE ]
The raw materials of the solar system do it - I cant see anything purely contained in the watch that suggests it is designed, only by comparing it with other things that I know did have a designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, not complexity, efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]
Granting efficiency rather than complexity as the distinguishing factor (although I dont think this is what is usually referred to when others have made the argument) I still dont see anything internal to the watch that says - oh yes this must have been designed. The only way to conclude it is is by comparing it to other things we know that have a designer.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It’s not a matter of mere inexplicability, but the (virtual) impossibility of natural processes present in the environment arraigning such an orderly mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I mean though - given two complicated structures how can we label this one designed and this one not without comparison? It seems like saying it couldnt have occurred by chance is begging the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument is not based on complexity, but the efficient use of materials toward a differentiated function.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never found this argument particularly compelling - I cant see why it is obviously designed to perform a function just because it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

How else besides through a designer could the raw materials of the watch simulate half a solar day?

[/ QUOTE ]
The raw materials of the solar system do it - I cant see anything purely contained in the watch that suggests it is designed, only by comparing it with other things that I know did have a designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, not complexity, efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marking the length of shadows cast by a tree is more efficient than a watch, but the tree wasnt designed to tell time.

[spaminator101]

id just says that things were created by a higher power
of course theres mutation
but in like humans for example ne recorded mutation has benifeted a human.
so by natural selection(which is 100% true) its nocked off.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
id just says that things were created by a higher power

[/ QUOTE ]

For which there is not the simplest of evidence.

[spaminator101]

well give me some evidence for evolution then
tell me where are all your missing links
tell me one mutation that has benifited a living creature


then tell me one thing that disproves a God creating it all

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
well give me some evidence for evolution then
tell me where are all your missing links
tell me one mutation that has benifited a living creature


[/ QUOTE ]
Really, you are kidding, right. If you are not, you are obviously not well read or educated, but that may not be your own fault, so I will not criticise you for it.


[ QUOTE ]

then tell me one thing that disproves a God creating it all

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't but neither can I, or you, prove he did. OTOH I have no evidence about god itself and neither have I evidence about unicorns. Of course, I can't prove that a unicorn didn't create the whole damn thing, and neither can you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The concept of god, like the concept of unicorn is the product of your mind. That is the only reality I attribute it for lack of any other evidence. So I agree, god does exist in your and some other people's mind, but that is the only place I can find it.

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
Really, you are kidding, right. If you are not, you are obviously not well read or educated, but that may not be your own fault, so I will not criticise you for it.


[/ QUOTE ]
no im dead serious give me proof

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like you’re trying to sneak in the assumption that artifice can only be recognized as such by comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not an assumption. What is the litmus test for whether the universe was created or not? By what criteria can we go from?
[ QUOTE ]
I reject bad science.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't even know what science is. You reject a theory that has more evidence than gravity.

[ QUOTE ]
Irrelevant. The motives of scientists are not science.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is COMPLETELY relevant, because it shatters your idea about all these scientists basically lying to themselves, or being part of a conspiracy.

[ QUOTE ]
It’s not a matter of mere inexplicability, but the (virtual) impossibility of natural processes present in the environment arraigning such an orderly mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that impossible? And why do you ignore the many things in the universe that aren't orderly? How do you explain those? Are black holes intelligent? Comets destroying planets? Natural disasters?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really, you are kidding, right. If you are not, you are obviously not well read or educated, but that may not be your own fault, so I will not criticise you for it.


[/ QUOTE ]
no im dead serious give me proof

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are educated, then I think your education failed in teaching you what science is and science current state of knowledge in even simplistic ways.

I think you could make some money by suing the state or the institution responsible for your education. They have obviously failed.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
well give me some evidence for evolution then
tell me where are all your missing links
tell me one mutation that has benifited a living creature

[/ QUOTE ]
The best evidence for evolution is a vast number of species specifically tailored to exploit the environment they find themselves in, together with the our observations of genetic copying errors and other sources of mutations and the fact that it is hard to imagine why natural selection wouldnt function. An example of mutation benefitting a living creature? Each of the little steps involved in evolving the eye.

[ QUOTE ]
then tell me one thing that disproves a God creating it all

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no disproof, nor is it mutually inconsistent to believe in evolutionary theory and God (that is my position). The best argument against the Christian God's existence imo is that natural evil exists in the world (eg SIDS, murder of innocents, starvation, natural disasters, etc) and this seems to contradict the idea of a benevolent, omnipotent God. It doesnt amount to a proof though, and I think there are ways of answering it. Nonetheless, it's something to think about.

[MidGe]

Good reply bunny,

[ QUOTE ]
There is no disproof, nor is it mutually inconsistent to believe in evolutionary theory and God (that is my position). The best argument against the Christian God's existence imo is that natural evil exists in the world (eg SIDS, murder of innocents, starvation, natural disasters, etc) and this seems to contradict the idea of a benevolent, omnipotent God. It doesnt amount to a proof though, and I think there are ways of answering it. Nonetheless, it's something to think about.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you.. first, evolution and belief in god need not be mutually exclusive... and, secondly, I never had a satisfactory answer regarding the problem of evil. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

"The best evidence for evolution is a vast number of species specifically tailored to exploit the environment they find themselves in, together with our observations of genetic copying errors and other sources of mutations and the fact that IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE WHY NATURAL SELECTION WOULDNT FUNCTION. an example of mutation benefitting...something about the eye"

Are you serious bunny???? Could you possibly expect any objective, unbiased student to read what you just wrote, and soon be convinced that all that exists today evolved from nothing for no apparent reason by godless, naturalistic and utterly purposeless forces? Nobody should believe this.

[siegfriedandroy]

Why is 'God gave man free will. Man abused this freedom. Evil resulted.' not satisfactory?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is 'God gave man free will. Man abused this freedom. Evil resulted.' not satisfactory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all! Give me evidence. If there is an omnipotent god, then I think humans have got the opportunity to redeem god, by acting differently from his model. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

I am drunk and confused by what you just wrote! Please explain the 'humans can redeem god' part.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is 'God gave man free will. Man abused this freedom. Evil resulted.' not satisfactory?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that is satisfactory. Its when some folk make stuff up about having to believe in god or need to ask for forgiveness or are being punished for the sins of others that you have an evil god and cannot blame man.

chez

[MidGe]

My view point is that being different from the omnipotent (but yet immoral god), by being forgiving and not condemning people to damnation (eternal in the case of god), by not rejecting doubt or lack of worshipful views (as an insult to ego), etc.. that human beings, accidentally, have the potential to redeem, or at least make god realise, in his omnipotence, that there are better and more loving ways.

This is a simple explanation, suitable to a drunk. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am very serious about this (can seriously expand on it) and see it as a a key to meaning and purpose for human life.

[siegfriedandroy]

Haha! Immediately when I opened your post, the second (penultimate? dont remember) to last sentence stood out! I am in law school, but never go to class. My good friends, though, make outlines for me, ensuring that I will get the paper. The outlines are 'very simple', and 'suitable to a drunk' /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Taraz]

For those of you who think evolutionary theory is bogus:

1. How do you account for vestigial structures?
2. How do you respond to arguments for punctuated equilibrium?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly can't claim to have the understanding and knowledge to "prove" evolution to you. I do however, trust what 99% of the world's scientist have to say over laymen.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your belief in evolution is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's based on hearsay evidence for sure. Hearsay, and that it logically makes sense to me. A lot of my beliefs are based on hearsay.

[spaminator101]

you still havent said one thing that proved evolutoin your just avoiding the obvious by making uneducated remarks about my education

[spaminator101]

well thats just not the way it works
Its all part of God's plan
sure we have free will but only in Christ
without Christ we have no free will and are controlled by the Devil himself untill we are liberated by Christ which for some people will never happen

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
well thats just not the way it works
Its all part of God's plan
sure we have free will but only in Christ
without Christ we have no free will and are controlled by the Devil himself untill we are liberated by Christ which for some people will never happen

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you play poker?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is 'God gave man free will. Man abused this freedom. Evil resulted.' not satisfactory?

[/ QUOTE ]

aaaaaaahahahahahahahaha

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Marking the length of shadows cast by a tree is more efficient than a watch, but the tree wasnt designed to tell time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor was the pocket watch designed to hypnotize psychiatric patients. Using a tree to cast a shadow is a grossly inefficient use of a complex organism. Even a single cell to cast a shadow would be wasteful.

There is no necessary correspondence between tree + shadow and half a solar day, any other denomination of time or even the keeping of time at all.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of god, like the concept of unicorn is the product of your mind. That is the only reality I attribute it for lack of any other evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove that anything is not the product if your mind.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who think evolutionary theory is bogus:

1. How do you account for vestigial structures?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way you do: with a story.

[ QUOTE ]
2. How do you respond to arguments for punctuated equilibrium?

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on which ones.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Marking the length of shadows cast by a tree is more efficient than a watch, but the tree wasnt designed to tell time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor was the pocket watch designed to hypnotize psychiatric patients. Using a tree to cast a shadow is a grossly inefficient use of a complex organism. Even a single cell to cast a shadow would be wasteful.

There is no necessary correspondence between tree + shadow and half a solar day, any other denomination of time or even the keeping of time at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
All this is just evidence that the apparent fitness of purpose of the watch is not a coincindence. The mistake Paley made is not to realise that there are least two ways that apparent fitness for purpose can occur other than by coincidence.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Marking the length of shadows cast by a tree is more efficient than a watch, but the tree wasnt designed to tell time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor was the pocket watch designed to hypnotize psychiatric patients. Using a tree to cast a shadow is a grossly inefficient use of a complex organism. Even a single cell to cast a shadow would be wasteful.

There is no necessary correspondence between tree + shadow and half a solar day, any other denomination of time or even the keeping of time at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
All this is just evidence that the apparent fitness of purpose of the watch is not a coincindence. The mistake Paley made is not to realise that there are least two ways that apparent fitness for purpose can occur other than by coincidence.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

More than just fitness of purpose, there is also the nature of the purpose.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Marking the length of shadows cast by a tree is more efficient than a watch, but the tree wasnt designed to tell time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor was the pocket watch designed to hypnotize psychiatric patients. Using a tree to cast a shadow is a grossly inefficient use of a complex organism. Even a single cell to cast a shadow would be wasteful.

There is no necessary correspondence between tree + shadow and half a solar day, any other denomination of time or even the keeping of time at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
All this is just evidence that the apparent fitness of purpose of the watch is not a coincindence. The mistake Paley made is not to realise that there are least two ways that apparent fitness for purpose can occur other than by coincidence.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

More than just fitness of purpose, there is also the nature of the purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what way?

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Marking the length of shadows cast by a tree is more efficient than a watch, but the tree wasnt designed to tell time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor was the pocket watch designed to hypnotize psychiatric patients. Using a tree to cast a shadow is a grossly inefficient use of a complex organism. Even a single cell to cast a shadow would be wasteful.

There is no necessary correspondence between tree + shadow and half a solar day, any other denomination of time or even the keeping of time at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
All this is just evidence that the apparent fitness of purpose of the watch is not a coincindence. The mistake Paley made is not to realise that there are least two ways that apparent fitness for purpose can occur other than by coincidence.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

More than just fitness of purpose, there is also the nature of the purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what way?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as that implied by the correspondence between half a solar day and materials of a pocket watch arraigned in such a mechanism.

[spaminator101]

im a minor

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Marking the length of shadows cast by a tree is more efficient than a watch, but the tree wasnt designed to tell time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor was the pocket watch designed to hypnotize psychiatric patients. Using a tree to cast a shadow is a grossly inefficient use of a complex organism. Even a single cell to cast a shadow would be wasteful.

There is no necessary correspondence between tree + shadow and half a solar day, any other denomination of time or even the keeping of time at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
All this is just evidence that the apparent fitness of purpose of the watch is not a coincindence. The mistake Paley made is not to realise that there are least two ways that apparent fitness for purpose can occur other than by coincidence.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

More than just fitness of purpose, there is also the nature of the purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what way?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as that implied by the correspondence between half a solar day and materials of a pocket watch arraigned in such a mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're using whats implied to determine what's implied?

That cant be right. What is it apart from the apparant fitness of purpose of the object that implies anything about the origin of the object?

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
What is it apart from the apparant fitness of purpose of the object that implies anything about the origin of the object?

[/ QUOTE ]

The correspondence between a solar day and the materials of a pocket watch so arraigned cannot be accounted for in terms of observable natural phenomena.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is it apart from the apparant fitness of purpose of the object that implies anything about the origin of the object?

[/ QUOTE ]

The correspondence between a solar day and the materials of a pocket watch so arraigned cannot be accounted for in terms of observable natural phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that if it could be accounted for in terms of observable natural phenomena then there would be no implication to a designer?

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is it apart from the apparant fitness of purpose of the object that implies anything about the origin of the object?

[/ QUOTE ]

The correspondence between a solar day and the materials of a pocket watch so arraigned cannot be accounted for in terms of observable natural phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that if it could be accounted for in terms of observable natural phenomena then there would be no implication to a designer?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if such thing were accountable in terms of purely physical processes, then an explanation including a designer would be unnecessary.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is it apart from the apparant fitness of purpose of the object that implies anything about the origin of the object?

[/ QUOTE ]

The correspondence between a solar day and the materials of a pocket watch so arraigned cannot be accounted for in terms of observable natural phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that if it could be accounted for in terms of observable natural phenomena then there would be no implication to a designer?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if such thing were accountable in terms of purely physical processes, then an explanation including a designer would be unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well its neccessary to explain anything but it makes me happy. It looks like we agree that as long as there are observable physical processes that could explain the object then no designer is implied.

Its now obvious why the watch suggests a designer, its because there are no obvious observable physical processes that could explain the object. Doesn't mean there aren't any or that its not coincidence but it certainly suggests a designer.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
"The best evidence for evolution is a vast number of species specifically tailored to exploit the environment they find themselves in, together with our observations of genetic copying errors and other sources of mutations and the fact that IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE WHY NATURAL SELECTION WOULDNT FUNCTION. an example of mutation benefitting...something about the eye"

Are you serious bunny???? Could you possibly expect any objective, unbiased student to read what you just wrote, and soon be convinced that all that exists today evolved from nothing for no apparent reason by godless, naturalistic and utterly purposeless forces? Nobody should believe this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I defined what I mean by evolution earlier - it doesnt involve no apparent reason, godless or utterly purposeless forces (dont really know what you mean by the term naturalistic so I dont know if it excludes that or not). Evolution is silent about whether it all happens to God's plan or whether it all just happens - this is not a question for science.

The phrase you highlighted was probably not written very well. Nonetheless, it seems to me that mst intelligent design advocates accept natural selection as a fact so it didnt seem controversial. It was also shorthand - I think if you think about it deeply you will agree that natural selection has to happen. The arguments for it are longer than a paragraph but like i said, I didnt think it was controversial.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Its now obvious why the watch suggests a designer, its because there are no obvious observable physical processes that could explain the object.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, there’s the absence of non-functional approximations to the watch which the existence of such undirected physical processes would entail.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its now obvious why the watch suggests a designer, its because there are no obvious observable physical processes that could explain the object.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, there’s the absence of non-functional approximations to the watch which the existence of such undirected physical processes would entail.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if there was some incremental mechanism the you would expect to find some evidence of the increments.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its now obvious why the watch suggests a designer, its because there are no obvious observable physical processes that could explain the object.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, there’s the absence of non-functional approximations to the watch which the existence of such undirected physical processes would entail.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if there was some incremental mechanism the you would expect to find some evidence of the increments.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You would expect a gigantic ratio of unsuccessful to successful approximations to a functional watch, which doesn’t even address how such undirected physical processes could be “aware” of the solar cycle and its various even subdivisions to begin with.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its now obvious why the watch suggests a designer, its because there are no obvious observable physical processes that could explain the object.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, there’s the absence of non-functional approximations to the watch which the existence of such undirected physical processes would entail.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if there was some incremental mechanism the you would expect to find some evidence of the increments.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You would expect a gigantic ratio of unsuccessful to successful approximations to a functional watch, which doesn’t even address how such undirected physical processes could be “aware” of the solar cycle and its various even subdivisions to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]
The expected ratio would depend on the process. As we don't have a process for the watch its a bit of a moot point.

chez

[MidGe]

Regarding a watch as an object that was designed. The primary feature seems to me that it embodies precisions that are to be found only in abstract geometry. Ie. perfect circles etc...

The natural world, on the other hand, manifests imperfections (not orbit is regular, no planet is spherical, etc... ) that seems to indicate the result of chance more so that a designer.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its now obvious why the watch suggests a designer, its because there are no obvious observable physical processes that could explain the object.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, there’s the absence of non-functional approximations to the watch which the existence of such undirected physical processes would entail.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if there was some incremental mechanism the you would expect to find some evidence of the increments.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You would expect a gigantic ratio of unsuccessful to successful approximations to a functional watch, which doesn’t even address how such undirected physical processes could be “aware” of the solar cycle and its various even subdivisions to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]
The expected ratio would depend on the process. As we don't have a process for the watch its a bit of a moot point.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely moot, since we have more than the absence of a specific process. We have the absence of even an indication of a process whereby such a device could be assembled in the observed absence of unsuccessful approximations, if at all.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding a watch as an object that was designed. The primary feature seems to me that it embodies precisions that are to be found only in abstract geometry. Ie. perfect circles etc...

The natural world, on the other hand, manifests imperfections (not orbit is regular, no planet is spherical, etc... ) that seems to indicate the result of chance more so that a designer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems reasonable. Generally it appears that there is no great advantage in being near perfectly spherical but if there was (e.g sexual attraction to spherical heads) then no doubt nature could manage it.

It does orbs pretty well /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly can't claim to have the understanding and knowledge to "prove" evolution to you. I do however, trust what 99% of the world's scientist have to say over laymen.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your belief in evolution is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's based on hearsay evidence for sure. Hearsay, and that it logically makes sense to me. A lot of my beliefs are based on hearsay.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your belief in evolution is based on faith in authority figures whose competence to be authority figures you cannot judge for yourself but accept on faith.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems reasonable. Generally it appears that there is no great advantage in being near perfectly spherical but if there was (e.g sexual attraction to spherical heads) then no doubt nature could manage it.

It does orbs pretty well

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes beyond this, chez. The watch/watchmaker argument is a fallacy, it is a strawman argument.

Lets say that instead of a watch we have an artist (or a toymaker but the artist will be more useful) who designs something that for all intent and puropse is a watch, except that it has not intent of measuring time. It could be an object like a baby rattle that is meant to amuse the owner by watching two little figures running after each other (if they are placed at the end of needles) and every so often catching/overtaking each other.

This object would still be attributed as designed by the finder. Why, because it is made up of pieces that duplicate abstract geometric patterns (perfect circles, perfect fits of different size wheels, etc) which are not found randomly in nature. (There is one exception - crystal but the edge of a crystal ie the whole is usually not reflecting a perfect abstract geometric shape, so one could say that the repetition could be "designed" but not the sum of the repetition).

Now an artist like Jackson Pollock, paints a piece like "blue poles". This is a random arrangement of dots of different colours and size, thrown at the canvas with brushes dipped in paints. Altough it has nartistic merit, that merit is given by the context only. Ie it hangs on a museum wall, you know it was made by Pollock, it is framed, or at least on a regular rectangular (abstrat) geometric form. Should you find the canvas ona beach (maybe irregularly cut) you would nver asssigned it a design. That is because there is no design, altough they may have been an intent. It just look like a rag carried from room to room by ceiling painters. The only inference of design, would be the knit of the material/canvas, which again is truly designed and regular.

So, to me it seems that it is the closeness to geometric abstraction that indicate design, precisely what is lacking in nature. The geometric abstraction is efficient and that is why you find an approximation of it in nature. Many random and chaotic events will arrange matter in the most suitable/efficient manner or at least approximate it.

Nature does not reflect abstract, perfect geometrical forms. All of it is imperefct. As I said, orbits are neither circular not even elliptic and subject to many variations which makes them hard if not impossible to predict too far in the future. Planetary spins are really wobbles. The eearth is more like pear shaped than spherical. Symetry is not to be found, animals/human are very imperfectly symetrical in their appearances and their constitution. All of this, and more in the same vein, leads me very easily to conclude that there is no designer in action in nature. I would use the analogy of the beach walker that finds a watch and impute a designer to prove my point. If he found our universe, it would not look designed and he would not impute a designer. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Its now obvious why the watch suggests a designer, its because there are no obvious observable physical processes that could explain the object. Doesn't mean there aren't any or that its not coincidence but it certainly suggests a designer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Chezlaw, can you explain this to me? Paley's watch argument has never impressed me because it seems to me that we deduce a designer because we know it was designed. If I found it in a desert, with no knowledge of watches or all the other sundry knowledge I have of technology and human mechanisms, etc etc I just cannot see how I would conclude it was designed. I'd just think "Wow, another thing I havent seen before. How curious." As far as I can see nothing inherent in the watch indicates a designer.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its now obvious why the watch suggests a designer, its because there are no obvious observable physical processes that could explain the object. Doesn't mean there aren't any or that its not coincidence but it certainly suggests a designer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Chezlaw, can you explain this to me? Paley's watch argument has never impressed me because it seems to me that we deduce a designer because we know it was designed. If I found it in a desert, with no knowledge of watches or all the other sundry knowledge I have of technology and human mechanisms, etc etc I just cannot see how I would conclude it was designed. I'd just think "Wow, another thing I havent seen before. How curious." As far as I can see nothing inherent in the watch indicates a designer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may just think 'wow how curious' but you may also wonder how it came to tell the time. There are only three possibilities: coincidence, some random process or some design process (or some combination).

Here we're assuming its not coincidence. Is it possible there could be some random process that produces a watch that doesn't include a feedback mechanism for guiding the watch towards its telling the time function - the answer must be no (he boldly states). So we look for the feedback mechanism and it doesn't appear that there is one. The more we can rule out the possibility of a feedback mechanism the more that suggests it was designed.

We can't conclude it was designed because we may have missed the feedback mechanism but it does suggest design.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seems reasonable. Generally it appears that there is no great advantage in being near perfectly spherical but if there was (e.g sexual attraction to spherical heads) then no doubt nature could manage it.

It does orbs pretty well

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes beyond this, chez. The watch/watchmaker argument is a fallacy, it is a strawman argument.

Lets say that instead of a watch we have an artist (or a toymaker but the artist will be more useful) who designs something that for all intent and puropse is a watch, except that it has not intent of measuring time. It could be an object like a baby rattle that is meant to amuse the owner by watching two little figures running after each other (if they are placed at the end of needles) and every so often catching/overtaking each other.

This object would still be attributed as designed by the finder. Why, because it is made up of pieces that duplicate abstract geometric patterns (perfect circles, perfect fits of different size wheels, etc) which are not found randomly in nature. (There is one exception - crystal but the edge of a crystal ie the whole is usually not reflecting a perfect abstract geometric shape, so one could say that the repetition could be "designed" but not the sum of the repetition).

Now an artist like Jackson Pollock, paints a piece like "blue poles". This is a random arrangement of dots of different colours and size, thrown at the canvas with brushes dipped in paints. Altough it has nartistic merit, that merit is given by the context only. Ie it hangs on a museum wall, you know it was made by Pollock, it is framed, or at least on a regular rectangular (abstrat) geometric form. Should you find the canvas ona beach (maybe irregularly cut) you would nver asssigned it a design. That is because there is no design, altough they may have been an intent. It just look like a rag carried from room to room by ceiling painters. The only inference of design, would be the knit of the material/canvas, which again is truly designed and regular.

So, to me it seems that it is the closeness to geometric abstraction that indicate design, precisely what is lacking in nature. The geometric abstraction is efficient and that is why you find an approximation of it in nature. Many random and chaotic events will arrange matter in the most suitable/efficient manner or at least approximate it.

Nature does not reflect abstract, perfect geometrical forms. All of it is imperefct. As I said, orbits are neither circular not even elliptic and subject to many variations which makes them hard if not impossible to predict too far in the future. Planetary spins are really wobbles. The eearth is more like pear shaped than spherical. Symetry is not to be found, animals/human are very imperfectly symetrical in their appearances and their constitution. All of this, and more in the same vein, leads me very easily to conclude that there is no designer in action in nature. I would use the analogy of the beach walker that finds a watch and impute a designer to prove my point. If he found our universe, it would not look designed and he would not impute a designer. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I mostly agree but I don't think it contradicts my post. Maybe its a discovery that nature doesn't produce objects with certain geometric properties and/or maybe by considering evolution one could deduce that was the case. Having realised its true then that's another method for distinguishing designed from evolved.

I prefer my way because I think its more fundamental. I claim in a weak hand wavey sort of way that the reason nature doesn't produce perfect spheres is because perfect spheres are not a fit endpoint for any feedback mechanism. This could just be a load of Jackson's.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You may just think 'wow how curious' but you may also wonder how it came to tell the time. There are only three possibilities: coincidence, some random process or some design process (or some combination).

Here we're assuming its not coincidence. Is it possible there could be some random process that produces a watch that doesn't include a feedback mechanism for guiding the watch towards its telling the time function - the answer must be no (he boldly states). So we look for the feedback mechanism and it doesn't appear that there is one. The more we can rule out the possibility of a feedback mechanism the more that suggests it was designed.

We can't conclude it was designed because we may have missed the feedback mechanism but it does suggest design.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm clearly missing something - I wouldnt wonder "Gee how come it tells the time?" any more than wondering "Gee how come this cave is so well suited to provide me shelter? Or this big rock is so good at cutting things? Or that vantage point is such a good place to hunt for animals from?" - the supposed "purpose" is something I am attributing to it from outside (i think Copernicus's tree shadow is a good example)

[bunny]

Maybe I'm just going for the coincidence option? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You may just think 'wow how curious' but you may also wonder how it came to tell the time. There are only three possibilities: coincidence, some random process or some design process (or some combination).

Here we're assuming its not coincidence. Is it possible there could be some random process that produces a watch that doesn't include a feedback mechanism for guiding the watch towards its telling the time function - the answer must be no (he boldly states). So we look for the feedback mechanism and it doesn't appear that there is one. The more we can rule out the possibility of a feedback mechanism the more that suggests it was designed.

We can't conclude it was designed because we may have missed the feedback mechanism but it does suggest design.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm clearly missing something - I wouldnt wonder "Gee how come it tells the time?" any more than wondering "Gee how come this cave is so well suited to provide me shelter? Or this big rock is so good at cutting things? Or that vantage point is such a good place to hunt for animals from?" - the supposed "purpose" is something I am attributing to it from outside (i think Copernicus's tree shadow is a good example)

[/ QUOTE ]
Now I'm missing something. Most of us probably wouldn't wonder how comes it tells the time but I can't see how that relevant. The whole question is predicated on the question being asked and it is possible that someone will wonder.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm missing something. Most of us probably wouldn't wonder how comes it tells the time but I can't see how that relevant. The whole question is predicated on the question being asked and it is possible that someone will wonder.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for trying to clarify anyhow - I'll just continue finding Paley's watch unpersuasive until someone can explain why they would conclude it was designed. It just seems suitable for telling the time as far as I can see.
Cheers

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm missing something. Most of us probably wouldn't wonder how comes it tells the time but I can't see how that relevant. The whole question is predicated on the question being asked and it is possible that someone will wonder.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for trying to clarify anyhow - I'll just continue finding Paley's watch unpersuasive until someone can explain why they would conclude it was designed. It just seems suitable for telling the time as far as I can see.
Cheers

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I think most people find paley's argument unimpressive but normally go with the watch bit and abandon ship when he extrapolates to processes with a feedback mechanism.

Maybe the rest is so obviously wrong that they dont pay enough attention to the watch bit.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm clearly missing something - I wouldnt wonder "Gee how come it tells the time?" any more than wondering "Gee how come this cave is so well suited to provide me shelter? Or this big rock is so good at cutting things? Or that vantage point is such a good place to hunt for animals from?" - the supposed "purpose" is something I am attributing to it from outside (i think Copernicus's tree shadow is a good example)

[/ QUOTE ]

“Gee, how does such an astronomically improbable configuration of these materials happen to so efficiently correspond to the rotational period of this planet?”

[siegfriedandroy]

what are the arguments for punctuated equilibrium? from what ive read, that does seem bogus to me. Basically, it seems to be a copout and poor attempt to explain the super quick appearance of a vast multitude of life forms which cannot be accounted for by traditional evolutionary theory. Please give me some of these arguments for p.e.

[siegfriedandroy]

Of course natural selection is a fact. We just differ on what it means. All agree that there is variation within species. But those, like myself, who dispute traditional evolutionary thought believe that natural selection can never serve to convert one species into an entirely new one.

But when you say something like 'it is hard to imagine why natural selection wouldn't function', nobody who knows how to think well should be convinced that this vindicates evolutionary theory. "best evidence for evolution is a vast number of species specifically tailored to exploit the environment..." How does this PROVE or lend credence to evolutionary theory? What you wrote is meaningless to me, and honestly gives me absolutely no reason to contemplate that perhaps I am wrong, and evolutionary theory is true. I will need a lot better than that to believe that all of life arose from the primordial soup (which we have no clue why this WAS)without any supernatural intervention. And while perhaps you (rightly) do not automatically exclude the possibility of a Creator, 99% of the ivory tower Darwinists do from the outset, as a direct result of their naturalistic and atheistic presuppositions. There is no room for God from the beginning, and all of the evidence will be interpreted from this presupposition (starting point).

[siegfriedandroy]

Again, where is this vast array of evidence that is more convincing then the case for gravity? I have read all of the standard arguments, and find them unconvincing. Please provide me, Sharkey and spaminator with this all conclusive evidence that would make any reasonably minded person believe.

[siegfriedandroy]

Why should an omnipotent Designer be more inclined to make planets with perfect circles? This reminds me of Hawking's argument that if God existed, He would have created a very simple and efficient universe with one sun, one planet, etc. Why should this be? Seems presumptuous, as infallible human beings whose knowledge is woefully infinitesimal and incomplete, to even offer a vague hypothesis regarding how God SHOULD or would have created (if He did exist).

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, it seems to be a copout and poor attempt to explain the super quick appearance of a vast multitude of life forms which cannot be accounted for by traditional evolutionary theory

[/ QUOTE ]

PE is usually misunderstood and Gould need the take the blame for that. The only thing that fundamentally PE says is that mutation rate vary. So what? It is to be expected and even can be predicted in a number of ways!

As one example, for instance, a shift in tectonic plates divides a population. The two part will evolve separately, differently and at different rates since they exists in different contexts. Overall, if the population are rejoined due to a similar phenomena (or a different one) that created the original separation, it will looks like the mutation rate has accelerated or decelerated (depending on which one is the most adapted for the conjoined environment).

So PE is more about remarking/particularising an instance of a more general character of evolution (which has a variable rate in the short term). Much ado about nothing. I think Gould was in great need of admiration and followers, it did tend to twist his scientific approach at times, meaning he had a tendency to go for shortcuts.

A google search will explain it more accurately and in more details if you are interested.

[Sharkey]

More fairytales.

Provide proof of one instance of speciation by punctuated equilibrium.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should an omnipotent Designer be more inclined to make planets with perfect circles? This reminds me of Hawking's argument that if God existed, He would have created a very simple and efficient universe with one sun, one planet, etc. Why should this be? Seems presumptuous, as infallible human beings whose knowledge is woefully infinitesimal and incomplete, to even offer a vague hypothesis regarding how God SHOULD or would have created (if He did exist).

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not the point! We are talking about and is being proposed is "evidence" of design [not evidence of no design]. Throw a handful of sand in the air, it will fall back looking like a starry sky, some areas denser with grains of sands (stars), some not, they may even be things that look like spiral (for good reasons, other than design). The fact that we can extrapolate some interesting number from the various relationships, is no different from those people that are consumed by the "secrets" (?) of the pyramids. Give me enough numbers and I will find some interesting relations (we tend to want to see patterns). That does not imply those are part of the design, neither in the pyramids, the grains of sand or the stars and their respective positions.

[siegfriedandroy]

So it isn't actually attempt to explain the apparent burst and extraordinarily quick (on the geologic time scale) appearance of a huge amount of new life (i.e. cambrian explosion, etc)??

[siegfriedandroy]

So you did not say that the 'imperfection' of the structures within the universe is antithetical to the type of universe that a God would have created? Did I not read that!?

[siegfriedandroy]

My penis has a spherical head!!!

[MidGe]

I think it was an actual attempt, but it was lacking rigour, Gould was too quick to draw conclusions and as I said it is not needed to explain variable artes of mutations on a geologic time scale. That being said there are still a minority of scientists which support Gould PE or refinements of it and they may very well have something. The case seem to be settled but there are many discoveries still awaiting us, especially given the advances in genetics which will probably settle the question in a definitive way.

[siegfriedandroy]

what's so funny, lol?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
So you did not say that the 'imperfection' of the structures within the universe is antithetical to the type of universe that a God would have created? Did I not read that!?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you did not read that. Once again, I give no hoot about the existence or otherwise of god, it is a total non-issue for me. The only thing I am saying is that there is no evidence for a designer or god, ie that things (naturalistic and observable phenomena) can be explained without, do not demand, a god or designer. Discussion about gods, imo, are not part of the scientific discourse, they belong to sunday school, bible or history of myth classes. In relation to what we were immediately discussing, I see no sufficient order that would make me think there was a designer. Again, maybe there is, maybe not, I really don't care as a position on this topic does not advance my understanding one iota.

[Pauwl]

Here's an old post by BluesBassMan that gives a plethora of links and info about evolution:
Evolution Post that involved proof of Speciation etc. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=3614000)

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who think evolutionary theory is bogus:

1. How do you account for vestigial structures?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way you do: with a story.


[/ QUOTE ]

Care to tell me this story? I'm honestly very curious to see what alternative explanations are believable.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who think evolutionary theory is bogus:

1. How do you account for vestigial structures?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way you do: with a story.


[/ QUOTE ]

Care to tell me this story? I'm honestly very curious to see what alternative explanations are believable.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) God created vestigial structures in order to test the faith of his creatures.

2) All structures have a function (ie there are no vestigial structures) we just havent found that function.

3) In the coming great famine (wrought by god) surgeons will be able to harvest vestigial structures for food. God the provider has seen to it that we will not starve.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who think evolutionary theory is bogus:

1. How do you account for vestigial structures?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way you do: with a story.


[/ QUOTE ]

Care to tell me this story? I'm honestly very curious to see what alternative explanations are believable.

[/ QUOTE ]

God created life. There are no contrary examples.

“Believable”? I thought you were claiming science.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly can't claim to have the understanding and knowledge to "prove" evolution to you. I do however, trust what 99% of the world's scientist have to say over laymen.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your belief in evolution is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's based on hearsay evidence for sure. Hearsay, and that it logically makes sense to me. A lot of my beliefs are based on hearsay.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your belief in evolution is based on faith in authority figures whose competence to be authority figures you cannot judge for yourself but accept on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

What can I say Sharkey? This is correct. I mean I know the basics which I've read about... Thought about it... And it makes sense to me. But what you say is true. I do not understand everything there is to know about evolution, so I defer to those who are more educated on the subject.

I'm not sure why you're making this a big stickling point, however. Surely, your faith in the bible is no better and even on much shakier ground (at least I'm going with living educated human beings who are examining observable evidence and current data every day).

I guess I have faith in a lot of things. I have no proof that man ever actually walked on the moon. I am trusting the video images I've seen and the reports that I heard. Do you think I'm being too gullible?

[Copernicus]

I'm not sure why you are asking that question, it would seem from prior posts you know the answer (or Im misunderstanding the question)

He makes it a big sticking point because if he can equate the faith required to believe in god with the "faith" in published and peer reveiwed science then he has reduced science to the same level as religion.

What his arguments fail to recognize is that given the appropriate resources, science is reproducible and ultimately scientific theories are refinable and disprovable. Religion is neither, therefore the "level" or "quality" of the faith required to believe in science is not equivalent to that required for religion.

You can, of course, anticipate his response to that.

[Hopey]

I stopped trying to respond to Sharkey's arguments quite awhile ago. It's pointless. The debate will only be settled once Sharkey dies and either blinks into nothingness, or floats off into the afterlife.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly can't claim to have the understanding and knowledge to "prove" evolution to you. I do however, trust what 99% of the world's scientist have to say over laymen.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your belief in evolution is based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's based on hearsay evidence for sure. Hearsay, and that it logically makes sense to me. A lot of my beliefs are based on hearsay.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your belief in evolution is based on faith in authority figures whose competence to be authority figures you cannot judge for yourself but accept on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

What can I say Sharkey? This is correct. I mean I know the basics which I've read about... Thought about it... And it makes sense to me. But what you say is true. I do not understand everything there is to know about evolution, so I defer to those who are more educated on the subject.

I'm not sure why you're making this a big stickling point, however. Surely, your faith in the bible is no better and even on much shakier ground (at least I'm going with living educated human beings who are examining observable evidence and current data every day).

I guess I have faith in a lot of things. I have no proof that man ever actually walked on the moon. I am trusting the video images I've seen and the reports that I heard. Do you think I'm being too gullible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta admit I’m impressed with your answer, Lestat. I wouldn’t say you’re gullible, just not questioning “authority” enough.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I stopped trying to respond to Sharkey's arguments quite awhile ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You stopped trying to respond because you couldn’t answer my questions. Be honest with yourself.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]


God created life. There are no contrary examples.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is an adaquate explaination of the world as it is, but only if you agree that God didn't create all species at the same time, but instead created them at different times. Or set a mechanism by which they could change over time. Also you would have to accept that God creates new strains of life today, the observation of which we call micro evolution.

otherwise, there are contrary examples.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


God created life. There are no contrary examples.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is an adaquate explaination of the world as it is, but only if you agree that God didn't create all species at the same time, but instead created them at different times. Or set a mechanism by which they could change over time. Also you would have to accept that God creates new strains of life today, the observation of which we call micro evolution.

otherwise, there are contrary examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your best example of one mutually fertile group developing into another in a manner sufficient for the creation of the present diversity of species?

[neverforgetlol]

i'll need you to be reasonably minded first. if biologists aren't, you're going to have a hard time being so yourself.

[neverforgetlol]

would you mind posing your questions on the IIDB evolution subforum?

http://iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=4691caef6c80d23fecbda5f18e5ba9d 9&amp;f=66

they're overall much more qualified than a gambling website. i look forward to seeing your thread, as i'm sure you're interested in nothing but the facts.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
would you mind posing your questions on the IIDB evolution subforum?

http://iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=4691caef6c80d23fecbda5f18e5ba9d 9&amp;f=66

they're overall much more qualified than a gambling website. i look forward to seeing your thread, as i'm sure you're interested in nothing but the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he would be better served by posting at

The gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (www.veganza.org)

[Sharkey]

That’s interesting. Actually, I didn’t pick this up to do the SMP rattle. I signed up to discuss poker and sorta got caught up. Funny how that can happen.