Creationism vs. Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee The ignorance of this post is astounding, and I've had a couple of drinks. I should wait until tomorrow to respond, but I'll try and get something down anyway.

Having read your post, I've got agree. The ignorance is astounding.

Perhaps you're unaware that there are certain definitions of ID that don't involve any "party line".

Right. Let's pretend that we don't know who we mean when we talk about the "Designer."

The simple definition of ID is that the universe as we know it is the result of a conscious act by some entity rather than the result of random chance.

So, who is that entity? Do you have any idea? The Discovery Institute does. They told us in the 'Wedge' document and made it quite clear in Kitzmiller v. Dover. ID is fundamentalist christian creationism. Whoever claimed that the universe was the result of random chance (except creationists who misrepresent science)?

This entity doesn't necessarily require obeisance, praise, or any other religious expression. In fact, it's usually the anti-ID people that insist on tying it to religion.

So you are telling us that you are not a fundamentalist christian and you don't believe that the designer is your god?

Sounds like the "big bang" theory to me....

Actually, it is fundamentalist christianity.'Ex nihilo', as the creationist publication said. By the way, that means 'from nothing.' That is a tenet of fundamentalist christianity. A magical being poofed everything into existance from nothing a few years ago just as we see it today. The big bang theory does not claim that the universe comes from nothing.

It's YOU that's trying to drag the "magical trance" into the discussion. I never referenced any such thing, rib or not.

I see. Then Eve was not created from Adam's rib? Is that what you are saying? Since both are nothing more than mythology, I agree.

Why would a creator need to have some "magical" powers? Again, it's YOU that insist on such a concept.

So you think that creation of the universe from nothing is somehow natural?

Again, ALL your own creations. I never mentioned ANY of them.

Then you accept them all as valid when compared to your god?

I never mentioned a "god" You did that all on your own.

Yes you did. You mentioned some unknown creator. Are you seriously going to tell us that this magical being isn't your god?

I understand Darwin's theory just fine,

Then you lied? If you understand, then why did you misrepresent what Darwin said?

And I know he never made any claim about how or where life originated.

That wasn't the question. Did you read "On The Origin Of Species" was the question. Otherwise you are talking out of your...your discussion is nothing more than flatulence.

It's only the truly ignorant that continue to try to equate evolution to the origins of life. One has NOTHING to do with the other.

But, that's what I told you. As an evolutionary biologist I understand quite well what evolution is. I am not a molecular biologist and have not studied abiogenesis. Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what I said? Sadly, I am quite sure that you have little understanding of either evolutionary theory or abiogenesis. You seem to be pretty much a scientific illiterate.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo Right. Let's pretend that we don't know who we mean when we talk about the "Designer."

I've never made any claims about who I mean, so the pretending is all yours.

Quote by: gallo So, who is that entity? Do you have any idea? The Discovery Institute does. They told us in the 'Wedge' document and made it quite clear in Kitzmiller v. Dover. ID is fundamentalist christian creationism.

I don't know who or what that entity might be. And I don't care what the Discovery Institute believes or made clear to you. Because some believe that ID requires a god, everyone that accepts the possibility of ID has to believe it too? Because some scientists believe in global warming, does that mean all scientists have to believe it too?

Quote by: gallo Whoever claimed that the universe was the result of random chance (except creationists who misrepresent science)?

Well, then are you saying the universe is a result of some conscious act?

Quote by: gallo So you are telling us that you are not a fundamentalist christian and you don't believe that the designer is your god?

Yeah, now you got it. That's exactly what I'm telling you.

Quote by: gallo Actually, it is fundamentalist christianity.'Ex nihilo', as the creationist publication said. By the way, that means 'from nothing.' That is a tenet of fundamentalist christianity. A magical being poofed everything into existance from nothing a few years ago just as we see it today.

Again, you insist on bringing religion into the discussion.

Quote by: gallo I see. Then Eve was not created from Adam's rib? Is that what you are saying? Since both are nothing more than mythology, I agree.

Hey, you do seem to be catching on.

Quote by: gallo So you think that creation of the universe from nothing is somehow natural?

You didn't answer my question. Why would a creator need to have some "magical" powers?

Quote by: gallo Yes you did. You mentioned some unknown creator. Are you seriously going to tell us that this magical being isn't your god?

What "magical" being? And yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. Maybe you don't get it after all.

Quote by: gallo Then you lied? If you understand, then why did you misrepresent what Darwin said?

Certainly not deliberately. I'm always willing to learn, so please tell me where and how I misrepresented Darwin.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee I've never made any claims about who I mean, so the pretending is all yours. I don't know who or what that entity might be.

Good boy. Stick to the party line no matter what.

I notice that you ducked my question. Have you read "On The Origin Of Species?" You tell us what Darwin did or didn't say. Did you read it or are you just being a parrot?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo Good boy. Stick to the party line no matter what.

What party line?

Quote by: gallo I notice that you ducked my question. Have you read "On The Origin Of Species?" You tell us what Darwin did or didn't say. Did you read it or are you just being a parrot?

Yeah, I read it, so what? And where and how did I misrepresent Darwin?

[rez]

Zeebadee, the point is that the ID explanation does not explain anything about the universe. If you think the universe is designed for some reason, then find the designers plans and the designer. There would be no other way of knowing that the universe is designed.

The only thing the ID explanation does is give people the opportunity to add their own narrative story like every other supernatural thinker has done for the past 10,000 years.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rez Zeebadee, the point is that the ID explanation does not explain anything about the universe. If you think the universe is designed for some reason, then find the designers ptlans and the designer. There would be no other way of knowing that the universe is designed.

Why am I required to define not only the designer, but also the designers plans in describing the origins of the universe when the proponents of the "big bang" aren't required to provide any evidence at all? The universe exploded into being from a "singularity"?? How? Why? Caused by what? It's happened before?? Since?? Why haven't we seen it again? If the big bang is correct, then why are the farthest galaxies we see continuing to accelerate? What is the universe expanding in to??

Why am I expected to provide specifics when others are not?

My only claim is that the IDEA that the POSSIBILITY of some external influence in the creation of the universe is something we should consider. It's more often than not that its the anti-ID people that insist on the inclusion of gods, religion. Look at gallo, he's the one that keeps trying to include Adam and Eve, "fundamentalist Christianity", and "magical beings" in the discussion.

Quote by: rez The only thing the ID explanation does is give people the opportunity to add their own narrative story like every other supernatural thinker has done for the past 10,000 years.

Then I'll ask you, not having had ANY responses from those I've asked before, what is it specifically that requires "supernatural" processes or procedures to design and build the universe??

[Jack]

I'd say the concept of "design" itself. A design is an idea, a plan, a template. All those would require consciousness in an entity outside this universe. Watches don't design themselves (to make use of an otherwise useless analogy), they require a designer "outside" the watch who can manipulate the parts to create the whole. If the universe were designed, what would be the source of the template and what would be the outside force that assembled the parts into the whole?

The problem I see with the design concept is that "design" is a purely human perception. What may look well designed to one person may look chaotic to another. The universe shows no consistent design. Other than the fact that thanks to the effects of gravity the predominant shape of most things in the universe is round, I don't see anything that would suggest a consistency of design. Where's the object standard for universal design? Why should we expect there to be one?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Isherwood I'd say the concept of "design" itself. A design is an idea, a plan, a template. All those would require consciousness in an entity outside this universe.

We don't even know the limits or extent of the universe so why would design require something beyond it? I've never heard any scientist claim that we are aware of and understand all the natural laws, so how can one claim that certain actions require "supernatural" powers? And if the order, structure, and effects of DNA don't define a plan or template, then I don't know what does.

Quote by: Isherwood IWatches don't design themselves (to make use of an otherwise useless analogy), they require a designer "outside" the watch who can manipulate the parts to create the whole.

A watch will tell you the time, nothing more. Life, on the other hand will tell you the time now, and in the future will tell you the temperature, humidity, and give you a forecast for future weather. Self replicating, adaptive, reactive, and even pro-active, how can one decide that these are qualities developed by mere chance and luck?

Quote by: Isherwood I If the universe were designed, what would be the source of the template and what would be the outside force that assembled the parts into the whole?

The million dollar question.

Quote by: Isherwood I Other than the fact that thanks to the effects of gravity the predominant shape of most things in the universe is round, I don't see anything that would suggest a consistency of design. Where's the object standard for universal design? Why should we expect there to be one?

The fact that humanity continues to advance (as we define advancement) suggests that the initial design was sound. I think the objective standard for any design would be the continued success and viability of it's product.

[Jack]

I think the objective standard for any design would be the continued success and viability of it's product.

Do the 5 major extinction events Earth has experienced argue against design? Should they be viewed as flaws in the system or designed self-regulation events?

The reason some of us argue against the concept of design is that the ID crowd has an agenda of subverting science education by introducing religious belief disguised as scientific inquiry into the schools. If your interpretation of the design concept doesn't include a supernatural component, fine. But then you aren't referring to the same design fallacy as proposed by the Wedge document, the Discovery Institute's plan of action.

If there's evidence of design that can be scientifically examined, it should be brought forth and offered for peer review. Thus far that evidence is non-existent.

[Osborn F Enready]

ID and creation pushers forget to notice that the design is natural, called natural selection.

The design is still taking place... its called evolution.

Did you or did you not watch the "Nova special on ID on trial" Zee?

How do you feel about the "flagellan motor argument"?

Irreducible complexity is a joke.

[ZNFYRH]

"Irreducible Complexity" as it relates to "miraculously synchronized parts" is a joke.

The biologist (I think it was biologist) who created it should be ostracized from his own field.

He completely ignores the concept of multiple simultaneous advantageous mutations.

I don't take anyone seriously when they think ID is the opposite of Evolution, nor do I take anyone seriously when they think ID starts with humans on Earth.

[Jack]

We don't even know the limits or extent of the universe so why would design require something beyond it?

Because the universe couldn't be created from within, it wouldn't exist yet. A character within the novel can't write the novel, since the character wouldn't exist until the novel was written.

[rez]

Quote by: Zeebadee Why am I required to define not only the designer, but also the designers plans in describing the origins of the universe

Because when you make a claim that the universe is designed, then you must have found some indication that it was designed. How else can one tell if the universe is designed?

when the proponents of the "big bang" aren't required to provide any evidence at all? The universe exploded into being from a "singularity"?? How? Why? Caused by what? It's happened before?? Since?? Why haven't we seen it again? If the big bang is correct, then why are the farthest galaxies we see continuing to accelerate? What is the universe expanding in to??

Why don't you actually learn about the Big Bang Theory before you actually reject t he Big Bang Theory. All of those questions can all be answered if you actually took the time to investigate the theory.

And this is the very reason why ID supporters and theists get flack from non-believers. ID supporters and theists disagree with something they are ignorant towards. How the hell can you disagree with something that you don't understand?

Why am I expected to provide specifics when others are not?

That is your fault for thinking others don't provide specifics. How can we debate about the Big Bang theory, when you don't know the most basic things about the theory?

My only claim is that the IDEA that the POSSIBILITY of some external influence in the creation of the universe is something we should consider.

I can imagine a lot of possibilities for the creation of the universe. Perhaps flying unicorns or horny toads created the universe. Sure, I can imagine a lot of things, but its not ALL about what you can imagine it is more about what you can demonstrate.

You would think that such a great idea would have some promising results. But alas, nothing can be demonstrated or supported, so I ask why anybody should give any credence to such an idea.

It's more often than not that its the anti-ID people that insist on the inclusion of gods, religion. Look at gallo, he's the one that keeps trying to include Adam and Eve, "fundamentalist Christianity", and "magical beings" in the discussion.

Who cares? ID is like any other creation story, that is the point. It just doesn't have a narrative story to go along with it.

Then I'll ask you, not having had ANY responses from those I've asked before, what is it specifically that requires "supernatural" processes or procedures to design and build the universe??

Because you are suggesting that life can not arise any other way other then a creator.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rez Because when you make a claim that the universe is designed, then you must have found some indication that it was designed. How else can one tell if the universe is designed?

I don't think I made any claims. ID is an idea, a possibility. I think it's worth thinking about trying to find some way to gather evidence either for or against it.

Quote by: rez Why don't you actually learn about the Big Bang Theory before you actually reject t he Big Bang Theory.

Why don't you show me exactly where I rejected it?

Quote by: rez All of those questions can all be answered if you actually took the time to investigate the theory.

But the answers to those questions may be wrong if the BB theory is wrong. Many scientists see major problems with it.

Quote by: rez That is your fault for thinking others don't provide specifics. How can we debate about the Big Bang theory, when you don't know the most basic things about the theory?

Like I said before, show me where I'm wrong.

Quote by: rez I can imagine a lot of possibilities for the creation of the universe. Perhaps flying unicorns or horny toads created the universe. Sure, I can imagine a lot of things, but its not ALL about what you can imagine it is more about what you can demonstrate.

An idea doesn't require any demonstrations. If you want to investigate flying unicorns and horny toads, go for it. And if you don't like the idea of ID, then you don't have to participate.

Quote by: rez You would think that such a great idea would have some promising results. But alas, nothing can be demonstrated or supported, so I ask why anybody should give any credence to such an idea.

I think that's the current position of ID, people are trying to come up with ways to find evidence of it. Every theory started with an idea.

Quote by: rez Because you are suggesting that life can not arise any other way other then a creator.

Yeah, that's a possibility. So why would that require supernatural causes?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready ID and creation pushers forget to notice that the design is natural, called natural selection. The design is still taking place... its called evolution. Did you or did you not watch the "Nova special on ID on trial" Zee? How do you feel about the "flagellan motor argument"? Irreducible complexity is a joke.

Yeah, I watched it, Os. I thought it was pretty good. Irreducible complexity may be a dead end for evidence of an ID. But the show didn't compare all the points of both sides. It never, as far as I saw, addressed the issue of the origins of life, it only presented evidence for evolution of existing life. Evolution provides no explanation for the origin of life, ID does.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zee said: Evolution provides no explanation for the origin of life, ID does.

That is simply false.

Evolution shows how single cell life evolved into multi-cell life, and how we fit into that picture.

We see life evolve everyday if conditions are right. Ever seen mold?

ID makes NO effort to prove any aspect of its ridiculous argument on where life began, while the theory of natural selection shows everything but.

[Jack]

He may have meant that evolution provides no information on what sparked the first instance of life, which is true as evolution can only act on life that already exists.

At the moment we don't know. I have no doubt it was a unique moment when all the factors that are involved in causing life to begin were all present in just the right amounts to allow life to start. We have to consider there may have been a catalyst like lightening or meteor impact. The atmosphere must have been at just the right concentration and combination of elements. Since we can't yet recreate life, we can't be sure what factors are involved in the process.

However, it's far more sensible, logical and consistent with everything else we've observed about life on this planet, that it was a natural process. The conjecture that it was caused by a supernatural entity who breathed on mud and life resulted is as best a weak metaphor. That it is often accepted as fact by otherwise intelligent people is explained by a number of factors, none of which is the possibility it happened that way.

[Porfyra]

Ish, by saying that evolutionists have no idea yet how life began and then saying the everything had to be just perfect for that to happen, you are contradicting yourself by later saying God couldn't have done it. think about it- everything had to be perfect. absolutely perfect to the last little atom. but yet you still claim that it was all just natural.

if there was no God around to do it, as you claim, then how did the atmosphere get there in the first place? how did these little atoms and all of space get here? how did the WORLD get here? surely you dont think THAT was by natural causes, because it would have had to have been there in the first place... but how would it have gotten there?

i know you can throw the same thing back at me about who created God, but i'd just like to see what you believe. i believe that God has been around forever and the reason we cannot understand that is because he didn't want us to until we get to heaven. but please tell me what you believe about how the universe got here in the first place.

[ZNFYRH]

Isherwood

For arguments sake...

Quote by: Isherwood However, it's far more sensible, logical and consistent with everything else we've observed about life on this planet, that it was a natural process.

So that I don't nitpick over meanings, are you talking about life itself, or just the universe?

If you're talking about life itself, I agree with you. All things considered, everything in existence is due to particular coincidences of universal constants. Speed of light and the gravitational constant, pi, phi, and others, all came together for the coincidental interaction that successfully lead to life on this planet.

Because I do believe there were other things that came and have gone that failed for some reason. Carbon-based on Earth just happened to latch on.