[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Everything is related to physics.

Natural Selection don't, but life does, no one wants to be a pancake.

OK, now since I know what ID is and all, We can get back on subject. Do I think it needs to be taught in Public schools? No, but I feel the exact same way about Natural Selection and the Big Bang Theory since they can be disproved using Physics as I have mentioned. But, Evolution? Sure I love reading about it, and disproving it as well.

Good night all.I would Like to do this again, no flames+good oposing ideas= good debate.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Bobboau
creationism is calling the bible science.
intelegent design is saying a god(like force) made everything.

Well duh, ID. I should have understanded that one at the start. Sorry for being a dummy and not getting that.

Originally posted by Bobboau
ok give some examples of things that are totaly random and not a creation.

There isn't any. God made everything out of plan, but somehow I don't think that was the question you were asking.

[Bobboau]

so you don't think science should be in schools, well Europe and China just let out a chear.

Originally posted by WeatherOp

There isn't any. God made everything out of plan, but somehow I don't think that was the question you were asking.

that was I was expecting you to say...

[Stealth]

Computers ARE creating computers today, especially in factories and labs. A significant percentage of the production process has now become automated and under the control of other computers.

but see there again... you used the key word:  CREATING...

[Stealth]

Originally posted by aldo_14
How did that pre-existing intelligence emerge?  
Where and when did it originate?  
What defines which parts are modified by that entity?  
What evidence is there that such an entity exists?  
How does that entity manipulate natural design/life?  
Is this entity omnipotent?  
If so, how does that explain design defects (such as the human intestine or whale thumbs, etc)?  
If not, how can it affect all life?
Does that entity have role affecting mutations?  
Are all mutations down to that entity?  
Which parts of life have been modified, and which not?  
Why do mass (or otherwise) extinctions occur?
How can this theory be tested?
How are modifications created/caused?
what observable evidence is there to validate the proposal of such a theory as science?
(etc)

Belief, not scientific theory.  Keep it out the science class; put it in RE if that bit of the bible (or Koran, Guru Granth Sahib, etc) isn't already covered there.

Yeah, if you place 100% of your trust in science.  if you ask me, ID isn't the easy way out... evolution is.

"Who created everything?  Why are there so many animals, why this, why that?"... Answer:  "Evolution".  if anything's the easy way out, it's the 'evolution' theory, because it defines all the varieties of life, now and all the way back to the beginning of time.

note. theory.

there is no way that science can tell us where the universe came from, who designed it, how it came into existence, etc... i mean, look how small and insignificant we are.  our species is pathetic.  a small hurricane devastates hundreds of thousands of lives.  yet we can tell "scientifically" (<--- keyword) where the universe came from?  c'mon now, don't make me laugh.  we can't even "scientifically" find a purpose for some of the organs in our body, yet we can define where life came from?... as i said earlier.  man defines what it doesn't understand.  "scientific theory" was preaching that the world was flat, or that the whole solar system revolved around the earth, and that was just a few hundred years ago.  science is relative to a time period.  what's widely viewed and accepted today, will be laughed at a few years from now.  we've seen this with the above examples, we've seen this a hundred years or so ago, when creation was the accepted answer, and evolution was scoffed at, and i don't doubt we'll see it again in the future.

EDIT:  the more i think about it.  this argument's actually develped into two parts

a) who created life (i.e. the original computer illustration i used)
and
b) how does life evolve, if at all.  evolution, etc. (what my computer illustration was bastardized into )

It's hard to discuss both at the same time

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Bobboau
so you don't think science should be in schools, well Europe and China just let out a chear.
 

Hmmm, I don't get it. You don't want ID to be taught in schools because it doesn't have any evidence of it, but a theory that falls on it's face at the begining to science it's self is ok? I just don't get it...

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by WeatherOp

Now you will say that its Natural Selection, but then I say, look at all the other kinds of cretures on this planet, look at all the different ways they survive. I don't know about you but  Natural Selection seams way too smart to be just a random thing, don't you think.
 

Natural selection isn't random. It's guided by the pressures of the environment. That's why it's called "selection". You are wrong. Stop using this belief in your support of ID.

Originally posted by WeatherOp

 but a theory that falls on it's face at the begining to science it's self is ok?

Which theory are you talking about? Because I don't know any that are commonly taught which haven't been rigorously tested and continually supported.

Here's what I find interesting. All these people supporting ID are pointing to the complexity of life and the beginnings of the universe and stuff. But that's not ID - that's creationism. ID claims that everything alive today has been designed, and that stuff like the Bacterial Flagella and blood clotting are too simple to have evolved by chance. If nothing else, I think that proves that ID and cretionism are, if not semantically the same theory, then close enough.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Black Wolf


Natural selection isn't random. It's guided by the pressures of the environment. That's why it's called "selection". You are wrong. Stop using this belief in your support of ID.

But, if there is no God, than the environment is random, so that would make NS random as well.

Originally posted by Black Wolf
Which theory are you talking about? Because I don't know any that are commonly taught which haven't been rigorously tested and continually supported.

Then they haven't tested the Big Bang theory with Physics then.

[Flipside]

I think the major difference is that ID supposes that these creatures are 'supposed' to be what they are, that there is some formulated plan that these creatures were created to fulfill by another sentient creature. So instead of asking how Duck billed Platypusses or Bisexual apes managed to evolve we start asking stupid questions like 'Why does the Mongoose exist', evolution already answers that question by saying 'because it can'.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
But, if there is no God, than the environment is random, so that would make NS random as well.

perhapse we have diferent definitions of random, my meaning of random isany outcome wich is not dependent upon pervius outcomes, has no systematic paturn, and cannot be predicted.

yours seems to be anything that does not have a consius will behind it.

your definition would imply that falling to the ground is random (unless you subscribe to inteligent falling) when it is in fact not

Originally posted by WeatherOp
Then they haven't tested the Big Bang theory with Physics then.

Big bang theory is very simple, the universe started from a single hot point, beond that it gets diferentiated into a bagillion diferent variations, it came into exsistance from the observation that everything in the universe seems to be moveing away from everything else, so at one point in time all matter in the universe must have been at one point in time been in the same place.


now if you don't mind FMA is on.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by Bobboau

perhapse we have diferent definitions of random, my meaning of random isany outcome wich is not dependent upon pervius outcomes, has no systematic paturn, and cannot be predicted.

yours seems to be anything that does not have a consius will behind it.

your definition would imply that falling to the ground is random (unless you subscribe to inteligent falling) when it is in fact not

My defintion of Random, is chance, and is about like your defintion, it means something not happening the same way twice. Or a very very very low possiblity of it.

Originally posted by Bobboau


Big bang theory is very simple, the universe started from a single hot point,

Yet, if it breaks the law of Physics[getting tired of the word aren't you] It didn't happen.

[Ford Prefect]

Natural Selection don't, but life does, no one wants to be a pancake.

Yes, natural selection does. Everything in the universe has its basis in physics, because physics is the law of the universe.

Semantics is fun.

[BlackDove]

So is pissing in the wind apparently.

[Ford Prefect]

Don't knock it 'till you've tried it!

Oh, and my two cents in the matter of randomness: chaos theory. The one real truth of the universe is cause and effect. Every event is a result and a cause. We humans have trouble dealing with it because we want to believe that we exist for a purpose, but we are simply the result of a lucky combination of causes.

Personal opinion, of course.

[WeatherOp]

Well once again I'll say night all. Maybe do a little modeling before bed. Thanks once again for a good, flameless debate.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by WeatherOp


My defintion of Random, is chance, and is about like your defintion, it means something not happening the same way twice. Or a very very very low possiblity of it.

then if we agree upon what random means then how can you say the universe is random? it clearly isn't



Yet, if it breaks the law of Physics[getting tired of the word aren't you] It didn't happen.
you don't even know what the rules are, and you don't know the exeptions, you can't tell me that the theories break the rules because you don't know. there are many of them by the way, for instance, one hypothosis sugests that there is anti-energy made in equal amounts to energy they cancel each other out so the total is zero, and there are theories of multable universes cyclical universes, all sorts of stuff, none of them break the rules. there are mathematical models unfortunately it's very hard to test most of them so none of them can realy be called theories (though there is a whole group of physisists that does anyway, people are getting impatent with them but thats a totaly diferent story) but what testing we have done is corelative to the major basic theories (quantum and relitivistic depending on the frame of reference). you say that physics breaks it's own rules, but you don't even know what the rules are, your just takeing someone elses word on it

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by WeatherOp


But, if there is no God, than the environment is random, so that would make NS random as well.

It's not though. The environment is constrained by physical laws. Natural selection is constrained by the environment. Neither are random. The only thing that can be considered truly random is probably the initial atomic makeup of the solar system, the catastrophic events that have shaped it since (meteorite impact and the like) and genetic mutation. Everything else is constrained by physical laws and therefore is not random.

Natural selection is in fact the best example of this. It's hard to explain how the earth differentiated into layers, or why the continents are where they are, but it's easy to explain natural selection. The environment puts pressure on an organism to survive in the form of climate, predation, limitation of resources etc. and the organisms best adapted to those environmental pressures survive to pass on their adapted characteristics. Those that aren't, don't. That's what makes it non random, not some intelligent hand pushing things about, but the interplay of natural and physical laws against a randomly mutated base set of organisms over the course of millions, or even bilions of years.

Natural Selection is not random. I've explained why. Unless you have any real, scientific reason why not, then concede.

Originally posted by WeatherOp

Yet, if it breaks the law of Physics[getting tired of the word aren't you] It didn't happen.

I'm curious - which specific law of physics does the big bang violate?

[Mefustae]

The line of discussion as stated by Kara - and continued throughout the thread -  is utterly devoid of all sense. Asking believers of ID for a Hypothesis or central Theory that aptly sums up the ideas behind ID is akin to asking a homeless bloke to loan you some cash...you ain't gonna get any 'cause they ain't got none...!

Now, if you will all excuse me, the age of Ragnarok is upon us and I must prepare a sacrafice to Odin...

[Bobboau]

well we just want them to admit they have none.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Mefustae
The line of discussion as stated by Kara - and continued throughout the thread -  is utterly devoid of all sense. Asking believers of ID for a Hypothesis or central Theory that aptly sums up the ideas behind ID is akin to asking a homeless bloke to loan you some cash...you ain't gonna get any 'cause they ain't got none...!

That's the point. I want to prove that they haven't got anything to give. Which is why it makes it stupid to teach ID in school. Arguments about what science is etc are too hard for most people to follow but if we point out that ID doesn't actually explain anything then most people can see that flaw easily.

ID is often held up as containing a complete 1:1 replacement for evolution but the fact is it is nothing of the sort. So it's not a competing theory to evolution. It's nothing, its fluff and as far as I'm concerned that should be enough to prevent it being taught in science class.

Suppose one chapter of the bible contradicted Newton's first law of motion. Let's further suppose that fundementalist christians were annoyed about that. They do a little research and notice that Newton's laws break down at the quantum level. They then invent the Theory of Intelligent Motion. The theory simply states that because Newton's laws don't work at the quantum level they must be wrong and God must be responsible for how movement works. and that's all the theory states, no explaination of how God's laws of motion work. Just a simple Newton is wrong.

I doubt that there is anyone on this board who would take that argument seriously but the fact is that the argument for the Theory of Intelligent Motion is actually more scientific than ID. The fact that the laws of motion break down at the quantum level or when approaching the speed of light is testable and proven by science. Every single physicist will quite openly state that.
 With ID every biologist will say that the central arguments that form the basis of ID are all scientifically flawed.

So lets say the people who support Intelligent Motion gain some support from christian politicians and they push for IM to be included on the school curriculum. Should it get in? Of course not. Quite apart from the fact that it's all obviously complete nonsense the fact remains that while it claims the laws of motion are wrong it doesn't put anything in its place beyond "God did it."



Oh and BTW if someone can't explain ID to me soon I think we're going to have to say that ID is obviously too complicated for the people on this board to understand and therefore must be removed from schools as it's obviously a university or postgraduate level subject