[aldo_14]

Originally posted by WeatherOp

Could you do the same thing, make all creatures, elemental tables, Physics Tables, like they are now. No, then how can they be random, If the smartest creature on earth can't make it as perfect as it is, how could Random do it? And where did that "natural" come from, if it is a pattern then it must have been set up, if it's not than "natural" don't exist.

Eh?  It's not perfect, that's part of the point.

The only reason you or anyone else perceives it as perfect is because it's impossible to conceive the trillions of alternatives that can occur with just a single variation in the evolutionary process of the universe.  The reason the concluding points we see work, is because of natural selection; they're the best things that exist now - because the weaker ones are weeded out -  but not the pinnacle.

You assume perfection because you see what works and assume it's the only and best way it could possibly work.  But that's not perfection.  It's a perfectly natural result from an infinately complex interacting system; same as, for example, emergent behaviour occurs in systems of interacting individuals, but with far more variables.

AFAIK, you seem to think 'random' equals 'simple' for some reason.  But it doesn't and never has.

Originally posted by Stealth


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

So you can't even begin to try to answer those questions?  You've given yourself a simple 'God' answer that is so incredibly paper thin it can't even handle the barest questioning.

Your arguement is based around the idea 'we're too dumb to know'.  Well, you may consider yourself too stupid to actually try and understand this universe, but I don't.  

You actually try to discredit evolution by pointing out why it's the only plausible evidenced theory  -it explains why life is the way it is.

I'd point out that the notion of the earth being flat was a religious one; there are proponents still who base that arguement on scripture.  The Catholic Church also denounced Galileo's model of the Solar System; i.e. the earth revolving around the sun.  So you've just pointed out 2 examples of religious belief trying to invalidate scientific fact  -well done!

I'll also point out that scientific investigation accepts the possibility of correction - if the evidence is there, of course.  Religious theories like ID don't even believe in such things as evidence (so they can never be disproved; a bit like the Great Green Arkleseizure).  As it stands, all scientific evidence supports the theories of creation you've decided we're too stupid to know.  Thanks for judging all humanity! (I thought that was Gods job?)

Presumably you'd be happy with bible literalism then, if you don't trust any science?

EDIT; hell, you've pointed out the massive complexity of the universe; and what, you expect all the answers to be found immediately rather than gradually through experimentation and observation?  Now that would be stupid.

Originally posted by Black Wolf
I'm curious - which specific law of physics does the big bang violate?

Didn't the big bang create the laws of physics when it occured anyways?

[Stealth]

Originally posted by aldo_14

So you can't even begin to try to answer those questions?  You've given yourself a simple 'God' answer that is so incredibly paper thin it can't even handle the barest questioning.
OK... assume God created life on earth.  i will answer any question you throw at me now.  go for it.

what's thin is evolution, because it's the easiest way out



Your arguement is based around the idea 'we're too dumb to know'.  Well, you may consider yourself too stupid to actually try and understand this universe, but I don't.  
yes, i do consider it based on the idea 'we're too dumb to know'... don't think you're a one of a kind prodigy that can understand a universe that's so INFINITELY more complex than  you.  like i said, science can't understand some funtions of the human body, how can it unravel the mystery of the universe?  we can't even effectively use more than a few percent of our brain's estimated power, yet we can understand the universe?

... c'mon now.  your existence is so infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things... learn to master your body before you decide to try to understand things that complex

I'd point out that the notion of the earth being flat was a religious one; there are proponents still who base that arguement on scripture.  The Catholic Church also denounced Galileo's model of the Solar System; i.e. the earth revolving around the sun.  So you've just pointed out 2 examples of religious belief trying to invalidate scientific fact  -well done!
here's another one for you.  did you know that years before all this, hundreds of years before, it was written in the Bible that the earth rotates on an axis, etc.?

As it stands, all scientific evidence supports the theories of creation you've decided we're too stupid to know.  Thanks for judging all humanity! (I thought that was Gods job?)
and if all scientific evidence supports the theories of creation, then why does everyone here and around the world constantly try to disprove creation and replace it with the easy-way out: evolution

[Stealth]

and anyone who says "ID is too complex to be taught in school"... for pete's sake.  all those questions you threw at ID, can be reversed and applied to evoultion as well.

when kids take a 6th grade science class, do they teach them quantum physics?  of course not.  likewise, when teaching evolution/ID in school, they aren't going to delve into every. single. possible. scenario.  and answer every question, making it a rock-solid teaching... they're going to teach the concept... they're going to suggest it, and the kid can find out more for himself.

[Mefustae]

Evolution the easy way out?! Obviously, you know very litte (read: nothing) about the amount of study that is part of the Theory of Evolution. Darwin himself went around the world on the Beagle studying nature, and countless scientists and naturalists have done the same. In the case of Intelligent Design, the point of Intelligent Design, is that nobody has to do this work. Nope, because God did it all. That's right, no instensive studies, no first hand evidence, nothing. God did it and that's the end of that.

Now let's look at the 'belief' part of the "Theories" (and in the case of ID, I use the word 'Theory' very loosely, but that's not the issue here); Evolution delves deep into Biology and Chemistry, working - at the very onset of life on Primitive Earth - at a molecular level. For a basic understanding, one needs to at least have a grasp of many other things tought in 4th grade Science class. Intelligent Design on the other hand relies completely on belief; in-class it'd be a 1 Period section, in which one is tought that, a) Life is indeed quite complex, and b) ...thus God did it.

It doesn't take a Ph.D to realise that ID is probably, just maybe, the simpler topic to grasp. Accepting the notion that 'God did it' is not only a flimsy excuse for a notion, but a cheat. It's like playing a video-game with multiple endings, and rather than play right to the end, you just put in a code and you get the worst possible ending cinematic, and you're content with that. I'm cool that you accept that, but throwing half-baked Bible-science (now there's a real oxymoron for you) into a Science class masquerading it for real scientific theory is no different than throwing a Midget into an NBA All-Star game...everyone gets confused!

In regard to your arguement that the two ideas be tought in Science Class, i'll simply say this; why ID? Evolution is quite obviously Science, and thus should be tought in Science class, but why ID? Why not other, equally valid ideas, namely The Flying Spaghetti Monster!!

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth
and anyone who says "ID is too complex to be taught in school"... for pete's sake.  all those questions you threw at ID, can be reversed and applied to evoultion as well.

And evolution could answer them. ID can't. How long has mankind existed? Give me the ID answer with an explaination of why ID give it that number. ID and evolution are theories which both claim to explain the origin of the species. I'm hereby challenging you to use ID and explain the origin of the species. If you can't do it ID is nothing more than a sham.

Originally posted by Stealth
likewise, when teaching evolution/ID in school, they aren't going to delve into every. single. possible. scenario.  and answer every question, making it a rock-solid teaching... they're going to teach the concept... they're going to suggest it, and the kid can find out more for himself.

What nonsense. I'm asking you for really basic stuff here. Does ID completely replace evolution? Does it only replace some of it? If it replaces evolution completely how does it explain the origin of life.

These are the most basic questions you can make about ID and yet after a whole day's arguing not one person has been able to use ID to answer them.

[WeatherOp]

Originally posted by aldo_14

Didn't the big bang create the laws of physics when it occured anyways?

A explosion can't create what caused it to be created in the begining.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
A explosion can't create what caused it to be created in the begining.

That's the thing, nobody knows what did cause it, but we're pretty damn sure at the moment that the universe, and as such every law of physics in the universe, didn not exist prior to the explosion of the singularity...it's like going down into the quantumn level, physics just plain breaks down at a certain point, so we know that there are situations when Physics can go wonky. So when you're faced with the prospect of a Singularity with no dimensions, infinite mass, and containing all the matter in the universe, it's a pretty safe bet that what we know about the physics of our Universe (which isn't bloody much) might not cover this situation...

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Mefustae
Evolution the easy way out?! Obviously, you know very litte (read: nothing) about the amount of study that is part of the Theory of Evolution. Darwin himself went around the world on the Beagle studying nature, and countless scientists and naturalists have done the same. In the case of Intelligent Design, the point of Intelligent Design, is that nobody has to do this work. Nope, because God did it all. That's right, no instensive studies, no first hand evidence, nothing. God did it and that's the end of that.

Now let's look at the 'belief' part of the "Theories" (and in the case of ID, I use the word 'Theory' very loosely, but that's not the issue here); Evolution delves deep into Biology and Chemistry, working - at the very onset of life on Primitive Earth - at a molecular level. For a basic understanding, one needs to at least have a grasp of many other things tought in 4th grade Science class. Intelligent Design on the other hand relies completely on belief; in-class it'd be a 1 Period section, in which one is tought that, a) Life is indeed quite complex, and b) ...thus God did it.

It doesn't take a Ph.D to realise that ID is probably, just maybe, the simpler topic to grasp. Accepting the notion that 'God did it' is not only a flimsy excuse for a notion, but a cheat. It's like playing a video-game with multiple endings, and rather than play right to the end, you just put in a code and you get the worst possible ending cinematic, and you're content with that. I'm cool that you accept that, but throwing half-baked Bible-science (now there's a real oxymoron for you) into a Science class masquerading it for real scientific theory is no different than throwing a Midget into an NBA All-Star game...everyone gets confused!

In regard to your arguement that the two ideas be tought in Science Class, i'll simply say this; why ID? Evolution is quite obviously Science, and thus should be tought in Science class, but why ID? Why not other, equally valid ideas, namely The Flying Spaghetti Monster!!

OOOOOH I get itttt!  Because evolution is the more complex of the theories, it's GOT to be the right one!  Because you can actually scientifically explain it.  yeah. it's more in-depth.  obviously it's correct.  i understand now.



here's one for you:

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist.

so don't tell me that evolution is correct scientifically.  it's accepted because it's the easiest thing to comprehend.  man doesn't like to believe something that it's not 100% sure of, and doesn't understand fully.  i think that quote pretty much sums it up.

And evolution could answer them. ID can't. How long has mankind existed? Give me the ID answer with an explaination of why ID give it that number. ID and evolution are theories which both claim to explain the origin of the species. I'm hereby challenging you to use ID and explain the origin of the species. If you can't do it ID is nothing more than a sham.

ok first of all, i'm going to argue ID as being a 'form' of creationism, which it really is (or maybe creationism is a form of intelligent design  there we go )

that said, mankind's existed since Adam and Eve, as per the Bible, as per the views of any Christian

What nonsense. I'm asking you for really basic stuff here. Does ID completely replace evolution? Does it only replace some of it? If it replaces evolution completely how does it explain the origin of life.

These are the most basic questions you can make about ID and yet after a whole day's arguing not one person has been able to use ID to answer them.

I don't believe it completely eliminates evolution.  In fact, TO AN EXTENT, I do believe in evolution.  Does evolution explain how humans became what we are today?  No, i don't believe that.  But I do think that nature has the ability to evolve, just not to completely different creatures, or life-forms, or evolve intelligence, etc.  but the way that animals adapt to eating what's available, camouflaging to their surroundings, etc.  that's about as far as I believe nature adapts.

If ID completely replaces evolution how does it explain the origin of life?  Well ID (correct me if i'm wrong) believes in a higher entity or intelligence that is responsible for creating/designing/implementing life, right?  That could be extraterrestrials, God, etc.  For Christians, it's God.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Stealth
OOOOOH I get itttt!  Because evolution is the more complex of the theories, it's GOT to be the right one!  Because you can actually scientifically explain it.  yeah. it's more in-depth.  obviously it's correct.  i understand now.



here's one for you:


so don't tell me that evolution is correct scientifically.  it's accepted because it's the easiest thing to comprehend.  man doesn't like to believe something that it's not 100% sure of, and doesn't understand fully.  i think that quote pretty much sums it up.

That's not what I was arguing, and i'll give you an appropriate answer in an hour or so...*leaves to do other things*

[Stealth]

EDIT: nevermind.  not going to pull this argument out yet

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Mefustae
That's not what I was arguing, and i'll give you an appropriate answer in an hour or so...*leaves to do other things*

yes it was.  and i quote from the last paragraph of your last post:

Evolution is quite obviously Science, and thus should be tought in Science class

you also said:

It doesn't take a Ph.D to realise that ID is probably, just maybe, the simpler topic to grasp.

and i say, evolution's the same way! (at least on a 4th grader level).  

"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son:  evolution!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son:  evolution!".

so you can't say that ID's the easy way out.  evolution at this level is just as easy

[aldo_14]

[q]OK... assume God created life on earth. i will answer any question you throw at me now. go for it.

what's thin is evolution, because it's the easiest way out
[/q]

Provide proof...no, evidence that God exists.  Explain where God comes from and why He/She/It existed before life or (in expansion) all other matter.  Explain how this concept of an interventionist God meshes with the complete absence of divine intervention in the present day, and why God would create and kill life in mass exinctions.

More importantly, provide any form of evidence that supports this.  Not presumption, not attempting to pick holes in theories, but actual evidence for it.

You say 'it's the easy way out', but you can't provide one single piece of basis for your belief?  You can't even find a valid, proveabl;e 'hole' in evolution (only presume you're too dumb to understand it yourself)?

[q]yes, i do consider it based on the idea 'we're too dumb to know'... don't think you're a one of a kind prodigy that can understand a universe that's so INFINITELY more complex than you. like i said, science can't understand some funtions of the human body, how can it unravel the mystery of the universe? we can't even effectively use more than a few percent of our brain's estimated power, yet we can understand the universe?

... c'mon now. your existence is so infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things... learn to master your body before you decide to try to understand things that complex[/q]

Well, you're an idiot then.  I'm sorry, but you fail to understand the basic premises of science; exploration and understanding over time.

By your view, we should never have developed the TV, because physics is too complex.  We should never have understood gravity, developed the internal combustion engine, travelled to the moon, etc - because it's a bit complicated.

You want a nice, 1 line homogenized answer that spares you any difficulty?  Stick with God.

You want something that actually questions itself and seeks to provide an honest answer based on honest facts?  Look at science.

[q]here's another one for you. did you know that years before all this, hundreds of years before, it was written in the Bible that the earth rotates on an axis, etc.?[/q]

I'd note that geocentrists claim the bible says the earth does not rotate and the sun, stars, etc rotate around it.  There are also lines in the bible, IIRC, referring - literally - to the Sun rising and falling at (IIRC) Joshuas command.

So you're just reinterpreting the bible with the addition of scientific discovery to try and validate it.  

What a shame that the notion of the earth orbiting the sun was, as I pointed out previously, condemned by the church.   In fact, the Catholic church place Galileo  under house arrest after holding an inquistion to question his views and concluding that the Universe revolved around the earth.

 So those bible literalists read the same thing as you  - devoted their life to studying it - and yet came up with the opposite answer.  Catholic dogma actually held the Ptolmaic model as right, despite it (earthcentric) being proven incorrect from observation.

(The bible also explictly mentions the Earth as having ends, 4 corners - and contradictoraliy describing it as a circle, pillars, foundations and being visible from the top of a tall mountain).

Hmm.... it's not exactly a source I'd trust anyways literal interpretation of.

[q]and if all scientific evidence supports the theories of creation, then why does everyone here and around the world constantly try to disprove creation and replace it with the easy-way out: evolution
[/q]

Evolution is creation; the creation of complex life from single celled organisms and, prior to that, the likely evolution of complex proteins, amino acids, etc from simple chemicals.

Originally posted by WeatherOp


A explosion can't create what caused it to be created in the begining.

EDIt; whoops, missed this

You're assuming the laws of physics 'pre-bang' were the same.  It's likely, for example, that the laws of gravity, time, etc only came into existance at the bang.

I think the theoretical physics explaining the big-bang are still being developed, and will doubtless take decades or centuries to be formed.  I think they've 'discovered' (through background stellar radiation) up to the first nano-second of the Big Bang.

[Wanderer]

I heard on BBCWorld something about the M-theory (one the theories of everything) that has the potential even to explain the mechanics of the Big Bang or the Black Holes. Though it was quite like something from theoretical physicists daydreams (It was based on 11th dimensional multiverse system and it allowed paraller universes) it is possibly our best current theory (or everything).

BTW I'm going to listen lectures at university about the chemical reactions that allow organic molecules to form from inorganic matter. And to listen to the current explanations of how the life, the world and the universe were formed and what made possible the life as we know it (according to current scientific knowledge). And it's astrobiology, not id theories i'm that i'm going to listen to.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Stealth


and i say, evolution's the same way! (at least on a 4th grader level).  

"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son:  evolution!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son:  evolution!".

so you can't say that ID's the easy way out.  evolution at this level is just as easy

The point is, evolution has depth beyond that.  It has a supporting basis.  It has evidence in support.

ID has none of that.  It can't even answer the question 'why?'

[Blaise Russel]

yes, i do consider it based on the idea 'we're too dumb to know'... don't think you're a one of a kind prodigy that can understand a universe that's so INFINITELY more complex than you. like i said, science can't understand some funtions of the human body, how can it unravel the mystery of the universe? we can't even effectively use more than a few percent of our brain's estimated power, yet we can understand the universe?

... c'mon now. your existence is so infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things... learn to master your body before you decide to try to understand things that complex

I find your intellectual nihilism to be an abomination against Man and God, whoever he may be. Your cult of ignorance is something that is equally disgusting and frightening.

Also, for your further education: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

[Flipside]

What scares me is this...If people are taught that a 'Devine Plan' is some kind of scientific, not social theory, then what happens next, we get scientologists using their own bastardised version of science to start telling us what they have learned of this 'plan'?

Teaching religion in a science class is no more sensible then teaching science in a religion class, Evolution does not pretend to be a religion, it is a set of theories supported my a mass of evidence. As new evidence is found, that theory can change subtley, or sometimes more noticeably. Christianity and all other 'Faith' related topics ARE religions, and proudly state themselves as such, so why try to corrupt other forms of learning?

This is no different to Henry VIII burning hundreds of copies of Martin Luther's books simply because it said something that didn't sit too well with his own personal Empire at the time, and remember, Henry VIII ended up ignoring both the Vatican AND the Protestant churches and started his own church instead to suit his own purposes, that is more or less what ID is.

I swear we are headed back towards the Dark Ages, where any kind of learning that doesn't place God at the top of the heap is somehow 'Devil Worship'.

[aldo_14]

That's exactly my fear. And all because of a minority, too.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth
I don't believe it completely eliminates evolution.  In fact, TO AN EXTENT, I do believe in evolution.  Does evolution explain how humans became what we are today?  No, i don't believe that.  But I do think that nature has the ability to evolve, just not to completely different creatures, or life-forms, or evolve intelligence, etc.  but the way that animals adapt to eating what's available, camouflaging to their surroundings, etc.  that's about as far as I believe nature adapts.

If ID completely replaces evolution how does it explain the origin of life?  Well ID (correct me if i'm wrong) believes in a higher entity or intelligence that is responsible for creating/designing/implementing life, right?  That could be extraterrestrials, God, etc.  For Christians, it's God.

You don't understand ID do you? You've basically stated two diametrically opposed views. Either ID completely replaces evolution or it includes evolution as part of it. Which one is it?

[Stealth]

Originally posted by karajorma


You don't understand ID do you? You've basically stated two diametrically opposed views. Either ID completely replaces evolution or it includes evolution as part of it. Which one is it?

ID = the theory that someone/something/higher-entity designed and created life (or at least played a part).

how is that hard to understand?  don't think you're so highly intelligent that only the elite can understand a THEORY that simple.

EDIT: and for the record "diametrically opposite" is a double-negative.  it's either opposite, or it's diametrical.  j/k

will reply to the rest in a bit

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth


ID = the theory that someone/something/higher-entity designed and created life (or at least played a part).

how is that hard to understand?  don't think you're so highly intelligent that only the elite can understand a THEORY that simple.

The problem is that the theory explains Nothing. It's a sham. Suppose the theory of gravity simply said something pulls objects down. No mathmatical formulae no nothing. What you've posted isn't a theory its an assertion. An unproven and unprovable assertion at that.

My whole point is that if ID is anything other than a sham it must explain how mankind came to be. When he came to be and when all the other animals came to be. Evolution CAN and DOES do that whether or not you agree with it the fact is that only a moron would say that evolution doesn't provide those answers even if you feel they are wrong.

If ID is to stand as a counter-argument to evolution it must explain everything that evolution can explain about how animals got here. The simple fact that it does not explain those things shows that it is a sham and a smokescreen and nothing more.

And you've dodged my question yet again. Does ID replace evolution or does it use parts of the theory?

Originally posted by Stealth
EDIT: and for the record "diametrically opposite" is a double-negative.  it's either opposite, or it's diametrical.  j/k

I think you need

1) To read what I wrote again.
2) A better dictionary

From Dictionary.com

diametrically

adv : as from opposite ends of a diameter;
"three of these brushes were approximately 120 feet apart and the fourth diametrically opposite to one of the three"