Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]And so we have black bears, brown bears, polar bears, Asiatic bears, and pandas, but what I see here is that these are all [I]bears[/I]. I am not clear on the method in which the bear becomes the walrus (both are pinnipeds and closely related) or in which the walrus becomes the bear....or how either originated from a common ancestor. I am confused in [I]how [/I]the information is altered. Not the 'if'.

In less words, I do not have a problem with genetic alteration [I]or[/I] mutation. What I have a problem with is [I]addition[/I]. If I am to assume that a genetic mutation can be the addition of a complete new piece of information that dictates fur be grown instead of skin or legs instead of flippers [I]and[/I] is beneficial, then I must also assume that Down Syndrome is possibly the next step in human evolution.

(At present, it seems that that possibility is doubtful, since the presence of the extra material in the 21st chromosome is currently understood to be detrimental to normal function; but I'm not basing any refute on that doubt. I merely bring it up as the only current example of genetic addition-mutation with which I am familiar.)[/FONT][/QUOTE]

With the case of the bears, that is one species, like you said. Each particular bear group (or genus, I suppose) is different from the others because it has adapted to cope with it's environment. Some are so separate though (ex: panda and polar) that they are probably not genetically viable to produce healthy offspring. I don't know.

To answer your confusion, all I can do is repeat what I already said about a species splitting off into two groups and each one becoming isolated from the other. Each one changes and adapts to it's environment in separate ways over time until they are no longer the same as they were before.

I believe you are under the mistaken impression that mutation is an addition, when it is actually just a change in the genetic code; DNA gets rearranged in the wrong way, causing a mutation.

Something you may not know: scientists have discovered what they call "toolkit genes" in our genetic code ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology#The_developmental-genetic_toolkit"]LINK[/URL]). These toolkit genes tell the DNA how to arrange itself to the specific body plan of a species. The interesting thing is, this exact same toolkit is found in lots of seemingly unrelated lifeforms. Many embryos start out very similar, but the toolkit tells each embryo how to grow and develop, which determines whether it becomes a human, or an elephant, or a fly, etc. So, we all come from the same basic ingredients, it's just that each recipe is written differently as we develop from a cluster of cells into a fully formed being.

They have shown toolkit genes in action when studying the development of fruit flies. Sometimes DNA will be sequenced wrong, leading to a mutation. Some mutations have no advantages at all, like limbs in place of antennae. But others, like an extra pair of wings, could provide an advantage over other flies, and that change will get passed along to succeeding generations.

So therefore, mutation is only an alteration in the basic code, not an addition to it.

EDIT:

And to address how they're so sure Tiktaalik is what it is, it has features of both fish and amphibians. It has a fish tail and fins, but the flat head and top-set eyes of an amphibian. Plus the bones of it's front fins are starting to form into a foot. It was able to use it's front fins as primitive feet to pull itself out of the water. I included the link in the previous post because the article describes all of the transitional features the animal possessed. It is a much clearer example of a transition form between fish and amphibian than has ever previously been found.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

That's all. There is no more.[/QUOTE]

No matter how many pots call the kettle black, it doesn't make them any more correct. This is called (in advertising) the bandwagon approach. Let other people decide for you, because who is correct depends on the amount of people who agree with them.

The fact is, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences commits the exact same flaw: assuming absolute naturalism before anything is preformed, then denying that absolute naturalism is unprovable, or that they have assumed such. My professors, they all have Ph. Ds, and each one fails to realize this, or just quickly brushes off this idea and carries on with their life.

[quote name='TimeChaser']It wasn't just Dawkins' explanation. It is the view among all scientists that that is how eyes evolved.

And the proof is in the fossil record. We can see the differences in eye structure as you go up through the fossils.[/QUOTE]

So there was no experiment to prove this idea. It is just some cultured "Well, this fits into my theory" feel good idea that requires the initial given of evolution being true to ever stand as evidence, unable to verify it's conclusions with any scientific experiment. It is not scientific at all.


[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed]Crimson Spider[/COLOR]:

It surprises me—no, it astounds me that your arguments are as vapid as they have been so far. From what I've read of you, you do nothing to actually prove any of your own arguments, and yet you seem to feel secure in refuting the points of others with variations on the statement "no, you're wrong" and then stopping there, providing no examples and no proofs beyond long-winded exercises in wordplay. What do you think this tactic can accomplish?[/quote][/font]

Let me try to create an experiment that will prove my senses are accurate, and thus prove humanism. Of course, I would have to develop a method to come to a conclusion without using my senses to do so, because then it already assumes that my senses are seeing things correctly to see things correctly.

Or maybe I could try to say that a chemical reaction is showing us all that we need to know about that reaction. Of course, if it wasn't, we would never know because it doesn't tell us. Or maybe I could say that something remained constant, even though I can only observe something for as long as I live. Of course, we actually have scientific data that our constants aren't remaining constant. [url=http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17200] See the link here[/url].


My argument is not of figures and numbers, but it is one of logic, observation, and reason. I come to conclusions by analyzing what occurs whenever anyone does any experiment, or whenever anyone has any of these arguments that we see here today. The majority of my "no, you don't"s comes from the fact that not a single person here has understood my position. In fact, I think the only person who has actually realized my stance after a few exchanges is Katakidoushi. Also, I am thrown a set of fallacious arguments, which I am very happy to point are fallacies in reasoning.

Maybe when someone actually begins to understand my stance instead of just retreating into social context, generalizations, and an inability to acknowledge the given's of their statements will they actually be able to debate with me on any of my issues.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']So there was no experiment to prove this idea. It is just some cultured "Well, this fits into my theory" feel good idea that requires the initial given of evolution being true to ever stand as evidence, unable to verify it's conclusions with any scientific experiment. It is not scientific at all.[/QUOTE]

I was re-watching a show about evolution, and they illustrated this point.

A simple organism has a patch of light-sensitive cells. Over time, this patch of cells can form into a depression, or pit eye, that allows the organism to not only sense light, but gives it directionality, that is they can determine where the light is coming from and orient themselves toward it.

The scientist in the program did this using a board with holes cut in it, starting with a flat piece of plastic and moving steadily up to a spherical shape.

Eventually, that pit eye closes over to become an eyeball. The fluid in the eye can change and harden over time to become a lens, so you not only have light directionality, but the ability to focus and sharpen images.

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Intelligent Design has a level of naturalism to it as well. It assumes that the laws in the universe are made, and everything can be tested from there. There is no operable difference in sciences between atheistic science and naturalistic science, so both can be taught just fine.
[/QUOTE]

My understanding between I.D and scientific evolution is really the only difference is where it all started, from nothing or everything. So really both of these don't need to be taught because after different jump starts they quickly converge into the same path. And honestly I don't remember a lot of naturalism in high school, maybe I was just tuned out but I don't remember things that specific ever being addressed. The factual difference between these ideas comes down to whether the big bang just happened or God made it happen. If we just say that it happen and leave the reasons for the event occuring up to individual interpretation we might all be a little happier, since the cause for the big bang will probably never be discovered. So we're not damning the I.D people or supporting them.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

That is the bitter sting of reality. Would it be better if science could operate without either conclusion? The answer is yes, yes it would. It is indeed, better for the operation of science to be completely blind to the amount of givens, showing no favor for either. That is the best kind of science: Unbiased.

But, this issue was taught in my highschool/college. I'm not sure when, but apparently it became part of the curriculum of my highschool that you must give naturalism and naturalistic stances on all of the issues. Something must be said, because then any student can raise the question: why is it that science works? Why should I believe the statistics? I have seen it raised before (by a few neo-pagans), and the conclusion that was given was that whole "more logical" stance.

Really, it isn't something that should be encouraged, because both paths lead to negative side effects. But, it is a necessary factor of operation. The best choice would be to just acknowledge that there are differing givens that have profound moral implications but no operational effect on science, and then use science without these operational effects. Does that happen? Not too often.

[Mr. Blonde]

I'm not sure really how to put this, but I think I might agree with Crimson Spider. Either that or it's a stroke coming on. While I'm still for science 100%, I believe argueing over whether the big bang happened or someone made it happen is really going to get us no where, considering neither effects the proceeding usage and implementation of science. Crimson I believe we agree on that point. But don't get used to it.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']That is the bitter sting of reality. Would it be better if science could operate without either conclusion? The answer is yes, yes it would. It is indeed, better for the operation of science to be completely blind to the amount of givens, showing no favor for either. That is the best kind of science: Unbiased.[/QUOTE]

Science doesn't claim to know everything, but what they do know is based on physical evidence, constant experimentation, and logical inference based on the data. The thing is, when the data that comes in piles up and points more and more to the validity of something, that evidence should not be ignored. Science can't be blind to givens in these cases.

[outlawstar69]

Now what I would like to see, would be an attempt to carry out an experiment, based on the Creationism argument.

Design a complex, but basic in function machine, that is able to reproduce itself using it's surrounding materials. The blueprints and the code, can vary from one generation to the next; an element of randomness thrown in there for the basic mutation factor - and I propose that we ship it off to a planet similar to our own, with varying resources to pursue. If all goes well, they should be able to adapt and eventually vary wildly from one variation to the next.

True, it might take a long time to see results... but I don't see anyone solving the argument here on Earth anytime soon. Besides, every thousand years or so, we can have fun by seeing what they do, when we send select messages about their origin to select members, to tell everyone else.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='outlawstar69']Now what I would like to see, would be an attempt to carry out an experiment, based on the Creationism argument.

Design a complex, but basic in function machine, that is able to reproduce itself using it's surrounding materials. The blueprints and the code, can vary from one generation to the next; an element of randomness thrown in there for the basic mutation factor - and I propose that we ship it off to a planet similar to our own, with varying resources to pursue. If all goes well, they should be able to adapt and eventually vary wildly from one variation to the next.

True, it might take a long time to see results... but I don't see anyone solving the argument here on Earth anytime soon. Besides, every thousand years or so, we can have fun by seeing what they do, when we send select messages about their origin to select members, to tell everyone else.[/QUOTE]

That would be an interesting experiment.

But even that falls short of proving a creationist argument. They are talking about a being so powerful as to not only design and construct life, but also everything in the universe: stars, planets, galaxies, all other stellar phenomenon, energies, and to be able to fine tune all these things to function together within a set parameter of laws.

We can't forget about all of that out there. Our little Earth isn't the whole of the argument. In this case, I don't think we'll ever be able to run a sufficient experiment. That is, unless we are still around billions of years from now and have ourselves evolved into omniscient beings of infinite power. And if you believe "the Designer" made everything the way it is static and unchangeable, then we don't even have the possibility of evolving that far.

Making life is one thing. Making an entire universe is another prospect altogether.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Science doesn't claim to know everything, but what they do know is based on physical evidence, constant experimentation, and logical inference based on the data. The thing is, when the data that comes in piles up and points more and more to the validity of something, that evidence should not be ignored. Science can't be blind to givens in these cases.[/QUOTE]

That is correct. But, I have asked myself how it is that using solvents to separate different forms of Buckminsterfullerines into pure compounds somehow proves or disproves intelligent design. The greatest problem with the data pointing in any direction is the requirement of the givens to point that direction, and the natures of this data that are placed onto it by the observer.

You can look at genetic similarities between similar looking specie, and say that they had a common ancestor that shared this gene because genes are inherited. Or, you could say that they have a common designer that used the same blueprint to create the similar looking structure because a designer will construct similar objects with similar elements.

[quote name='outlawstar69']Now what I would like to see, would be an attempt to carry out an experiment, based on the Creationism argument.

Design a complex, but basic in function machine, that is able to reproduce itself using it's surrounding materials. The blueprints and the code, can vary from one generation to the next; an element of randomness thrown in there for the basic mutation factor - and I propose that we ship it off to a planet similar to our own, with varying resources to pursue. If all goes well, they should be able to adapt and eventually vary wildly from one variation to the next.

True, it might take a long time to see results... but I don't see anyone solving the argument here on Earth anytime soon. Besides, every thousand years or so, we can have fun by seeing what they do, when we send select messages about their origin to select members, to tell everyone else.[/QUOTE]

Well, this was done, but not by creationists. Several evolutionists created an algorithm to simulate traits transferring between living species by using alternating random numbers to signify "traits".

It isn't impossible for such a system to be constructed, no matter how big it seems. I know in programs like AutoCADD, you can design scale models of entire cities.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You can look at genetic similarities between similar looking specie, and say that they had a common ancestor that shared this gene because genes are inherited. Or, you could say that they have a common designer that used the same blueprint to create the similar looking structure because a designer will construct similar objects with similar elements.[/QUOTE]

In the century and a half since Darwin first came out with the discovery of evolution, it could have been overturned many times by each new discovery science made. But each discovery reinforced it and added to it, giving us the understand about genetic mechanisms Darwin had no knowledge about.

We share something like 98% or more of our genetic code with chimps. We share high amounts of genetic code with other species. Life is more interconnected than we ever thought before. The evidence points over and over again to evolution. There has been more solid, verifiable evidence for evolution than Intelligent Design, which has not come up with any hard evidence that science has not refuted. All it does is make claims than cannot be backed up by data.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Dang, TC. Do you ever sleep?

Evolution wasn't originally proposed by Darwin. It has been in Greek Philosophy since rather ancient times. Anaximander, I think, is credited for being the "inventor of evolution", at around 600 B.C., though he was a student of Thales, who tailored his idea. The Mayans themselves had a 600 B.C. belief that their god made humans by continually building on other animals.


Anyway, you have misunderstood my point completely, and this is evident by the fact that you have completely ignored the initial paragraph that my point was in, and instead focused on my example of my statement and then restating "Oh, no! My idea has more evidence! It is better!", which was not my point at all.

Re-read that post again.

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']That is correct. But, I have asked myself how it is that using solvents to separate different forms of Buckminsterfullerines into pure compounds somehow proves or disproves intelligent design. The greatest problem with the data pointing in any direction is the requirement of the givens to point that direction, and the natures of this data that are placed onto it by the observer.
[/QUOTE]

Crimson this is not what you're referring to but it's along the same lines and it's kind of fasinating none-the-less and may end up disproving intelligent design. Keep in mind I said, "may". In my many viewings of the science channel I stumbled upon a documentary about an experiment done in 1953 by a couple of chemistry students at the University of Chicago that strived to prove that "something could come from nothing." I'll be quoting a website here just because I don't remember every single detail.

"...An experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Oparin and Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life.

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.

In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."

As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture."

Now while this is not life itself, it is the next step to creating life from non life. And 55 years later biologists are getting closer, saying that the creation of life (a cell with genetic material and the ability to reproduce, turn food into energy, and to evolve through natural selection) is only about 3-10 years away.

[tsundere mecha]

[quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Tahoma"]Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

I just started classes yesterday at the University of Tennessee. This is my third year and I?ve decided to move back into the dorms for a year, for various irrelevant reasons. I?ve got a brand new roommate who happens to be a freshman. So here I am, college man, with this fresh blood, young-gilled, first year. The first real discussion we have involves evolution vs. intelligent design. I take the side of science and reason (evolution), where as he takes the side of faith and religion (intelligent design). I?d say it was a pretty good discussion, though I think if a third party were to listen in they?d say I somewhat blind sided him, as I?ve been following the topic relatively closely for over a year. And thus I decided to bring the discussion over to OB! ?Partly because there?s nothing interesting going on in the lounge right now.

As usual I don?t want to get too deeply into the subject on the introductory post. I much prefer that somebody else jumps into the shallow end before I do. But I will start it out.

Firstly I?d like to briefly explain what intelligent design is. I may not do a great job, as I don?t support it. If anybody here wants to expand on my definition of intelligent design I welcome them to. Intelligent design makes the assumption that the world as it is is too complex to have been created by an undirected process such as natural selection. Instead they claim that the world must have been created with an initial design in mind by some vague and unnamed supernatural force (god?). Intelligent designers claim that it is a scientific theory and should be taught as one.

My main beef with intelligent design (which will be henceforth abbreviated as ?ID?) is that it tries very hard to disguise itself as science. This is because it wants to be taught alongside evolution in the high school science classrooms. IDers complain that ID should be taught with evolution as a counter-theory for fairness, after all why shouldn?t both theories be taught? They say that students should be presented with ?both sides of the story? so that they can make up their own minds on the issue. And I happen to agree that both sides should be presented to a young person so that they can think on their own and come to their own conclusion, the problem with what the IDers want is that they want it taught in the science classrooms. ID is not science, therefore it has no place in the science classroom. It has no testable hypothesis and cannot be disproven, therefore it is not a true scientific theory. Instead it is simply creationist propaganda.

I want to also provide some links for you guys to check out:
This first one is the wikipedia definition of intelligent design. I've only read the first bit of it but it already seemed a bit biased against it.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design[/URL]

This link is paper written by Steven Novella MD. It's anti-ID and a good read if you're interested on the subject.
[URL="http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=31"]http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=31[/URL]

This last link is a link to the Discovery Institute's main page. This is the headquarters of intelligent design and a website i'm not very familiar with.
[URL="http://www.discovery.org/"]http://www.discovery.org/[/URL]

[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Everyone has their own opinions, and here is mine:

ID and evolution are both theories, and I am for both. Evolution is a plausible theory when it comes to organisms evolving over time, but how could a one celled organism appear out of thin air? ID is a good theory in giving us an answer for everything on earth, but how could some kind of being (or deity for that matter) also appear out of thin air? I do believe in God, but the truth is that we may never know until afterlife.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Crimson this is not what you're referring to but it's along the same lines and it's kind of fasinating none-the-less and may end up disproving intelligent design. Keep in mind I said, "may". In my many viewings of the science channel I stumbled upon a documentary about an experiment done in 1953 by a couple of chemistry students at the University of Chicago that strived to prove that "something could come from nothing." I'll be quoting a website here just because I don't remember every single detail.

"...An experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Oparin and Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life.

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.

In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."

As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture."

Now while this is not life itself, it is the next step to creating life from non life. And 55 years later biologists are getting closer, saying that the creation of life (a cell with genetic material and the ability to reproduce, turn food into energy, and to evolve through natural selection) is only about 3-10 years away.[/QUOTE]

How does this disprove intelligent design? I mean, yeah it is an interesting experiment that electrifies methane and ammonia into forming other organic compounds, but what does it prove? Can you sit back and say "because charged ammonia and methane can form various amino acids, THERE IS NO GOD!!!"?

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='tsundere mecha']Everyone has their own opinions, and here is mine:

[B]ID and evolution are both theories[/B], and I am for both. Evolution is a plausible theory when it comes to organisms evolving over time, but how could a one celled organism appear out of thin air? ID is a good theory in giving us an answer for everything on earth, but how could some kind of being (or deity for that matter) also appear out of thin air? I do believe in God, but the truth is that we may never know until afterlife.[/QUOTE]

I've done this before, and this probably won't be the last time, but this is something most people aren't aware of that can put things in better perspective.

The word theory means something different to science than it does in our everyday vernacular:
[B]Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.[/B]

Scientists admit they don't have a clear answer for how life began, but they have plausible ideas:
[B]The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.[/B]

[B]Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.[/B]

And you hit close to one of the arguments against an intelligent designer in your last point: who designed the designer? If it takes one to create something as complex as life and the entire universe, then that designer is even more complex, and must have been designed too.

[URL="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist"][U]Link to the article I quoted from.[/U]
[/URL]

[Lunar]

[quote name='TimeChaser']
And you hit close to one of the arguments against an intelligent designer in your last point: who designed the designer? If it takes one to create something as complex as life and the entire universe, then that designer is even more complex, and must have been designed too.
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Sienna"]You know what? You could completely ignore me on this, but what if that designer created Himself or just [I]was[/I]? Isn't that possible? Not all things can be explained using science, and some things we'll never know until we die. That's all. Go on.:catgirl:[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]You know what? You could completely ignore me on this, but what if that designer created Himself or just [I]was[/I]? Isn't that possible?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Isn't it possible that existence always [i]was[/i]? Why does the universe have to have a creator?[/font]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='TimeChaser']
And you hit close to one of the arguments against an intelligent designer in your last point: who designed the designer? If it takes one to create something as complex as life and the entire universe, then that designer is even more complex, and must have been designed too.
[/QUOTE]

The rest of the statements is really going off of random things that don't pertain to much or are correct, but I would like to address this statement.

There must, at some point, be an uncaused cause to all existence. The proof works like this:

"An achievable infinity is impossible.
Infinite regression through time is an achievable infinity.
Therefore, an infinite regression through time is impossible.

All things that are not infinite must have an origin.
Time is not infinite.
Therefore, Time has an origin.

The Universe regresses through and is tied strictly to time.
Time has an origin
Therefore, the Universe has an origin."

This is using an all-encompassing definition of "universe". None of this "multi-verse" stuff.


A beginning to a beginning, an existence brought on only by itself and it's inexistence, caused by a power that was not present until it made itself present from it's own non-presence. That, or an existence that always was, outside of the Universe and all of the difficulty required to comprehend that idea without attaching dimensional analysis to it.

The question of who would make the creator, that is one that is irrelevant. It is a necessity from the observed factors of our universe that it must eventually terminate in an absolute beginning or origin. This is assuming that all logic and reason and science are not futile in their efforts to analyze an infinitely complex or fundamentally lawless and unpredictable environment. The question is, is this uncaused cause one with a will?

The nature of the universe shows that it has an origin, and it lacks the ability to bring about it's existence from an in-existent power intrinsic to the universe. Scientists have struggled to develop a solution. Currently the popular system is the multiverse theory, isolating our universe as a phenomena of a bigger universe. Either way, these theories leave the means a[i] deus ex machina[/i] that is impossible to understand.

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']How does this disprove intelligent design? I mean, yeah it is an interesting experiment that electrifies methane and ammonia into forming other organic compounds, but what does it prove? Can you sit back and say "because charged ammonia and methane can form various amino acids, THERE IS NO GOD!!!"?[/QUOTE]

Calm down there, buckaroo. It may lead to disproving intelligent design one day. If we can scientifically prove that life and as a precursor to that the building blocks of life can be created from little substantial material we might be on the way to proving something bigger (the big bang theory) one day. That's what I'm saying.

Science always catches up and explains the unexplainable. It's only a matter of time.

[TheShinje]

[quote name='TimeChaser']In the century and a half since Darwin first came out with the discovery of evolution, it could have been overturned many times by each new discovery science made. But each discovery reinforced it and added to it, giving us the understand about genetic mechanisms Darwin had no knowledge about.

We share something like 98% or more of our genetic code with chimps. We share high amounts of genetic code with other species. Life is more interconnected than we ever thought before. The evidence points over and over again to evolution. There has been more solid, verifiable evidence for evolution than Intelligent Design, which has not come up with any hard evidence that science has not refuted. All it does is make claims than cannot be backed up by data.[/quote]



Intelligent design and the biblical creation story lean to the fact that life is interconnected, because it came from one source, God. I fail to see how this can be used to prove the evolution theory any more than it can be applied to the creation story.

I like to see the two, science and faith, as compatible. Look at the DNA strand, which is unique to every individual. Either this is the product of time, chance and natural selection, or it is a defining characterisitic given to us by a God who declared us to be "fearfully and wonderfully made."

The scientific discovery of the water cycle is not at odds with the Bible either. In Job 36:27-28 it details the nature of evaporation, condensation and rain as being the work of God, thousands of years before such a discovery was made.

Sometimes, it's not a case of the Bible making unverifiable claims, it's the scientific method playing catch-up.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Jeremiah']Intelligent design and the biblical creation story lean to the fact that life is interconnected, because it came from one source, God. I fail to see how this can be used to prove the evolution theory any more than it can be applied to the creation story.

I like to see the two, science and faith, as compatible. Look at the DNA strand, which is unique to every individual. Either this is the product of time, chance and natural selection, or it is a defining characterisitic given to us by a God who declared us to be "fearfully and wonderfully made."

The scientific discovery of the water cycle is not at odds with the Bible either. In Job 36:27-28 it details the nature of evaporation, condensation and rain as being the work of God, thousands of years before such a discovery was made.

Sometimes, it's not a case of the Bible making unverifiable claims, it's the scientific method playing catch-up.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Observation of physical phenomena (in this instance, evolution) further substantiates theories based in the physical world.

There is no way to provide evidence in support of "intelligent design" aside from revelation. One could arbitrarily say anything is due to "god's grace," but until god shows up, the burden of proof is on you. Until then, science must assume there is no actor outside our system of physical reality.[/font]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Incorrect. Science must assume that it does not know. Otherwise, it commits the same flaw as the ID theorists, and assumes a conclusion because it feels good. It ceases being scientific, and becomes philosophical.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Incorrect. Science must assume that it does not know.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Right, science does not know if there is a god -- there is no way to veritably test god's existence, especially since you have all sorts of people claiming they know what god's [i]real[/i] nature is.

In the absence of proof, we must say god's is nonexistent until proven otherwise. If I say "there is a boogieman, seriously guys" the onus is on me to give you evidence. Otherwise, you will dismiss me as a raving lunatic, or perhaps just an irritating prankster.

The argument over god's existence is the same. Where's your proof? How can we test your hypothesis? I'm waiting...[/font]

[TimeChaser]

Here's something that needs to be said that goes right to the crux of the Evolution vs. ID argument.

Science doesn't know everything, and doesn't claim to know everything. For all scientists know, perhaps God (if God exists) does or did have some influence over the process of life. The point is, science deals with observable phenomena occurring in the natural world. Anything going of into a supernatural explanation is therefore outside the realm of science.

Many ID proponents use what is called the "argument from ignorance", meaning that they point to gaps in the theory as automatic proof of Intelligent Design. In Darwin's day, the gaps in knowledge were much larger than they are now. We have closed many gaps in the fossil record, and we have discovered genetic processes by which change and evolution happen, the information Darwin lacked at the time to fully explain Natural Selection.

Scientists still debate some of the details, but none of them are in doubt that evolution happens, because that is what the data has confirmed over and over again. Yes, there are still gaps, but science continues to progress and fill in those gaps. It is arrogant to automatically assume with 100% certainly based on no other evidence that gaps prove Intelligent Design.

[quote name='Sabre']The scientific discovery of the water cycle is not at odds with the Bible either. In Job 36:27-28 it details the nature of evaporation, condensation and rain as being the work of God, thousands of years before such a discovery was made.[/quote]

I was not aware of that. However, that was someone explaining the concept in a divine term, which was the only viewpoint they knew. We know now it has nothing to do with God, but is a natural process of heat and the nature/composition of water and the atmosphere. It was only a matter of human understanding advancing far enough to explain the process in natural, scientific terms.