Topic awaiting preservation: The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design (Page 6 of 6)

Ruski--

I guess you could say that my beliefs NOW started with the Christian God.

But my first introduction to religion was a four year stint as a wiccan in my late teen years. And I happen to believe in a lot of THEIR beliefs too. And that's entirely Pagan.

I guess you could say that I'm more a spiritual person than a religious person. In that I believe there is a spiritual realm and things that we don't understand that guide us and help us from time to time.

Not becasue I can't face reality. But becasue there are many unexplained things in reality.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

See, if it does not pan out. It does not mean we have to believe in a god. It means that, that theory did not work out. It does not mean that there is a god. It means that there is another explaination, might be god, might not be. We can say right now that there might be a god following that evolution occured and we can say there might not be. We can say the same about young earth, or any of the other millions of scientific theory.

God and a belief in god has nothing to do with science.

Could you elaborate on your microbiological reasoning for evolution's possible failing? Maybe a link or two. I honestly have no idea what part of the theory you are attacking. Maybe I missed and I will feel foolish but I would like to get on the same page with what you are talking about.

Dan @ Code Town

Belladonna: I understand some one may be critical and appreciate how you emphasize that the fossil proofs does not make it to YOU.

However, you admit that there is 'FEW' proofs from fossil records that point to micro leading to macro. Isn't it more than enough to vanish your doubts about the theory of Evolution ? If there was absolutely no proof, then ok, the theory of Evolution could be dismissed, but the existence of even a single proof makes it valid and sound. Yet, there is more than a single proof.

As for reproduction the transition from micro evolution to macro evolution in a lab, let's make some *coarse* estimates :
The Homo habilis lived from ~2.4 to 1.5 million years ago, the Homo ergaster lived from ~1.8 to 1.25 MYA. So it took ~ 600.000 years to evolve, that is ~ 24,000 generations ( of 25 years ). If a mitosis happen every day, 24,000 generations of eukaryotes still represent ~ 65 years. Therefore it's not surprising that no one managed to cultivate some eukaryotes in a lab for enough time to witness macro evolution in such conditions.



(Edited by poi on 06-30-2005 02:46)

WarMage--you are, of course, right. The failure of microbiology would not mean that anyone would have to consider a God. I jumped the gun in the heat of the moment, and I apologize for that.

And I am not attacking any part of evolution per se really. I'm sorry if I sounded that way. I am merely pointing to microbiology as a source of difinitive proof that will not be able to be denied if it is shown. And the fact that that is what I need to embrace the whole thing.

And poi--it doesn't matter what organisms lived millions of years ago. The ones that are living now should be able to do the same thing. They are all and all, right down to the nitty gritty, the same organisms they were way back when.

And a lab can greatly speed up the process. Scientists ARE working on it.

Here is a link. I chose to post this link from Wikipedia becasue it is an unbiased source for info, has all the basic info on different methods and so can point you in the directions to look elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#.22Genes_first.22_models:_the_RNA_world

I hope that link works. I'm not sure I'm doing it right. But if not, go to widipedia and find "origins of life"

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

So it seems you are talking about the origins of life as opposed to evolution.

These are completely different topics. Evolution is the process that occurs after life exists. You know the speel. I am pretty sure that we all know that we do not know how life started. That kind of stuff is way up in the air. They are in the theoretical stages with that, and do not have any proofs, or really solid math to back up any of what they are trying to show.

What this is all about is evolution. And evolution has been shown to happen. Most recently with a type of fly. I believe this has been pointed out.

I can not claim anything about the origin, and I wouldn't try. Not yet.

But evolution does happen. It is observable, it has been observed. It doesn't even happen on just a small scale. It happens on a pretty big scale. The fossil records show that. And there is a ton, a ton of science to back that up.

Could we have been placed here, sure, could we have come out of a pile of goo. I don't know, I will let someone with a whole lot more time and focus hash that one out.

I can see that as a point of contension. I can not see evolution as a point of contension.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

... it doesn't matter what organisms lived millions of years ago. The ones that are living now should be able to do the same thing. They are all and all, right down to the nitty gritty, the same organisms they were way back when.

---

Am I missing something here?

The organisms living now should be able to do what? Evolve? What do you consider "way back when"? Perhaps millions of years ago? ... when the organisms were different than they are now? ... which you are dismissing?

Seriously, someone tell me what I'm missing.

quote:

---

Say it. Say the fact. Say out loud that if microbiology fails to prove macroevolution, then the whole theory of common origin crumbles to dust. It's not that hard to say and accept really. I can accept that if it proves out correct, then I'm the distant, distant kin of a chimpanzee. You know why? Because it's really not going to make one hill of beans of difference in my life. But you now. If the theory is proven wrong, it's going to mean you and all the other scientists of the world will have to consider a God of some sort.

---

Oh, the cry of the desperate.

Even should the theory be proven wrong (and contrary to what you seem to think - I leave the door open, as I have suggested - obviously it is you who cannot read), that still doesn't mean that anyone has to consider a god of some sort.

That is very flawed reasoning. And it nails your thought process down. Because it identifies your true motives here. Get rid of the theory of Evolution, and bam! You think the only other alternative is a belief in a god!?

You say "don't be sheep"?

No sheep here. We don't need a shepherd.

You might want to take your own advice.

As WM pointed out, Evolution says nothing about how things got created, originally. One really shouldn't get that confused.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-30-2005 09:10)

I think I'm still with Belladonna on this one (without the religious bit) - there are just too many holes in the Theory of Evolution (caps intentional) to convince me of the timelines that are so vehemently defended by those who choose to ignore years of contradictory evidence.

I'm not discounting the possibility of Common Origin, but that doesn't make glaring irregularities any less significant to me.

As I stated before, it seems that a major (despite claims to the contrary) portion of the scientific community are unwilling to examine the subject with a critical eye - choosing instead to call scientific methodology into question.

"So, it looks like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals lived alongside eachother - that must be because carbon dating is inaccurate, as everyone knows [believes] that one evolved from the other..."

I can't really add anything at the mo' (at work - and the boss is hovering) but just wanted to say to Belladonna, I may not agree with everything you've stated, but stick to your guns girl!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

WH - ok. Enough.

quote:

---

"So, it looks like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals lived alongside each other - that must be because carbon dating is inaccurate, as everyone knows [believes] that one evolved from the other..."

---

I don't know where you got this idea from.

It is believed (and evidence supports) that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are splits in the genetic tree - they did not "evolve" from one another, in that sense - they evolved alongside one another, they competed with one another, mainly in Europe. For reasons not yet known, Neanderthals lost, and went extinct.

See Human Evolution

Please present your other "evidence". I'm curious to see it.

As for

quote:

---

As I stated before, it seems that a major (despite claims to the contrary) portion of the scientific community are unwilling to examine the subject with a critical eye - choosing instead to call scientific methodology into question.

---

, that is just plain rubbish, pure and simple. "Examine with a critical eye" is what it is all about! However, one needs to bring FACTS and RELIABLE EVIDENCE to the table, and not half-cracked hypothesis and mind-farts.

One should also know the material soundly, that one is trying to critically examine.

Scientists have been working on the actual model of Evolution the whole time. It has undergone quite a few "shake-ups", from various different sources and reasons. All by scientists who critically examined things.

(Edited by WebShaman on 06-30-2005 14:36)

Damn, if it wasn't for mind farts, I wouldn't be able to function at all. You should smell what it smells like inside my head!

^ I'm sure you'd find someone quite willing to pay for the experience... but ...No thanks I'll take you at your word on this one. =)

quote:

---

You should smell what it smells like inside my head!

---

Hehe...I've seen a bit of it on the boards...mostly very well said, btw.

quote:

---

If the theory is proven wrong, it's going to mean you and all the other scientists of the world will have to consider a God of some sort.

---

This is just plain silly and ignorant.

One has nothing to do with the other.

There is nothing to say that 'god' and evolution can't coexist. There is nothing that says the world needs either 'god' or evolution to exist.

Evolution is by far the most highly supported scientific theory to explain the course that life took on this planet.

That is entirely seperate from any notion of some higher power that may or may not have created life in any number of ways described in early mythologies.

quote:

---

"So, it looks like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals lived alongside eachother - that must be because carbon dating is inaccurate, as everyone knows [believes] that one evolved from the other..."

---

This is a prime example of basing a conslusion on a totally false premise.

The basic idea in evolution is that species split form one another. It starts with a genetic mutation. That is not the kind of thing that effects the species as a whole - that is not possible. It starts with one. It gets passed along. If the change enables better survival, the change concitnues to be passed along (if not, the offshoot dies and the line ends).

Therefore you can't have evolution without the descendant species and the origin species coexisting.

Thanks for the compliment, WebShaman

I'm glad that the whole timeline thing has (recently?) been revised, discrediting my 'majority' assertion. I don't doubt that my science teacher was a bit of a nutter (he blew himself up on at least two ocassions, requiring hospital treatment) but he wasn't the only one who taught what was held as established theory at the time, I suppose.

Dammit - I forgot about the date of this (1999) - which is a bit of a knock to my postulations, and also indicative of just how long it is since I went to school (to my horrified realisation)!

As for evidence, I'll obviously provide evidence if I manage to coherently offer an opposing view on something more specific, rather than basing a statement like "years of contradictory evidence" on something that requires far more research and possibly a lot less typing on my part - not that there isn't something to say on the matter.
I find I'm currently far from fit to argue convincingly on anything more than my preference for buttered bread in sandwiches, but I cannot help but continue to take a somewhat different stance on the significance of the arguments presented in relation to the evidence, especially when science really is so young, and prone to sudden spurts of its own evolutionary growth.

Don't misunderstand my meaning at this juncture, as I continue to respect your opinions in all matters, Webshaman, DL-44, even when I don't absolutely agree (which is incidentally, notably rare). You have posted some interesting and compelling sites in this thread that appear rather conclusive, but I can't say that all of it is entirely accurate or objective in its determination either. It is fairly easy to take a view on such evidence, throw a few established facts in, argue compellingly, and make a seemingly sound case of it (even if I don't bother doing that here ).

Incidentally, I also have a BBC link that I found interesting. It is an excellent site, though it should be for all that the TV license fee covers.

'Spin'; it's what politicians, salesmen, and marketing companies do with statistics all the time, and a mode of presentation often adopted by scientists and pseudo-scientists alike. It can be further compounded by a lack of understanding of- or popular contention to- the physics involved in the founding priciples of the argument. As pointed out by DL/WS, something I should be wary of in my own posts.

An exemplary example might be something like Steiger's - that anyone should quickly be able to knock a few holes in.
I should point out that the linked sites are not representative of my view on the specific issue of doubt and, as such, are not being presented here as evidence in support of an argument previously- or herein- expressed other than that in relation to modus confero. Anyway, the idea of "Creation Science", as expressed in previous discussions, is utterly anathema to me.

The earlier brain fart (re: climbing) was actually intended to mean something, but I've been collecting new links at a far greater rate than that at which I can adequately absorb their contents, so I'm going to digest a little more before before I run-off at the mouth (yet) again. If I am going to present any sort of evidential argument, it will be when I've finished reading... *quickly examines a list of bookmarks and turns slightly pale* ...um, rather a lot more, and finished that thought.

I get easily side-tracked - more than most people, in fact. It means that I start looking for a particular lens to fit a friend's telescope and end up (hours later) with theoretical physics, hyperspace theory, and Hawking's conclusion that black holes don't lead to alternate universes; how this is a relief to proponents of the E=data model of the universe, and supporting the plausibility of the extreme hypothesis of data mega-processors being made from short-lived, artificial black-holes... *takes another breath* ...it also means that I spend more time thinking about things and less time actually remembering to form a conclusion on them - as I do, say, tinker with various hobby projects but never really finish them.

Perhaps it is an irritating disorder I have - but this is an asylum after all.

I'll go continue reading now (perhaps even learn something). There goes any hope I had of sleeping tonight.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

(Edited by White Hawk on 06-30-2005 23:58)

The way you are being side tracked is commonly referred to as yak shaving. Yet more things for you to look into.

Dan @ Code Town

According to catb.org:

quote:

---

"yak shaving"; [MIT AI Lab, after 2000: orig. probably from a Ren & Stimpy episode.] Any seemingly pointless activity which is actually necessary to solve a problem which solves a problem which, several levels of recursion later, solves the real problem you're working on.

---

And here I found an example.

The meaning of that seems almost exactly like my daily life! Thanks Warmage, that's not the insult I almost expected!

I read articles until about 4am this morning ( ) and just keep finding more to read - I think I'm going to be shaving a few herds before I'm finished. All compelling stuff.

^Sorry about the somewhat irrelevant monologue last night...^

^NP!!

Hey, don't get me wrong here! As briggl already mentioned, Brain Farts, brain storming, and free thinking are great and important processes - they should not be under-estimated. But they do need to be coupled with a sound understanding of the material in question.

Imagine Einstein having said Gravity is a result of the curvature of Space - and then provided no mathematical support, whatsoever!

Or, "Hey, do you realize, that Energy equals Mass times the speed of light squared?"

"Uhhh...how did you come to that conclusion?"

"Oh, it sprang into my head one day..."

If we didn't have a structured way of measuring, and proving such "mind farts", brain storming, and free thinking, if there wasn't a peer review process, etc, etc, then we would be back to where we used to be - where a "Central Authority" dictated what was and what was not - and dissenters, free thinkers, etc were simply denounced as traitors, or worse, and either imprisoned, or outright put to death.

Something to think about, maybe?

Well guys, It's been a fun debate with you all. And very informative on both sides of it, I think. Thanks for the support there White Hawk, it's really nice to feel someone behind you when you are in a minority (in my case, a minority of one, it would seem). Who am I kidding? It's nice to feel someone behind you no matter what the circumstances are!

Consequently, it was not the origins of life itself that I was talking about. That article was meant as a jumping off point, and as an unbiased view.

WebShaman--I'm curious to know why you think my "real motive" was to proove evolution wrong so that people would have to believe in God? I know that it would NOT mean that--and stated an apology for my outburst. I am who I am, and that is a passionate person. Sometimes my mouth runs before I can stop it. If my whole argument trully showed my real thought process, then you would understand that I never wanted anyone to agree with me, never wanted to undermine any theory, never wanted to change anyone's belief. The only thing I wanted was the recognition of having a VALID opinion on the whole matter based on scientific evidence rather than just "I believe God created the world" and nothing else.

I can see that won't happen. Not among people who deal in math and computers. Although, a lot of biologists that I have talked to share my opinion, or at the very least view it as a VALID opinion,
becasue like myself, they understand and grasp the intricate details of how cellular life works and the huge number of changes that would have to occur. Many of whom, I might add, were very staunch believers in "common origins" until we got to the point in science where we COULD understand the detailed workings of cellular life.

Anyway--no hard feelings guys. Really. You are all very intelligent and formidable people.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

WebShaman--I'm curious to know why you think my "real motive" was to proove evolution wrong so that people would have to believe in God? I know that it would NOT mean that--and stated an apology for my outburst.

---

I wouldn't know what your true motive was, or is. I can only go by what you post. When you make such a remark, an "this or that" type of remark, it normally shows intent. If you post as you did, one can only come to this conclusion. Thus, if your intent was not to do this - then you need to re-examine the method that you use to communicate your intent - otherwise, it will be misunderstood.

quote:

---

Not among people who deal in math and computers. Although, a lot of biologists that I have talked to share my opinion, or at the very least view it as a VALID opinion,

---

A valid opinion, is not necessarily factual. I'm sure your opinion is valid. However, in light of the facts in this case, it is not very accurate or factual.

That doesn't make it any less valid an opinion as an opinion that I hold. It does, however, make it less factual.

Do you understand the difference?

a note that fits in here somewhere -
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/04/shrinking.lotuses.ap/index.html

Thanks for the link, DL. Fascinating.

^ What he said. I never really considered the impact humans have directly in terms of natural, or in this case "human" selection. Kinda makes you think that since we can affect other species directly by interaction, then what are the long term effects on us as a species through our interactions with environment?

It doesn't seem like that big a deal thinking about it like that though, because we know already that a species' environment, which includes humans, causes adaptation. So if it was a different animal eating the plants would it then be "llama"-selection or something? Just kick me a little if I have commited some type of logical fallacy.

And also, why hasn't grass "adapted" in such a way? I mow that stuff every week and only seems to grow faster and longer.

*looks around and realizes he is in a creation/evolution type debate thread* *runs out*

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

I just thought this was a humorous aside to this topic. Our local news station today had this headline on their website... What should kids be tought about evolution? You'd think that on a topic about education they might bother to check their spelling... :P
The article itself is not terribly enlightening, it's just bringing to light a topic that really hasn't been covered much as far as I know in our local media.

Webshaman - Einstein actually did say something very much like that.

His theories were almost entirely composed in his head with a limited understanding of the math involved, then worked out (sometimes with a little help) on paper later. He was reknowned for not writing things down.



I know what you mean though, and I do have an understanding of the underlying science - I just wasn't so up-to-date on my information.

I'm still reading, but not necessarily any less convinced that evolution theory is flawed - or at least, far from complete.

We're still discovering contradictions to our established view of the universe every day (at an ever-increasing rate) which cause us to question everything from the age of our planet, to the life-span of our universe, or the formation of stars and planets to the interaction of stellar bodies.

Still reading, reading, reading... ...stuck on White Dwarf formation for some reason.
___________

quote:

---

Who am I kidding? It's nice to feel someone behind you no matter what the circumstances are!

---

Ooh, you are naughty. The pleasure's mine.

You seem to not have a full understanding of science and how it works. Science does not have an established view of the universe. If you research it there are many competing views founded on a whole lot of data.

You will not find a contradiction, what happens is that another discovery is made, more evidence is discovered, and some theories are discarded and others become more plausible.

What you are calling contridictions is actually the scientific process.

There might be contridictions to some theories, but these are boons for other theories.

You all seem to have so many problems with evolution, and I think it comes from its popularity. The reason evolution is so popular is because it is so simple, and it applies to so many different situations.

The biological definition is pretty simple

quote:

---

A change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.

---

And generally the definition is even simpler

quote:

---

Any process of change over time

---

The problem people have is that it is so simple it can be applied and extrapolated in so many different ways that it does touch eveything.

Dan @ Code Town

Warmage touched on the key point that MANY people need to get a grasp on, and which I stated many many times -

Science does not have all the answers.

Science does not claim to have all the answers.

Science is not a destination, it is a process.

When someone claims to have all the answers, and that the answers don't change, that they are set and that is all there is to it, you have Religion, not science.

Yes - it is true that there are people who treat science like a religion. These people are fools.

^Amen!

quote:

---

Yes - it is true that there are people who treat science like a religion. These people are fools.

---

...and my life would have been so much easier if I'd just said that in the first place.

Still reading...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

=)

quote:

---

Yes - it is true that there are people who treat science like a religion. These people are fools.

---

There are many persons? There are billions and into the billions .


That would mean all religious or simply non-religious free thinkers who do believe in a God creationism ideology are fools too since they believe all the Sciences are attributed to God? Right DL? They are all in denial? And this would mean most of the populated earth are fools too. Even though not all believers are affiliated with an organized church, most still believe a God is the designer & sustainer of all created things in our cosmos and the earth. What face believers decide to give God by their own specific beliefs does lead us all to be in communion with one another. Yes, because we don't know all the scientific answers of our origins, we choose to wonder how God and the cosmos came together. The fact is there is an answer and meaning to all things. Some entity along with time knows everything. To deny this would be is to be ignorant.

If the creator wanted us to have all the answers, why be created in the first place? Since we all relate as social humans, why would we not relate in that same way to the maker. This is the only way we can relate to the comos. We give the cosmos a name and have a personal relationship with it. We call it God because it cannot be denied.

So where does that leave the small number of atheist who are not fools? Do they have a higher degree of intelligence as opposed to the believers? This way of thinking seems so bias.

Even though your own ideology tells you science and the creative God are not related. There is no proof of it. If we all believe like you in that: " I only choose to believe what is scientifically proven," it shows a closed minded individual. We believe the study of the sciences thur the process of experiment, observing, elimination is trying to understand God's handiwork. The study of trying to understand the creative force which may or may not lead to all the answers in our lifetime indeed is a great task. It is seeking a creative origin of all things. How can it not be thought of as a scientific religious endeavor. So if you choose not to see a creative God, who many may believe is the designer, you may very well be seeing a small picture of the larger grand picture.

quote:

---

Some entity along with time knows everything. To deny this would be is to be ignorant

---

To accept or believe this IS ignorant.

More circular reasoning Jade, no proof, no evidence, no cogent argument.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

jade - when you have a point......let us know.

^ Hehehe...

Man, that was good!

To elaborate, as this was not meant as simply a snide pot-shot, I simply am past the point where I will sift through your misunderstandings, your twistiing of words, and your irrelevent tangants and ramblings to find something that may be valid enough to respond to.

Whether my patience has simply eroded, or your posts have become less and less coherent lately I'm not sure.

But your pattern of "you said X which means you really think Y and so Z must be the case" is getting very old indeed...


FWIW

Havent't followed the latest post here, but I felt on a news : President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design. As if we needed one more proof that GWB is a weirdo who has lost contact with reality. ID is a religious view. EO is a scientific theory. In a country where the state and religion are ( supposed to be ) separated, religion has no place in school. Period.

Yup, he went way off his rocker on this one.

Now, The President is allowed to have his/her beliefs, obviously.

But The President should NEVER forget that when he/she speaks publicly, it is as the head of government, and not as a private person.

Mr. Bush is way out of line with this one, and quite frankly, I am very surprised and shocked that his advisors didn't do a good enough job guiding him.

I can't wait for this oaf to finally get out of office.

Of couse he's perfectly right to have his own belief, but as you said he is a public figure with high responsibilities. He's supposed to represent the US citizens and governement. And that kind of statements is clearly off.

quote:

---

"People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."

---

Priceless.

quote:

---

WarMage said:ID and Creationism are not the same.

---

Sort of. Intelligent Design is a euphemism for Creationsim.

For intelligent design to be a scientific theory, it would have to be disprovable. That's what makes a scientific theory...well...scientific.

If a theory isn't disprovable, it isn't science.

Now roll that beautiful bean footage!