It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design Theory

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
OK folks - I had this idea a while back that I'd like you all to try on for size.

I always had a problem with the evolutionary theory for the following reasons:
1- Archeologists make plenty of assumptions. Some of which are right others are wrong. For example the wrong head was placed on a brontosaurus in the museum for of Natural History (NYC).

2- anomalous skeletons or evidence contrary to evolutionary thought were either suspected to be faked, ignored or taken as being misplaced in the sediment (layers) from which it was found.

3- Dating methods were found to be faulty and fraudulent. Another problem I had is with C-14 testing is that the initial assumption that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere is relatively constant is, in my view, wrong. C-14 dramatically increased after the bombing in Hiroshema for example and such occurances as magnetic fluxuations, increased cosmic radiation and atmospheric changes can affect the C-14 concentrations.

4- It seems that archeologists tend to believe that What they find is what exists. Fossilization requires very unique conditions which very rarely occur. Therefore creatures that lived in a certain area, at a certain time, under certain condition had the 'priviledge' of being fossilized. Therefore concluding that modern man did not exist over 100,000 years ago is quite a bold conclusion to be made from the fossils found (especially when what is found is dismissed since it does not fit the evolutionary theory and therefore should not exist.

5- Evolution could have techinically occured on any planet with stable conditions. At -60 +/- 20C suitable organisms for that temperature would have developed. Therefore life in our solar system would not have been so rare even in extreme temperatures and conditions.
Moreover, life does not have to be carbon-based silicone-based life can also have developed under given conditions. Yet we do not exactly see this (or at least not yet).

6-Mutations are generally detremental to living organisms and cause them to die. Mutations cannot be the driving force of evolution and does not promote speciation (depending on how speciation is defined). Mutations generally form sterile and/or harmed organisms not new viable species.

Off the top of my head those are the reasons I have a problem with evolution.

Intelligent Design does not necessarily promote religion or creationism. Life could have been developed to fit earth conditions using the genetic code much like programs are developed by software developers. Software developers use libraries of functions and objects which can be analogous to the genetic code that makes up various living systems (water breathing, air breathing, flying, swimming, reproduction). Genes or traits are small variances as software versions or flavors.
An intelligent designer just takes the genetic codes for living systems with the traits it wants and peices them together. This can make an endless combination and very diverse species.
The genetic make-up of chimps are very similar to that of humans. Does that mean that it is evolution? It can also promote the idea of intelligent design - similar design just a different application.




posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I agree.

If you haven't come across them, the books Forbidden Archaeology and Human Devolution by Michael Cremo go into the rejection of 'out-of-place' data by archaeologists at some length. He does have a point of view, (he's into the Vedic thing) but his presentation of the data seems solid enough.

One of the irritating things about mainstream science is the myth of 'objectivity': that scientific data is somehow magically utterly detached from the prejudices of the observer. This allows 'scientists' to ruthlessly gloss over the first two words of the phrase "the theory of evolution' and treat it as fact, or even to suggest that it does what a theory is supposed to do, which is to provide a consistent structure for the overwhelming majority of the available data. Darwinism does NOT do this, imo, and is not only tautologous in its argument (survival of the fittest - those that survive are therefore the fittest because they survived) but there is a massive unresolved tension between the idea that random mutations (which, as you say, are usually harmful) take place over geological time, and the need for organisms to adapt to changes in environment and availability of food etc that take place much more rapidly. I've never found it convincing, plus there's this awful Victorian stench of politics about it. And Richard Dawkins... what a pillock. He actually thinks that writing a computer program that mimics the evolutionary process is proof of Darwinism: it's not proof of ANYTHING other than that you can write a program to mimic a process that may or may NOT have any connection to the real world.

There's also an AWFUL, AWFUL false polarity set up between Darwinism and christian fundamentalism such that if you disagree with the former you must be part of the latter. NOT SO. It also allows you to rule out data and argument that might be perfectly valid on the grounds that a Christian did it. Well, you know, I'm not a Christian myself, but there have been lots of perfectly good scientists who were.

Another book you might like to check out is Evolution From Space by Fred Hoyle (at one time the UK Astronomer Royal) and nobel prizewinner Chandra Wickramsinghe. This book, which came out in the eighties to a resounding chorus of boos, has made successful predictions (that space is full of biotic material, for example) and has not had its proper credit given.

There's also a superb, very short book, in the Postmodern Encounters series called, I think, Thomas Kuhn and the History of Scientific Revolutions which offers a thumbnail outline of several trenchant critiques of mainstream science.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
If the following story doesn't convince you that there is at least something to Evolution, then you'll never be convinced.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



Toxic toads bound across the northern tropics of Australia faster than ever, thanks to the evolution of longer legs in the few short decades since humans introduced them to their own little paradise.

...

From the 1940s through the 1960s, the toads were invading at a rate of about 6 miles per year; now they're taking over at a rate of about 30 miles a year.

...

When the toads arrived, the researchers found that those in the vanguard of the invasion had legs that were up to 6 percent longer than average; shorter-legged stragglers followed. The study showed that newer populations of toads tended to have longer legs than those in long-established populations.


If isolated on this continent for a much longer period of time, I'm willing to bet that they'll speciate.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Hi Judah,

I'll answer four of your points...


Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
3- Dating methods were found to be faulty and fraudulent. Another problem I had is with C-14 testing is that the initial assumption that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere is relatively constant is, in my view, wrong. C-14 dramatically increased after the bombing in Hiroshema for example and such occurances as magnetic fluxuations, increased cosmic radiation and atmospheric changes can affect the C-14 concentrations.


C14 is not the only method used. Also, C14 is restricted to time-scales of around 50,000yrs. The strange thing is that the dating methods that are used, show an amazing correlation with each other.


4- It seems that archeologists tend to believe that What they find is what exists. Fossilization requires very unique conditions which very rarely occur. Therefore creatures that lived in a certain area, at a certain time, under certain condition had the 'priviledge' of being fossilized. Therefore concluding that modern man did not exist over 100,000 years ago is quite a bold conclusion to be made from the fossils found (especially when what is found is dismissed since it does not fit the evolutionary theory and therefore should not exist.


Not at all. Why are they looking for new species all the time (e.g. Tiktaalik).



5- Evolution could have techinically occured on any planet with stable conditions. At -60 +/- 20C suitable organisms for that temperature would have developed. Therefore life in our solar system would not have been so rare even in extreme temperatures and conditions.
Moreover, life does not have to be carbon-based silicone-based life can also have developed under given conditions. Yet we do not exactly see this (or at least not yet).


Considering we have barely scratched the surface of this solar system, that most planets/satellites are not as habitable as the earth is now (but may have been in the past), it is a bit early to worry about this issue.


6-Mutations are generally detremental to living organisms and cause them to die. Mutations cannot be the driving force of evolution and does not promote speciation (depending on how speciation is defined). Mutations generally form sterile and/or harmed organisms not new viable species.


Most mutations are actually neutral.

Claim CB101

If we ignore mutation, how do we explain speciation at the species level (i.e. the speciation we have observed).


Intelligent Design does not necessarily promote religion or creationism.


Yeah, not necessarily, but it is a fact that most in support are religious and believe the intelligence was their omnipotent being of choice. The major proponents of ID consistently make claims about their omnipotent being as the IDer and the theory as being a way to focus on the 'reality of god'.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 16-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Melatonin,

As a student in college I enjoyed anthropodgy and archeology and considered majoring in these fields. I ended up taking a load of courses in these fields but majored in Biology.


C14 is not the only method used. Also, C14 is restricted to time-scales of around 50,000yrs. The strange thing is that the dating methods that are used, show an amazing correlation with each other.


THere are many dating methods but not for organic material. Most dating methods are for rocks using potassium, uranium or other dating methods that do not date the terrestrial remains living organism (as opposed to marine). Other dating methods (Stratigraphy) use layers from different areas and correlate their age by using fossils known to have existed in that time period - this of course would be wrong if the classical interpretation of the theory of evolution is wrong. I am aware of the limitation of C14 dating but not aware of correlations with other test methods - could you provide a link or more info please.



Why are they looking for new species all the time


They are but when something anomalous is found it is dismissed since it contradicts the theory of evolution. Examples are:
Here is an example although not pertaining to fossils.



Considering we have barely scratched the surface of this solar system, that most planets/satellites are not as habitable as the earth is now (but may have been in the past), it is a bit early to worry about this issue.


You miss my point. You use the earth's environment as a standard. Your definition of habitable are by 'earthling' standards. You need to break the mold of this thought - recently worms living at 0C were found to live comfortably and melt at higher temperatures, as well as other extremophilies. These types of life-forms should be abundant in other bodies in space (and can well explain the methane cloud on Mars). Moreover do not restrict yourself to the thought of carbon-based life forms.

ClaimCB101 itself claims that the majority of mutations in humans are harmful although some are beneficial. That depends how you define mutations - I tend to believe that what are defined as mutations are actually rare autosomal recessive genes within the vast existing genetic variations .
In microbes mutations or genetic abberations are easily expressed since there is no sexual reproduction therefore in the case of microbes it is easier to find beneficial mutations.


Regarding ID it is obvious that our creator is our god. Question is - is it the same god of the bible? or the mainstream interpretation of the bible? Some claim the ETs created us. regardless I do not define "G-D" as a bad word or a bad concept. ID is a proposal based on science and can be tested according to the scientific method just as evolution.

Evolutionists much like dogmatic religions have shown instances of denying evidence that contradicts it concepts or explaining it away through untestable explanations.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
sardion2000,

the toad's invasion of Australia is not evolution at work but expression of it genetic variances that made them move faster. The long-legged toads and short-legged toads are of the same species and therefore they did not evolve longer legs. My guess is that the toads were just a heterozygous for the trait that allowed for longer legs when expressed as a recessive trait.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
ID is a proposal based on science and can be tested according to the scientific method just as evolution.

Could you give us an example of this 'testing'?

[edit on 16-4-2006 by riley]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
I am aware of the limitation of C14 dating but not aware of correlations with other test methods - could you provide a link or more info please.


Here's a good primer from a christian physicist from Los Alamos.

Dating Methods



They are but when something anomalous is found it is dismissed since it contradicts the theory of evolution. Examples are:
Here is an example although not pertaining to fossils.


So, if we find the most flimsy of evidence (which is under scrutiny - are they 40,000yrs, 1.3million yrs, or even footprints?), we should just accept it to fit your theory? The strange thing is that the dating would have been done with the same methods you criticise


The ToE has predictive value, the finding of Tiktaalik shows this. Do you have any more examples?




You miss my point. You use the earth's environment as a standard. Your definition of habitable are by 'earthling' standards. You need to break the mold of this thought - recently worms living at 0C were found to live comfortably and melt at higher temperatures, as well as other extremophilies. These types of life-forms should be abundant in other bodies in space (and can well explain the methane cloud on Mars). Moreover do not restrict yourself to the thought of carbon-based life forms.


I don't miss your point - I state there are other places that are less hospitable in this solar system, and they are to life as we know it, this is the only standard we have. When we can assess these places in a thorough fashion, we may find something, fossil evidence, living micro-organisms, silicon-based lifeforms, Alf, etc. Until then it is all moot and has no bearing on ToE.


ClaimCB101 itself claims that the majority of mutations in humans are harmful although some are beneficial. That depends how you define mutations - I tend to believe that what are defined as mutations are actually rare autosomal recessive genes within the vast existing genetic variations .
In microbes mutations or genetic abberations are easily expressed since there is no sexual reproduction therefore in the case of microbes it is easier to find beneficial mutations.


You seem to read different than me...


Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.


Most significant mutations are harmful; most survivng mutations are beneficial; overall. most mutations are neutral.


Regarding ID it is obvious that our creator is our god. Question is - is it the same god of the bible? or the mainstream interpretation of the bible? Some claim the ETs created us. regardless I do not define "G-D" as a bad word or a bad concept. ID is a proposal based on science and can be tested according to the scientific method just as evolution.


Why is it obvious the IDer is the god of your book, why not Brahma, Mbombo, Atum, Odin, Flying Spagetti Monster, why not a commitee of all these gods? These raelians (sp?) will be most upset. How can something that can only be taken on faith and cannot be tested, observed, and has no evidence, be 'obvious'. It is your belief and nothing more. I may believe the IDer is obviously a Nac Mac Feegle (an wee drunken blue-skinned scunner ejected from fairyland), how do we know overall which is the most obvious?

If complex organisms need a more complex designer, who designed this even more complex designer? An extremely complex IDer? Etc etc ad nauseum.

I don't see 'G-D' as a bad word or bad concept, it is just not scientific and is a belief unsupported by evidence. I'm agnostic, I have no problem with the idea, but I see it for what it is - philosophy.



[edit on 16-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
melatonin,

Thanks for the link but it does not discuss the issue of cross-referencing the dating methods (C14 with any other dating method).

Regarding the footsteps - See here - no mention was made regarding the possibility of the footprints being something other than foot prints. As soon as the dates did not fit conventional theory the footprints all of a sudden become something else?

Regarding the dating methods I did not criticize the dating methods used - only C14 testing which has had its fair share of fraud, discrepancies and innacuracies. As you pointed out yourself C14 testing cannot test for 1.3 million years samples and the rock tested is not organic.

Regarding additional evidence for anomalous material that comes in contrast to contemporary evolutionary theories how about the Acambaro dinosaurs - I know that Dipeso 'debunked' them - read the article - there are many sides to an arguement.
The Burdick Track although 'debunked' has been nicely rebutted in the link I provided. Again, two sides to an arguement.

Regarding the mutations I am at a loss with statistics. Their findings and the result of 175 mutations per generations makes me think - How in the name of Allah did anyone come out normal????

I am not saying that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, budaism, or the Raelian religion is the correct religion, that the earth is 5766 years old, or that evolution does not occur on a micro scale - I am only venting my frustration with scientists who are just as dogmatic with their beliefs as the vatican is by disregarding and 'debunking' finds that do not fit their system of beliefs.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
6-Mutations are generally detremental to living organisms and cause them to die. Mutations cannot be the driving force of evolution and does not promote speciation (depending on how speciation is defined). Mutations generally form sterile and/or harmed organisms not new viable species.

That is plain out wrong. If that is your view on mutations, I would recommend do some studying on the subject.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
melatonin,

Thanks for the link but it does not discuss the issue of cross-referencing the dating methods (C14 with any other dating method).


If you read it closely you will find the info.

here's Wien's summary...


Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?

We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing.

Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time.

Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.

Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years. The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

www.asa3.org...

C14 is cross-calibrated with other dating methods such as tree-rings, varves, sediments, ice-cores, corals etc. Here's another website with a basic explanation of C14 dating...

www.c14dating.com...

If you only have a problem with C14 then fine, it only causes problems for dating within 50,000yrs. ToE goes back much further than that.

Here's a comparision of data from another website, these are the results of different radiodating methods for rocks from one particular site (norway, fen complex)...


1. Fen Complex, Norway-A 40Ar/39Ar 588 +/- 10 Ma Meert et al, 1998

2. Fen Complex, Norway-B 40Ar/39Ar 578 +/- 10 Ma Meert et al., 1998

3. Fen complex, Norway K-Ar whole rock 575 +/- 25 Ma (average) Verschure et al., 1983

4. Fen Complex, Norway Rb-Sr isochron (phlogopite) 578 +/- 24 Ma Dahlgren, 1994

5. Fen complex, Norway Pb-Pb 573 +/- 60 Ma Dahlgren, 1994**

6. Fen complex, Norway Rb-Sr mineral-wr isochron (recalc) 583 +/- 41 Ma Dahlgren, 1994**

7. Fen complex, Norway Th-Pb chemical 570-590 Ma Saether, 1958

8. Fen complex, Norway K-Ar (mica) 565 Ma Faul et al., 1959

gondwanaresearch.com...

I'll address the rest of your post later, or tomorrow, I have a pile of marking staring at me


cheers

edit: the article on mutation rates is by Fred Williams, the electrical engineer....what is it with engineers and anti-evolutionism, haha. I guess we shouldn't take his claims to seriously, not exactly an expert in genetics, eh? Maybe he should offer it up for peer-review...

If you know about genetics (I guess with a BSc in bio, you do), you should be able to follow this refutation of his argument, he participates himself, lets call it unoffical peer-review...

obselete argument?

As for the other two claims, (figurines and 1930's carved footprint) not really convincing are they? Should we reassess 100+ years of convincing evidence for ToE because of these dubious finds?

[edit on 17-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Regarding ID it is obvious that our creator is our god.

Yeah, I guess that's why there's never any disagreement or debate about it. It's just a "given" like the Sun in the sky or cats liking tuna.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
OK folks - I had this idea a while back that I'd like you all to try on for size.

I always had a problem with the evolutionary theory for the following reasons:
1- Archeologists make plenty of assumptions. Some of which are right others are wrong. For example the wrong head was placed on a brontosaurus in the museum for of Natural History (NYC).


You have to make some assumptions to create theories. Sometimes the theories work out, sometimes they don't. As for the brontosaurus, who is to thank for getting the correct head put on it? Yeah, that's right. A paleontologist. Creationists just think the whole animal is a hoax.


2- anomalous skeletons or evidence contrary to evolutionary thought were either suspected to be faked, ignored or taken as being misplaced in the sediment (layers) from which it was found.


That doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary theory. It's just a bit of bad science. Hey, that's why they put erasers on pencils.


3- Dating methods were found to be faulty and fraudulent. Another problem I had is with C-14 testing is that the initial assumption that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere is relatively constant is, in my view, wrong. C-14 dramatically increased after the bombing in Hiroshema for example and such occurances as magnetic fluxuations, increased cosmic radiation and atmospheric changes can affect the C-14 concentrations.


Yeah, it's "possible" for various dating methods to be a bit off here and there. But it works pretty good for the most part. Biblical archeologists rely on it a lot.


4- It seems that archeologists tend to believe that What they find is what exists. Fossilization requires very unique conditions which very rarely occur. Therefore creatures that lived in a certain area, at a certain time, under certain condition had the 'priviledge' of being fossilized. Therefore concluding that modern man did not exist over 100,000 years ago is quite a bold conclusion to be made from the fossils found (especially when what is found is dismissed since it does not fit the evolutionary theory and therefore should not exist.


I'm afraid you're going to have to site a specific example of this. Besides, something like the Bible says mankind is less than 10,000 years old. Which do you want?


5- Evolution could have techinically occured on any planet with stable conditions. At -60 +/- 20C suitable organisms for that temperature would have developed. Therefore life in our solar system would not have been so rare even in extreme temperatures and conditions.
Moreover, life does not have to be carbon-based silicone-based life can also have developed under given conditions. Yet we do not exactly see this (or at least not yet).


"Could" and "did" are pretty far apart. Just because I theoretically "could" sink a basket by throwing it full court, doesn't mean I'm gonna. And I don't see what this has to do with evolution, either. You're talking about the line between organic and inorganic chemistry, which is pretty fuzzy.


6-Mutations are generally detremental to living organisms and cause them to die. Mutations cannot be the driving force of evolution and does not promote speciation (depending on how speciation is defined). Mutations generally form sterile and/or harmed organisms not new viable species.

I'm glad you said "generally." Because it's those "rare" instances that allow evolution to occur, and gives us so many interesting breeds of dogs.


Off the top of my head those are the reasons I have a problem with evolution.

That's not surprising, since it looks to me like you don't really understand what evolution even is.


Intelligent Design does not necessarily promote religion or creationism.


Then why is it that most, if not all of the folks who are all gung-ho for Intelligent Design are religious? I just don't see why all these folks are so ready to run in and declare they've "solved" the mystery. Nothing wrong with just saying "I don't know." No need to bring big, powerful, unseem boogey men into the picture. At least not until we see some good, positive evidence that such an intelligence even exists. Until then, I might as well say the Easter Bunny created everything. Prove me wrong!



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
ID is a proposal based on science and can be tested according to the scientific method just as evolution.

Could you give us an example of this 'testing'?

Yeah. I have yet to see a good, rigorous scientific hypothesis propounded by the ID people, nor have I seen the results of any solid, peer reviewed studies.

I did see somewhere somebody cut open a kiwi or something and the seed pattern inside spelled out "Allah is good," or something to that effect. Is that scientific proof?




posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Melatonin,



As for the other two claims, (figurines and 1930's carved footprint) not really convincing are they? Should we reassess 100+ years of convincing evidence for ToE because of these dubious finds?


It is not just one find. The pottery in Mexico, pottery in Peru, lake-bed footprints in Texas, skeletons in the US all refute modern understanding of history.

I am not christian I am Jewish and studied in Jewish schools. Science classes taught evolution and Torah classes taught the bible. We learned it as is. I am not too observant as a Jew. What bothers me is not that evolution negates the bible. What bothers me is the religous dogma, circular logic and closed mindedness Darwinists exhibit especially on this issue since, to them it is a fight with those religious fanatics - no better then their counterparts.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Melatonin,

I am not christian I am Jewish and studied in Jewish schools. Science classes taught evolution and Torah classes taught the bible. We learned it as is. I am not too observant as a Jew. What bothers me is not that evolution negates the bible. What bothers me is the religous dogma, circular logic and closed mindedness Darwinists exhibit especially on this issue since, to them it is a fight with those religious fanatics - no better then their counterparts.


If you find all these dubious finds convincing, fair enough, your perogative.

You make a false dichotomy, there is no conflict between religion and ToE. Only between literalists and ToE, it is of their making, religion should stick to theology, ToE to science. There are many 'darwinists' that are christians, jews etc, they are not mutually exclusive. The problem is some fundamentalists trying to guide science, and use it to validate their beliefs. ToE does not negate the bible, it negates the literal interpretation of parts of the bible. Many believers have no problem with this, others do.

By no means is ToE a religion, you could say it is dogma, that's your opinion. Religions claim truth, ToE is an observation of nature, nothing more, nothing less, it is a tentative scientific theory. But, IMO, a damn good one. If you want to claim evolution is a religion, it will make the notion of religion meaningless.

The ToE does not rule out your omnipotent being of choice, just some interpretations of books written by people who had limited knowledge of nature.

It is not just ToE that refutes fundamentalist interpretation - cosmology and geology do as well.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
JudahMaccabbi and rich23...

I applaud your thoughtful and well-researched posts in favor of the theory of Intelligent Design. It is refreshing to see cogent remarks from those who oppose the dogmatism and close-mindedness of the Darwinists/Evolutionists.






posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
One of the irritating things about mainstream science is the myth of 'objectivity': that scientific data is somehow magically utterly detached from the prejudices of the observer. This allows 'scientists' to ruthlessly gloss over the first two words of the phrase "the theory of evolution' and treat it as fact, or even to suggest that it does what a theory is supposed to do, which is to provide a consistent structure for the overwhelming majority of the available data.


Oh, how cavalier of you to look down on the mainstream science. Of course the real facts are more easily revealed by the Armchair Warriors of Truth, who typically don't have degrees in natural sciences (which are indeed a very tough subject).

Everything in science is a theory. There is quantum theory and it's really labeled as such. There is then a theory of relativity. Both of this theories, by and large, explain an incredible diversity of phenomena from miscroscopic to macroscopic, from quarks to black holes. Not everything is perfect there, but lots of things will be sorted out eventually. It is the mainstream science, that you dare to put in quotes, and not creationism, that brought you the DVD and the very computer at which you type your follies.

It is in fact the likes of the creationinsts who are dogmatic in that they demand a perfect explanation of everything, and of course a supernatural force comes in handy in that regard. Since the supernatural (magic) force is by definition removed from the physical reality, with which it interacts in mysterious ways, this lifts the obligation of the creationinsts to really work hard on the explanations. It's magic, dammit. Period.

It is very entertaining how the creationists are always hung up on various details of evolution of species like rabbits, snails or something else they are familiar straight from their childhood. You never hear an argument of an intelligent design of newly discovered structures in the Universe -- the field of astrophyscis is really making progress -- you never hear that because a layperson knows about rabbits but doesn't know about Large Scale Sky Survey. I never heard a claim that the rings of Saturn were artificially designed (there is some complex mecahnics involved in that). I never heard a claim that the precession of the Mercury's orbit is there by design. Arguing about such things requires real KNOWLEDGE, and the Armchair Truth Seekers are typically short on that. It's just a lot easier to be smug and make fun of the scientists, and just for a brief moment experience an exhilirating sense of intellectual superiority which in reality of course does not exist.



[edit on 17-4-2006 by Aelita]



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Judah, you never answered my question in the other thread.

You support INTELLIGENT design. You also have a degree in biology, but you seem to fail to understand certain principles of biology. Specifically, you never answered my question about homology.

Why would this "intelligent" designer use the same basic structures to create animals that fly, walk, crawl, dig, hop, leap, and swim? I know you know what I'm talking about.

And, I am so sick of saying this, but what created this designer? And I don't wanna hear that ID doesn't have to do this. Besides, what has anyone done useful with ID? As mentioned already, evolution was used to find the titlaak. That's only one example. If everyone said ok, ID is the real deal, then what? What can you accomplish with ID? Nothing.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Judah, you never answered my question in the other thread.

You support INTELLIGENT design. You also have a degree in biology, but you seem to fail to understand certain principles of biology. Specifically, you never answered my question about homology.

Why would this "intelligent" designer use the same basic structures to create animals that fly, walk, crawl, dig, hop, leap, and swim? I know you know what I'm talking about.

I did answer your question by this thread. What gave life similarity in structure and make-up is the master plan for life.
Life I said, if the genetic code can be used much like software programming using libraries of functions and objects then the basis is always similar since the basic libraries are always reused.
In C, C++ (I use these examples since I learned these languages there are basic libraries which are always referred to from the code itself. The basic structures you reffered to can be similar in nature. If the 'creator' (group of creators) were to create living life forms they would design a basic form and then use that basis to create variations. I think we are not too far off from this. Scientists were able to grow a fully functional urinary bladder from stem cells.

Design is also referred to while explaining homology.

Again I will reiterate - I am not one of those who subscribe to the biblical version of the creation, but I do believe in an intelligent design to life.



And, I am so sick of saying this, but what created this designer? And I don't wanna hear that ID doesn't have to do this.

What came before the big bang? I can also pose the same question if I wish to play the devil's advocate. What I proposed is a theory just like Evolution. Can you tell me what came before the big bang? And don't tell me eternal nothingness because that would be the same things those religious fanatics would say.



Besides, what has anyone done useful with ID? As mentioned already, evolution was used to find the titlaak. That's only one example. If everyone said ok, ID is the real deal, then what? What can you accomplish with ID? Nothing.


Let me ask you. Supposed tomorrow ETs come from Kukamanga and claim that they created the mammals, reptiles, amphibiants and trees on this planet - where would we be? Would evolution be destroyed. No it would be tweeked.

I think the whole issue of ID as a science is in its infancy and needs time to be developed just like all fields of science.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join