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.
Originally posted by Rren
What did you find most convincing about the page?
Find us some/any (creationist or ID theorist) sources that claim, "people evolved from monkeys."
It shows absolutely nothing of the sort, re: misinformation spread by ID and/or creationist proponents.
You are correct that it proves nothing though.
This shows that there is some obvious misinformation about evolution being spread by the ID/Creationist proponents." Where? How?
Originally posted by Nygdan
So while no one's ever seen the laboratory process called microevolution product a fundamentally different 'kind' of organism, that alone doesn't seem to be enough to say it doesn't happen.
I think we can see that there are a lot of creationist arguments that have been refuted but are still passed along by creationist organizations as if they were true. Guys like Kent Hovind are clearly distributing misinformation, for example.
though I'd think that numbers 10,
and perhaps 7
and 4, can be generally accepted as being parts of ID.
Originally posted by mattison0922
Number 10 is a bastardized, or deliberately misrepresented example of an ID argument. No serious ID proponent has ever stated "Complexity cannot arise naturally." You certainly don't need the TO website to refute that idea. Obviously complex things arise naturally. This is not debatable. The question that appears to still be open for discussion is whether or not specified complexity can arise naturally.
Originally posted by zenlover28
Is the idea of 'specified complexity' really up for discussion? Or is just on the ID side of the discussion? I believe Nygdan did hit the nail on the head on that.
That entire argument is complete ID hogwash, IMO.
What is your basis for comparison with this notion of 'specified complexity'? How are you able to know the difference between something that has occurred naturally and something that was designed.
Do you have the original blueprints to compare our molecular structure to or something?
[edit on 9-6-2006 by zenlover28]
Originally posted by zenlover28
Is the idea of 'specified complexity' really up for discussion? Or is just on the ID side of the discussion?
I believe Nygdan did hit the nail on the head on that. That entire argument is complete ID hogwash, IMO.
What is your basis for comparison with this notion of 'specified complexity'? How are you able to know the difference between something that has occurred naturally and something that was designed. Do you have the original blueprints to compare our molecular structure to or something?
[edit on 9-6-2006 by zenlover28]
Originally posted by mattison0922
one organism can 'evolve' into a different kind is really only inference and speculation based on facts.
Okay... Yes, Kent Hovind is a moron and a charlatan. But whether or not an argument has been adequately 'refuted' is a subjective concept.
These type of things need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
The question that appears to still be open for discussion is whether or not specified complexity can arise naturally.
en.wikipedia.org...
a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance
However, thus far we're not able to 'test' the idea that a bacteria can evolve into a nematode
If IDists believed that science couldn't say anything about origins, then why would Behe, for example, accept the common origin of apes and man?
rren
Unless you're talking about the straw man presented in the link
Originally posted by ProjectX1986
I dont get how a bunch of you on this message board believe we live in a Matrix, and not believe in God. That makes no sense at all.
I really have no clue how people dont believe in God, look at this beautiful Universe we live in.
The big bang theory even proves the point.
Scientist say two atoms hit one another, and made this universe. Now picture a white sheet of computer paper as our universe, nothing at all like they state. Where in the hell did the two Atoms come from on the paper.
Why are you so worried about the NWO, Aliens, Etc, are you affraid you may have judged every thing wrong?
Originally posted by Nygdan
I use the word 'kind' there though not as a scientific term, I don't think that the term has any validity. There's nothing that seems to set up a barrier to a great deal of change, having dry scaley skin become smoother glandular skin, or having scales go through stages that can result in feathers or hair follicles, for example. Or having amphibian skin become dry reptilian skin either.
From a perhaps relatively neutral site, we have
en.wikipedia.org...
a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance
Is the NaCl specified? I think it may be from that example. As far as complex, we, today, understand the rules of ionic bonding. What if we didn't understand those rules, and had no real knowledge of chemistry, but (somehow), knew the structure?
I think that what that example addresses better than the specified complexity issue is this idea that you can calculate the "likelyness of formation' by looking at the structure and making simple caluclations, by doing so you can make anything seem incredibly unlikely, and that is what we tend to see in, say, the 'no peopel from hydorgen' arguement, it ignores the effect of natural selection, which is going to get 'beyond' non-selected' objects in terms of complexity.
Hmm, on the other hand, if we can expect natural selection to result in 'design' or 'designoid' as some people call it, and we could detect that, perhaps we could detect intelligent design (even if just in man-made objects).
Unless we accept that change is change, and a high degree of change doesn't require special mechanisms.
Perhaps a reworking of it might be that natural selection is testable, but that high degree of change isn't testable???
I took origins to mean ultimate origins of the universe. In so far as the wedge document indicates, at least that 'school' of ID doesn't ultimately accept purely naturalistic explanations for nature, and might not be too favourable on the universe itself being formed from the 'big bang'. Though I am not so familiar with Behe or Dembski to know if they accept or reject it specifically.
Originally posted by ProjectX1986
I dont get how a bunch of you on this message board believe we live in a Matrix, and not believe in God.
The big bang theory even proves the point. Scientist say two atoms hit one another, and made this universe.
Nygdan:
I can definitly see it as being somethign of a straw man, or at least inaccuarte, as something like a salt crystal isn't all that complex anyway.
Nygdan:
I get the impression that it serves better to show that facile calculations of probability aren't sufficient to demonstrate whether or not something can have occured naturally.
Nygdan:
But, of course, this is not something that I have seen the Discovery Institute do, but it does tend to pop up in discussions with 'quasi"-ID creationists.
Originally posted by ProjectX1986
I dont get how a bunch of you on this message board believe we live in a Matrix, and not believe in God.
[...snip...]
The big bang theory even proves the point. Scientist say two atoms hit one another, and made this universe.
[...snip...]
Why even post on this forum if you believe you come from monkeys, and when you die its all over.
Originally posted by zenlover28
Oh dear. I think i've upset y'all. So sorry. Have a nice day now ya hear!
Originally posted by ProjectX1986
Scientist say two atoms hit one another, and made this universe.
Originally posted by ProjectX1986
Thanks for replying, has there even been a big fight on this site before.
Every one has different view points, I wonder has it ever got out of hand. I actually like this site a lot, because you can talk about any topic you want, and people listen, respond, and dont really bash you.
Originally posted by Rren
Nobody got mad at cha. Just asked how you arrived at your conclusion of ID hogwash. No worries, have a nice day too.
[edit on 9-6-2006 by Rren]