Originally posted by Ulster
A Mathematician may use Euclidean Geometry in his study of Geometry and/or Mathematics. It doesn't make him a Euclideanist.

An Evolutionary biologist uses Darwinian natural selection in his study of natural selection or modern evolutionary synthesis but it doesn't make him/her a Darwinist either.

Now they like to be known as, "Neo-Darwinist". At least the scientist that work on evolution theory, do. I know the public believers, like to be known as, ( the only rational ones).

[edit on 18-5-2008 by Howie47]

Originally posted by Howie47
Your making a good argument for Intelligent Design theory! Yes bacteria is very complex. We don't find any very simple forms of life on this planet. Which is what Darwin suspected when He devised his theory.
All that complexity didn't just 'pop' into existence!

This from the person that said For macro evolution to happen, new information must be created in the genes. Which is incorrect.

You make a number of logical fallacies here.
1) Equivocation - "complex life" seams roughly whatever YOU want it to mean. Some organisms are not even slightly complex in science's eyes. It is tautologous because it allows you to define things as "Very Complex" Complexity is much more than the number of base pairs. Just because a bacteria has a trillion base pairs does not make it "complex"

2) Sweeping Generalization - You assume that ancient simple forms of life are similar to today's simplest life.

3) A Fallacy of Strawman - All life is not complex. We find MANY simple life forms. Self-replication and evolution has been observed in viruses holding less than 50 base pairs. There is no mathematical limit on how simple life can be nor an agreement on what is life. There are plant viroids with 1 molecule.

You brought up ID and I see no proof whatsoever in any ID hypothesis let alone a cogent Scientific theroy.

Answer me this. How did this "Creator" manufacture. Where did the "Creator" get the initial materials to design ? Exactly how did the Designer implement Its Design(s)? How many Designers were there?

What is the exact message of ID?

[edit on 5/18/2008 by Ulster]

Originally posted by Howie47
Yeah, I guess it is very difficult for you to understand, ulster.
A can opener, fairly simple design.
A computer, a very complex design.
And yes, complexity isn't just a number. It is a (specified number or equation, that equals something.) In bacteria, the base pairs, equals
the physical makeup of a actual bacteria. Which is a very complex design. Like the computer. Not like the can opener. Comprendo?

Can openers and computers are not Living systems. The same rules of complexity therefore can not be used for inanimate objects and animate ones. That is a Composition Fallacy.

>The base Pairs equals the physical makeups of an actual bacteria.
Not quite.

>Which is a very complex design.
Oh so now it's not just "complex". You are now qualifying complexity as "Complex design".
Well see you have to prove there is design then. Which you can't do.

Anyway...
Your analogy doesn't work in biology even if we skip all the parts about comparing inanimate objects to animate ones and base pairs equating to the complexity of the whole.

A eukaryote has LESS genetic material in it's mitochondria than the proteobacteria it descends from. A eukaryote is more complex than a prokaryote.

See, complexity does not stem from the complexity of individual cells but in the interactions of these within the cell and body and their interaction with other organisms.

Doesn't matter though because you are talking about Complex "design"
Ok, for there to be design there has to be a designer. I'll ask once again.

1) Where did the designer(s) the material to design things with ?
2) How did they manufacture their/his/her/it's design ?
3) How many Designers were there?
4) What is the message of ID ?

Please don't be disingenuous again. I answer your questions. Please answer mine.



[edit on 5/18/2008 by Ulster]

Originally posted by dave420

Since Ibn al-Haytham first created the scientific method over 1,000 years ago, it has not changed. Let me outline it for you:

1. Observation
2. Statement of problem
3. Formulation of hypothesis
4. Testing of hypothesis using experimentation
5. Analysis of experimental results
6. Interpretation of data and formulation of conclusion
7. Publication of findings

That's the scientific method. You should be able to clearly see there is nothing in there about atheism, or god.

Has the theory of evolution satisfied all the criteria. Yes or no answer would be nice.

Originally posted by Ulster

Yes it has. Many 1000's of times.

You mean that we have obsereved evolution taking place in an experiment. I did'nt know that. That is why i asked. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge on this topic so i might pick your brain again if that is cool. Have there also been experiments that replicate the origins of life emerging from the primordial soup, as that would have been the first step of evolution would it not, and the easiest to reproduce given how simple life was then.

Most, or all, of the examples of irreducible complexity are based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and considering the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance.

I was directed to this idea and wondered what the forum's thoughts would be as the OP has often brought up "complexity" in some posts.

So let me ask a question about this Irreducible complexity. Hopefully you can back up you "theroy" like you expect others to back up theirs.

I don't believe i claimed to have a theroy. Does that make evolution, yours. I thought a fundamental mechanism of learning was asking questions and assume nothing. What am i supposed to be backing up, the fact that i asked a few questions??

A. What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design?

1. What testable predictions does ID make?
2. What observation could, in principle, falsify ID?
3.How does ID account for suboptimal or bad design, such as the blind spot in human eyes?
4. How many designers were there ?
5. Where did the designer(s) get their base materials in which to design ?
6. Are design events still occurring today? If not, when was the last one?
7. Do you also advocate "teaching the controversy" ?

If you have asumed that i am here to promote this theory purely because i quoted Behe then you are wrong. I thought the point of this thread was to ask why Evolutionists ignore or fail to explain characteristic within nature that do not fit into the Evolution Model/theory. ie Like aspects Mendel that the OP stated etc.

I have a few more questions i will post, it would be great if you would share your thoughts again.









[edit on 20-5-2008 by atlasastro]