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.

 

Florida to be next battleground for Intelligent Design?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
The biggest problem I have with ID is the complexity issue.

The entire theory is stating that there are somethings that are just too complex. If this were to be taught in schools...what is the indirect lesson?

That if something is too complicated...attribute it to the stars in the sky and forget about trying further.

Inherently, the lesson is intellectual laziness...which suggests it was created and is now being championed by the intellectually lazy.

"Thank God" that many of our ancestors weren't so quick to embrace ignorance...




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sty
Do not worry guys, you will bring biologists/doctors from India, they are very good!


Sorry? What did you mean by this post comment, i don't quite get it.


sty

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Well, i wanted to say that a country that takes ID as the "base" for their education can expect a very step decline in medical services / biology , virusology , evolutionary computing etc. The only solution to keep the medical services going will be to bring skilled people from other countries ( like India ).



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by noobfun
 


evolution is not reliant on abiogenesis, it cares nothing for HOW LIFE GOT HERE


As I've already pointed out - this is utterly ridiculuous.

Either life was created by intelligent design or it evolved from unorganized chaos via natural selection. Again - you can't have it both ways.

As I have already posted above -


Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is just that, the conjecture that all species had a common origin, which by mathematical induction brings us back to the soup ...


Nobody has addressed my point. You all seem to be parroting the same 'party line' much in the same way people are criticized for quoting the bible for the basis of their arguments. I find this pretty suprising.

Can anybody explain, as I have very simply exlained my position, how it could be possible for evolution to be independent of how life originated. Sorry - I just don't get it.

What I'm seeing here are a number of intelligent people who are proponents of a viewpoint which makes no sense.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by noobfun
 


evolution is not reliant on abiogenesis, it cares nothing for HOW LIFE GOT HERE

Nobody has addressed my point. You all seem to be parroting the same 'party line' much in the same way people are criticized for quoting the bible for the basis of their arguments. I find this pretty suprising.

Can anybody explain, as I have very simply exlained my position, how it could be possible for evolution to be independent of how life originated. Sorry - I just don't get it.

What I'm seeing here are a number of intelligent people who are proponents of a viewpoint which makes no sense.


I may be able to help, could you explain more clearly what you're confused about? What do you mean by independent?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


The field of Evolution do not explain the formation of the original compounds, that's not their purpose. That would be the field of Chemistry.

The scientific process does not presume to explain everything at once. It works in parts, and discovers the explanations individually.

The formation of the original compounds is a separate field of study in itself, and resides in the realm of Chemistry, only once life is established can Biology and Evolution take over and begin its work.


If you are a proponent of intelligent design, I can understand why you might have trouble with this. Religious teachings attempt to explain everything at once, one might become accustomed to this and expect anything else to do the same... but the scientific process is not there to convert you, it's there to find the answers.

The nature of the scientific process is not to make up explanations, but to discover that which fits into the evidence and mathematical theorem on hand.
The scientific process categorizes everything by variation, field of study, and time line, among other categories. The formation of the original building blocks of life are not in the field of evolution, as it cannot be recognized as life at that point.


Why do you expect the field of Evolution to attempt to study properties outside of it's category?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Here is something more to the point of the article and off-topic as well. Why is this lawmaker introducing legislation like this...which at best will cost taxpayers MORE money in FLA we DON'T HAVE being tied up in comittees, consultants...etc, rather than focusing on how to keep funding going for schools and teachers. This state is already virtually bankrupt, slashing school budgets by 30% or better in some counties, but we seem to find the need to teach creationism? Priorities first. Get the funding back into the school system and THEN..ONLY THEN will we hear this arguement.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by noobfun
 


Nobody has addressed my point. You all seem to be parroting the same 'party line' much in the same way people are criticized for quoting the bible for the basis of their arguments. I find this pretty suprising.


I recommend you reread the post by noobfun that this was apparently a response to, since he/she actually addresses the question directly.

Some highlights:

"if God decided to make simple single cell organisms and sprinkle them around it still evolved by means of natural selection to the diversity of life forms we currently see"

"natural selection can only effect self replicating molecules that are subject to enviromental factors and competition for resources to increase or limit its ability to replicate … before those self replicating molecules occured there was nothing for natural selection to work upon"

"funny Darwin had no idea about the primordial soup that came much later …
what Darwins work hints at i all life originated from one or a small handful of very very simple organisms, he again makes no statement or gives no hints as to where those organism came from"

If that still doesn't clear up your confusion, I'll have to ponder the matter until our debate. I'd hate to take advantage of a confused opponent



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Everyone seems caught up on this side step that has nothing to do with the main thread's topic nor evolution.

Ok, so you are asking, how did life appear to begin with. This one is interesting, and it's being recreated right now in labs. There was an article recently on CNN about this and one here: blog.wired.com...

Very interesting stuff. My thought is, if we can do this in a lab, it can certainly be done in nature, under the right conditions. So once life is created, it then needs to adapt to it's environment. Another interesting article on CNN (had a hard time finding it) explains that studies are showing environmental events that occur during a creature's adolescence actually effect it's DNA both socially and physically. On a more basic level, we can see, in just a few generations, how animals quickly adapt to extreme environments (such as introducing a newt to a cave). After several reproduction cycles, the amphibian looses the ability to see because it's in an environment devoid of light. It evolves to survive. The amazing thing, is that the control newt does not... obviously, since it's not in the dark environment.

The point I'm making here is that an organism that doesn't need to adapt, will not. That's why there are still microorganisms. Because in their particular environment, they do not need to change to survive and thrive... however, when they do, we get a new strain of bacteria.

It's great stuff, and if you only do a bit of digging, you'll see there's a lot to learn.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


Everyone seems caught up on this side step that has nothing to do with the main thread's topic nor evolution.


Let me remind you of the headline on this thread -


Florida to be next battleground for Intelligent Design?


So, again I reiterate -


Either life was created by intelligent design or it evolved from unorganized chaos via natural selection. Again - you can't have it both ways.


Indulging my opponents on this issue for just a moment longer, consider the following. If we don't care what happened prior to the occurance of the first self-replicating molecules ( 'life', evidently, in the context of this discussion ) then it can just as easily be asserted that 'all' or 'most' or existing species 'appeared' all at once, hence oviating any need for evolution whatsoever.


External Reference

Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd"), also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.




I rest my case ...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
Indulging my opponents on this issue for just a moment longer, consider the following. If we don't care what happened prior to the occurance of the first self-replicating molecules ( 'life', evidently, in the context of this discussion ) then it can just as easily be asserted that 'all' or 'most' or existing species 'appeared' all at once, hence oviating any need for evolution whatsoever.


Except that the sudden appearance of millions of slight variations is much less likely than the gradual evolution of millions of slight variations from an original handful of living organisms.

And while self-replicating molecules are the building blocks of life, I don't think that that's a sufficient condition to call something life.

You're quite right, though. It can be asserted that God put the Earth and everything on it together 6000 years ago, complete with fossils and bacteria and viral RNA and all sorts of other fun stuff that he included just to toy with scientists.

That's a far more defensible position than "Intelligent Design" is. But it's not science either.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by Avarus
 


Everyone seems caught up on this side step that has nothing to do with the main thread's topic nor evolution.


Let me remind you of the headline on this thread -


Florida to be next battleground for Intelligent Design?



Well if you read my entire post instead of a sentence at a time, you'll see what I'm referring to. The original post is about Florida, and its decision to potentially requiring a religious concept in a government institution. Additionally you are arguing the creation of life, not evolution.

So in response to your argument, I explain how life could be created from nothing. I then go on to explain how the fundamentals of evolution work... sighting real-life occurrences in nature. I'm not sure what more you could want.


Originally posted by visible_villain
Indulging my opponents on this issue for just a moment longer, consider the following. If we don't care what happened prior to the occurance of the first self-replicating molecules ( 'life', evidently, in the context of this discussion ) then it can just as easily be asserted that 'all' or 'most' or existing species 'appeared' all at once, hence oviating any need for evolution whatsoever.

I'm sorry, I read through this, like ten times, and I still don't know what your point is. I'm not sure if this is an appropriate response, since I didn't quite grasp your full thought... but evolution occurs right now as we speak, and it can be observed and measured. Therefore, unless you completely ignore the data, you can't refute its existence or the need for it. Does that makes sense?



Originally posted by visible_villain

External Reference

Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd"), also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.


I rest my case ...


Well, no offense, but this last bit makes about as much as the rest of your disjointed posts.


[edit on 2.9.2009 by Avarus]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

Except that the sudden appearance of millions of slight variations is much less likely than the gradual evolution of millions of slight variations from an original handful of living organisms.

And while self-replicating molecules are the building blocks of life, I don't think that that's a sufficient condition to call something life.

You're quite right, though. It can be asserted that God put the Earth and everything on it together 6000 years ago, complete with fossils and bacteria and viral RNA and all sorts of other fun stuff that he included just to toy with scientists.

That's a far more defensible position than "Intelligent Design" is. But it's not science either.


You're absolutely right. I also would like to argue that I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain

As I've already pointed out - this is utterly ridiculuous.

Either life was created by intelligent design or it evolved from unorganized chaos via natural selection. Again - you can't have it both ways.

As I have already posted above -


natural selection has nothing to do with it until self replicating molecules that are subject to environmental pressure exit

so it simply doesn't matter if they came about through a series of chemical reactions or God/aliens made a bunch of basic single celled organisms and sprinkled them around, natural selection kicks in once self replication exists

stating evolution cant exist without abiogenesis is akin to saying you cant listen to an orchestra unless you know how each member arrived at the auditorium

or you cant learn to drive unless you know exactly how a car is built and the processes that formed the components

your creating a false dichotomy of either/or

when it simple is an is


Nobody has addressed my point. You all seem to be parroting the same 'party line' much in the same way people are criticized for quoting the bible for the basis of their arguments. I find this pretty surprising.

Can anybody explain, as I have very simply explained my position, how it could be possible for evolution to be independent of how life originated. Sorry - I just don't get it.
if scientists design a new life form build it out of DNA/RNA and the standard proteins/amino acids that is intelligently designed life correct? like the fully synthetic virus's that have been created

unless they have somehow managed to create a 100% accurate self copying DNA/RNA structure and the organism is not subject to environmental pressure some how, it will become subject to copying errors in its DNA/RNA(mutations) and subject to environmental pressure (natural selection) so will undergo evolution as it breeds or replicates in the case of A-sexual behavior or virus reproduction

natural selection and random mutation only come into effect once theres a self replicating molecule, it doesn't matter how it got to be self replicating only that it is self replicating and subject to environmental pressure


What I'm seeing here are a number of intelligent people who are proponents of a viewpoint which makes no sense.


while the two follow on abiogenesis(chemistry) leads to a self replicating molecule subject to environmental pressure at which point evolution takes over(biology)

they are different areas of study, abiogenesis deals only with how life possibly originated through chemical processes which evolution doesn't play a role in(no self replicating molecule yet)

at the point where self replicating molecules exist evolution takes over, it deals with how environment and RNA/DNA replication affects the self replicating molecule of the organism

if the self replicating molecule came about by a process other then chemistry it doesn't matter because evolution still take over once and only at the point that self replicating molecule exists



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain

Indulging my opponents on this issue for just a moment longer, consider the following. If we do not care what happened prior to the occurrence of the first self-replicating molecules ( 'life', evidently, in the context of this discussion ) then it can just as easily be asserted that 'all' or 'most' or existing species 'appeared' all at once, hence oviating any need for evolution whatsoever.


it can be asserted although the evidence simply doesn't pan out for this conclusion

the evidence clearly shows the earliest known forms of life were extremely basic singe celled life forms, and as time went on the organisms became more complex

it's not Reductio ad absurdum, no one has stated(at least i have not) life just magically appeared which would be Reductio ad absurdum, or that life evolved through natural selection to a point that natural selection could take over (which is essentially what you are saying)

what i have clearly stated is only once self replicating molecules exist does natural selection random mutation and other aspect of evolution come into play, in the same way you cant paint a fence until the paint exits

to paint the fence you do not have to know/show how the paint was formed, since the paint exists you can use it in the same way evolution doesn't have to know/show or really even care how the self replicating molecule got there, evolution just explains what happens/happened to them once they was there

you will also notice I am using the term self replicating molecule because there is no scientific working definition for life, if you use the seven step method of identification then what the Szostak labs have already created, well set up condition for the self creation is life

[edit on 9/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Teaching ID alongside evolution is equivalent to teaching the idea of Zeus being responsible for lightning in a meteorology class. I'm sorry, but there is just no scientific basis for it.

When anyone does find evidence or repeatable experiments in support of intelligent design, I would gladly accept this proposal. Until then, beliefs & faith do not belong in a science class.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
Either life was created by intelligent design or it evolved from unorganized chaos via natural selection. Again - you can't have it both ways.

Can anybody explain, as I have very simply exlained my position, how it could be possible for evolution to be independent of how life originated. Sorry - I just don't get it.


The reason evolution is independent from how life originated is this; Evolution is a natural process. It is similar to the water cycle or the nitrogen cycle of decay in that they are all natural processes that do not require the belief in any theory of origination. Evolution is a process that is observable in the fossil record and in genetics just as the water cycle is observable through basic meteorology. Basically, evolution is not dependent upon either side of the discussion regarding how life originated.

Evolution is completely viable whether you believe in the primordial soup explanation or the divine creator explanation. Either way, since the beginning life has been evolving.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Seperation of church and state, and since schools are somewhat funded by the state (taxes = our money/government money), there is no place for it.

There is a reason there are RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. Pay up if you want to hear the same stuff over and over from a book rather then real science.

Many of the kids that I know that went to catholic schools think it is a joke. They only go because they are forced by parents.

God forbid (see the irony?) we learn something present in school.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
Many of the kids that I know that went to catholic schools think it is a joke. They only go because they are forced by parents.


Catholic schools teach evolution; the Catholic Church accepts (theistic) evolution.

From Wikipedia:

In the United States, Catholic schools teach evolution, not theistic evolution, as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Catholic schools do teach theistic evolution in their religion classes though. Bishop DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values in a December 2004 letter sent to all U.S. bishops: "...Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence.


It is primarily evangelical and nondenominational Protestants that object to teaching evolution in biology classes.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join