Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 300 (247479)
09-29-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
09-29-2005 9:53 PM


Re: ID
Don't you mean the Silly Design Theory?
http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
We do need to present both sides of the design controversy eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 09-29-2005 9:53 PM jar has not replied

Jeremy
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 300 (251127)
10-12-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


Consider. . . If you will.
There is a statement in the Bible, which I assume you view as the textbook of creationists, that says that God has always existed. Without that fact God cannot exist and the theory of creation breaks down into the "ad nauseum" you wrote about. However, if God always existed then creation could have taken place. The way I see it, this whole issue breaks down like this. Either God always existed or Evolution, and/or some yet to be hypothesized theory, accounts for our development.
Now, as far as evolution is concerned. . . The idea that there were simple life forms that developed into complex ones is very far fetched indeed. But the idea that the whole entire universe, in terms of atoms, quarks, neutrons, protons, etc, just happened and everything in it works in such a fine fashion, that even quarks never fail or malfunction on their own, is preposterous. It's estimated that if one atom was completely taken apart, all at once, the energy released would be enough to completely destroy any city on earth, flatten it to the ground. The mystery of evolution to me is not the primordial "soup." It is the big bang theory. That all the particles in the universe obey the laws of physics and relate to each other in such perfect harmony. That is a mystery that someone needs to explain to me. Evolution doesn't explain that paradox, intelligent design. . . consider

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:56 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Chiroptera, posted 10-12-2005 11:53 AM Jeremy has not replied
 Message 94 by FliesOnly, posted 10-12-2005 3:10 PM Jeremy has not replied
 Message 95 by bkelly, posted 10-12-2005 5:23 PM Jeremy has replied
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 10-12-2005 5:50 PM Jeremy has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 300 (251129)
10-12-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jeremy
10-12-2005 11:41 AM


Re: Consider. . . If you will.
quote:
The way I see it, this whole issue breaks down like this
Perhaps that is the way you see it, but it is illogical.
Logically, it actually breaks down like this:
A. God
A1. God has always existed.
A2. God has never existed.
A3. God did not always exist, but came into being or will come into being and then will exist forever.
A3. God did not always exist, but came into being or will come into being, but will one day cease to exist again.
A4. God has always existed in the past, but has ceased to exist or will cease to exist someday.
B. The Universe
B1. The Universe has always existed.
B2. The Universe was created as a special action on the part of God.
B3. The Universe came into being through natural processes that may or may not be understood someday.
You can pretty much match any of the choices of A with any of the choices of B and get a logical combination (except that A2 cannot be matched with B2, of course). There there are 3 x 4 - 1 = 11 different possibilities, not just the two you claim.
By the way, Jeremy, welcome to EvC.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jeremy, posted 10-12-2005 11:41 AM Jeremy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2005 5:37 PM Chiroptera has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 94 of 300 (251193)
10-12-2005 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jeremy
10-12-2005 11:41 AM


Re: Consider. . . If you will.
Jeremy writes:
The idea that there were simple life forms that developed into complex ones is very far fetched indeed.
Far fetched...how so? But at least you did not say impossible.
Jeremy writes:
That is a mystery that someone needs to explain to me. Evolution doesn't explain that paradox, intelligent design. . . consider
Actually, it's not that evolution doesn't explain your paradox, it's that the Theory of Evolution doesn't address your concerns. It's a completely unrelated theory.
And as for intelligent design...saying "God did it" is not really an explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jeremy, posted 10-12-2005 11:41 AM Jeremy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by bkelly, posted 10-12-2005 5:28 PM FliesOnly has replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 300 (251237)
10-12-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jeremy
10-12-2005 11:41 AM


Re: Consider. . . If you will.
Jeremy writes:
Either God always existed or Evolution, and/or some yet to be hypothesized theory, accounts for our development.
While there is a huge number of people that believe god always existsted, no one, anywhere, has shown verifiable evidence for his existance. Suportable and verifiable evidence for evolution is found in abundance.
But the idea that the whole entire universe, in terms of atoms, quarks, neutrons, protons, etc, just happened and everything in it works in such a fine fashion, that even quarks never fail or malfunction on their own, is preposterous.
I find it amazing, incredible, and (throw in your favorite pelthora of adjetives). But not at all preposterious. Atoms, etc are indeed here and do indeed behave in ways we have yet to understand.
It's estimated that if one atom was completely taken apart, all at once, the energy released would be enough to completely destroy any city on earth, flatten it to the ground.
First, an atom is not the right unit for this discussion. One atom of uranium has about 238 times more mass than one of hydrogen. Your desired unit of measure is probably grams or fractions thereof.
Second, there is no need to estimate. Remember E=mc(squared) (I don't know how to show superscript) This tells you how much energy is in one unit of mass. Start with the speed of light, about 300 X 10 to the sixth and square it. You get 90 X 10 to the fifteenth meters squared per second squared. Then multiply that by mass.
The common term for mass in grams, but that is not the form to use in equations. I just did some searches and get all kinds of definitions but cannot find the one I need. Will some one here post that form?
When we get that, multiply it by the above number and when all the factors above and below the line are resolved, the remainder will be an expression of energy. There will be something like joules or ergs. If you like, they can be converted to the american units such as foot pounds.
As I recall, yeild calculations of some nuclear weapons concluded that a few grams of material were converted into energy. There are a lot of atoms in one gram.
Astronomists have analyzed some gamma ray yielding explosions in space and have estimated that some of them translate a mass amount equivalent to our sun into energy in one event. It is said that if one of those went off in our half of the milky way, all life on earth would be killed.
A question for you: Do you believe in creationism / ID or in evolution? Do you care to say why. Will you justify that position?

Truth fears no question.
bkelly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jeremy, posted 10-12-2005 11:41 AM Jeremy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Jeremy, posted 10-13-2005 12:21 PM bkelly has replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 300 (251239)
10-12-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by FliesOnly
10-12-2005 3:10 PM


Just curious
Is there a relationship between your user ID and avatar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by FliesOnly, posted 10-12-2005 3:10 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by FliesOnly, posted 10-13-2005 7:34 AM bkelly has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 300 (251242)
10-12-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Chiroptera
10-12-2005 11:53 AM


Re: Consider. . . If you will.
Nice, but still not quite complete enough to cover OOL and evolution in addition to cosmology (as perhaps conceived by Jeremy and others):
B2a. The Universe was created as a special action on the part of God, but life originated through natural processes that may or may not be understood someday, and evolution explains the change in life with time.
B2b. The Universe was created as a special action on the part of God, and God created the first life, but evolution explains the change in life with time.
B2c. The Universe was created as a special action on the part of God, and God created the major forms of life as we know it, and evolution only explains the minor changes in life with time associtated with "micro"evolution.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Chiroptera, posted 10-12-2005 11:53 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Chiroptera, posted 10-12-2005 5:52 PM RAZD has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 98 of 300 (251246)
10-12-2005 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jeremy
10-12-2005 11:41 AM


Welcome (and some clarifications)
Hi, Jeremy, welcome to EvC.
Now, as far as evolution is concerned. . . The idea that there were simple life forms that developed into complex ones is very far fetched indeed. But the idea that the whole entire universe, in terms of atoms, quarks, neutrons, protons, etc, just happened and everything in it works in such a fine fashion, that even quarks never fail or malfunction on their own, is preposterous. It's estimated that if one atom was completely taken apart, all at once, the energy released would be enough to completely destroy any city on earth, flatten it to the ground. The mystery of evolution to me is not the primordial "soup." It is the big bang theory. That all the particles in the universe obey the laws of physics and relate to each other in such perfect harmony. That is a mystery that someone needs to explain to me. Evolution doesn't explain that paradox, intelligent design. . . consider
I'd like to suggest that you think through what you are posting a bit more before you throw it out there.
This "paragraph" has a bit of a hodge-podge of stuff in it. The comment about the energy in an atom, for example, doesn't appear to have anything to do with anything else in the paragraph. Nor is it obvious to me that it furthers whatever point you are trying to make.
There is another thing you should note: the word "evolution" has some colloquial english meanings. In the contest of the discussion here it if you don't add some modifier in front then it is taken to mean "biological evolution". This is the topic that is discussed under the term "darwinism" or "neo darwinism". Biological evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang or origin of life. It is only, as the name points out, discussing how living things change over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jeremy, posted 10-12-2005 11:41 AM Jeremy has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 300 (251248)
10-12-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
10-12-2005 5:37 PM


Re: Consider. . . If you will.
Or the universe began through naturalistic means, but then God created life through a special miracle. Etc.
Yeah, after I wrote my initial post I realized that I may have misread Jeremy's message, or that he might have been conflating evolution/OOL/origin of the universe.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2005 5:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2005 8:20 PM Chiroptera has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 300 (251304)
10-12-2005 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Chiroptera
10-12-2005 5:52 PM


Re: Consider. . . If you will.
It comes down to the same thing as having to know all the possibilities before you can begin to evaluate the probabilities.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Chiroptera, posted 10-12-2005 5:52 PM Chiroptera has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 101 of 300 (251386)
10-13-2005 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by bkelly
10-12-2005 5:28 PM


Re: Just curious
Hello bkelly
I'll answer this cuz ya asked...I think we both realize it's way off topic.
bkelly writes:
Is there a relationship between your user ID and avatar?
Actually...no.
My user ID is based on the fact that the ONLY way to fish is with a fly rod! The way I figure it, to be a true “sportsman” and an ethical fisherman, a fly rod together with flies you tied yourself, are the only option. So, if ya ain't using flies, ya might as well be using dynamite.
The avatar is a picture I took of a Northern Copperhead. I like the photo (I was laying on the ground about 10 inches away) so I figured I use it.
Thanks for asking though . I love talking about myself!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by bkelly, posted 10-12-2005 5:28 PM bkelly has not replied

Jeremy
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 300 (251443)
10-13-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by bkelly
10-12-2005 5:23 PM


Questions answered
I first want to apologize for jumping on the scene so forcefully. This is the first forum I have ever been a part of so you will have to forgive me and fill me in on details when I disreguard common proceedure.
Second, in answer to the question, do you believe in creation, ID, or evolution? I believe in creationism. Why? First I will answer that question for ID. Because intelligent design is a theory which ultimately leads to the same paradox that evolution and creation attempt to describe. If you believe in ID you are left trying to explain how your Intelligent Designers came to be. That natural question of how your designers came about leads you back to the two other theories, creationism and evolution. Both of these theories describe how those suppossed designers would have come about thus answering the paradox that ID can never answer. ID may answer the question for life on earth, but it has huge holes in it whenever we leave this planet. As far as evolution and creationism are concerned, I am sure you will ask why I would choose creationism. Once again I am more than happy to answer this question. Evolution is a theory that, to me, contains too much of a statistical improbability. Also, aside from statistics which I am sure you are tired of hearing about, there is the DNA evidence. My internet is working extremely slow right now or I would give you some sources to look at but I'll give you what I know off the top of my head. The DNA sequencing of many of the suppossed transitional forms does not even come close to that of the next or preceeding life form in the evolutionary ladder. The fact that there are missing fossils for most transitions in the evolutionary ladder does not concern me as much as the vast differences in the DNA sequencing of the animals we have today. For example a Dog is more closely related to a frog than a cat. In sum of this part, most mutations are detrimental to the health of the life forms that receive them. It seems strange to me that scientists and other extremely intelligent people would come up with a theory that is based on something that in very few instances in nature is beneficial and that has never yielded a product that is different in scientific classification besides in species. In fact even many of the "beneficial" mutations I know about have trouble. Granted species change but never into another species, and even with this change the offspring of a plant or animal reintroduced into the gene pool of its ancestors will eventually take on those traits once again.
Now I must answer for creation. Why would I believe in creation? I believe in creation for a reason you may or may not like. The reason I believe in creation is because of the amazing socioligical evidence throughout history. It seems odd to me that the only creatures on a planet to have developed anything that calls them to a higher way of life above their instincts would be humans. It would seem to me that the suppossed transitional forms would also possess this same trait, although to a lesser degree. However nowhere do we see any evidence that this trait of religion was practiced in any of the "transitional" forms leading up to man. We either see that the "transitional" form is either genetically human or genetically primate. To me the fact that so many suppossed myths are later varafied by scientific means, would help explain why almost all humans believe in a God of some sort. If at some time a creator had come and formed us, but then left us to our devices(or as the Bible suggests interacted with us in a limited and very sporatic manner), it would seem only natural that we would form societies to honor that person. Just as any good story is exaggerated over time I believe that many of the creation stories have been exaggerated, but the fact that so many peoples have a creation story, strikes me as too odd to ignore. Now, I am also a Christian so that begs another question you did not ask. Why Christianity and not another religion. I will answer that quickly. Because too many times the record in the Bible has been scorned by archeologists, historians, researchers, etc, but when it came down to it the civilization that those people were saying didn't exist, existed. The Bible is extremely historically accurate, therefore I conclude that the things it states can be trusted.
I know that we disagree on the formation of life here on earth, but I joined this forum for that purpose, to test what I believe. I am a 17 year old full time student so if I don't reply that doesn't necessarily mean I won't, it probably just means I have other pressing issues. However, I am curious to discover what new things I will learn and hope that I stick to fact based, not faith based, reasoning when discussing issues on this forum.
Another question, if you have a website are you allowed to provide a link to it?
Oh, how did you know I had just joined the forum? Was it because I show up as a junior member?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by bkelly, posted 10-12-2005 5:23 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by AdminJar, posted 10-13-2005 12:29 PM Jeremy has not replied
 Message 104 by Chiroptera, posted 10-13-2005 12:51 PM Jeremy has not replied
 Message 105 by Annafan, posted 10-13-2005 1:49 PM Jeremy has not replied
 Message 106 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2005 4:08 PM Jeremy has not replied
 Message 114 by bkelly, posted 10-13-2005 7:10 PM Jeremy has not replied
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2005 12:09 PM Jeremy has not replied
 Message 125 by bkelly, posted 12-03-2005 1:31 PM Jeremy has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 300 (251444)
10-13-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jeremy
10-13-2005 12:21 PM


Re: Questions answered
Oh, how did you know I had just joined the forum? Was it because I show up as a junior member?
Your registration date shows with each message. And Junior Member is simply related to the number of posts.
Welcome to EvC. Glad you're here. At the bottom of this post will be a box with links to subjects that might make your stay here more enjoyable.
Keep your feet to the fire and the smoke will never get in your eyes.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 102 by Jeremy, posted 10-13-2005 12:21 PM Jeremy has not replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 104 of 300 (251448)
    10-13-2005 12:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 102 by Jeremy
    10-13-2005 12:21 PM


    Oops!
    quote:
    For example a Dog is more closely related to a frog than a cat.
    Hello, Jeremy, and welcome to EvC.
    I hope that your intenet improves so you can look up your sources, because I know that this is incorrect.
    Hope you enjoy it here.

    "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 102 by Jeremy, posted 10-13-2005 12:21 PM Jeremy has not replied

    Annafan
    Member (Idle past 4578 days)
    Posts: 418
    From: Belgium
    Joined: 08-08-2005


    Message 105 of 300 (251461)
    10-13-2005 1:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 102 by Jeremy
    10-13-2005 12:21 PM


    Re: Questions answered
    Hello Jeremy,
    I am a 17 year old full time student so if I don't reply that doesn't necessarily mean I won't, it probably just means I have other pressing issues.
    It IS a bit unfortunate, because I'm sure there's a lot to say about your post and many people here will feel like these issues will need to be addressed.
    Let's hope someone can make a good start in ONE reply so you don't drown in them.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 102 by Jeremy, posted 10-13-2005 12:21 PM Jeremy has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024