Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 106 of 300 (251502)
10-13-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jeremy
10-13-2005 12:21 PM


Is it all true?
Hello Jeremy,
A warm welcome to EvC from me also. I hope your stay will be beneficial for your understanding of many things concerning science in general, and evolution in particular.
Let me pick out just one thing you said, and comment on it:
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.
This would seem strange to me too, if I didn't know better. There is something wrong in your statement. You are taking something for granted that is not true. But I would like you to find out for yourself what it is. To help you, I made a list:
  • We have scientists and other extremely intelligent people;
  • We have a theory they came up with;
  • We have "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";
  • and that this theory is based on.
Ask yourself about each of these points: is it true? Check for each of them how you know whether or not it is true. Also check if there are other ways of knowing it. If you find some information, see if you can verify it somewhere else, somewhere independent of your first source.
If you want me to simply point it out for you, just say so, and I'll oblige. But you'll be much better off if you find the answer for yourself.
{edited in arachnophilia's suggestion}
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 13-Oct-2005 09:27 PM

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by arachnophilia, posted 10-13-2005 4:17 PM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 108 by robinrohan, posted 10-13-2005 4:19 PM Parasomnium has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 107 of 300 (251504)
10-13-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Parasomnium
10-13-2005 4:08 PM


Re: Is it all true?
minor nitpick:
  • We have scientists and other extremely intelligent people.
  • We have a theory they came up with.
  • We have "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", that this theory is based on.
i suggest breaking that last point up into two or three:
  • We have "something that in very few instances in nature is beneficial."
  • and that it "has never yielded a product that is different in scientific classification besides in species",
  • and this theory is based on it.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-13-2005 04:17 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2005 4:08 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2005 4:28 PM arachnophilia has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 300 (251505)
10-13-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Parasomnium
10-13-2005 4:08 PM


What does he mean?
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.
I can't figure out exactly what he means. What is not beneficial--the theory or evolutionary change? Beneficial to whom? People? The particular life form?
What did you take it to mean, Paraasomnium?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2005 4:08 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2005 4:30 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 111 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2005 4:50 PM robinrohan has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 109 of 300 (251508)
10-13-2005 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by arachnophilia
10-13-2005 4:17 PM


Re: Is it all true?
Good idea, I've edited my post.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by arachnophilia, posted 10-13-2005 4:17 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 110 of 300 (251509)
10-13-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by robinrohan
10-13-2005 4:19 PM


Re: What does he mean?
He means mutations.
Let's wait for Jeremy before we discuss this any further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by robinrohan, posted 10-13-2005 4:19 PM robinrohan has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 111 of 300 (251510)
10-13-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by robinrohan
10-13-2005 4:19 PM


Robin
Robin, I may have sounded a bit curt. I did not mean to put you off. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by robinrohan, posted 10-13-2005 4:19 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by robinrohan, posted 10-13-2005 5:05 PM Parasomnium has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 300 (251513)
10-13-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Parasomnium
10-13-2005 4:50 PM


Re: Robin
No problem. Your pedagogical method seems sound. And after he figures it out, you might suggest he mull over Brad McFall's tomes to get some background on the whole topic. That should impress him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2005 4:50 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2005 5:16 PM robinrohan has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 113 of 300 (251514)
10-13-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by robinrohan
10-13-2005 5:05 PM


Re: Robin
Robin, we want him to stay, not drive him insane.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by robinrohan, posted 10-13-2005 5:05 PM robinrohan has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 300 (251555)
10-13-2005 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jeremy
10-13-2005 12:21 PM


Jump right in
Hello Jeremy,
I appreciate your position on jumping in, but it is not at all necessary. Indeed, I estimate it is the best way, jump right in and have your say. The only thing I would personally request is to ask hard questions, and give hard answers. On the assumption you wish to learn and grow, if (When) someone asks a question you don't like, those are the most important questions to answer. The more you dislike a question and the more you dislike its possible answer, the more that question should be answered.
Sometimes questions cross over from questioning a position to one than can been seen as a thinly veiled slander. I do this all too often. But perspective plays large here. There are many (at one time or another, everyone) that take a challenge of a position as a personal affront. Differentiation can be difficult.
To a small part of your position:
Evolution is a theory that, to me, contains too much of a statistical improbability.
This is a point that I think is seldom well considered. How much time has been available for evolution? That is to say evolution in the small (small changes) and evolution in the large (large changes)? We toss the number one million about with abandon, but one million years is an extremely long time. It is huge. At 20 years per generation, there are 50,000 generations in a million years. The great apes do not wait 20 years to begin breeding and it is pretty certain that we humans did not and do not always wait that long. So we see that 50,000 generations is quite conservative.
For cellular life the generational cycle is days or hours. For animals at the dog and cat level, one year, maybe two. IOW (in other words), the number of opportunities for evolutional change in one million years is phenomenal. From what I read, estimates of life go back 3.5 billion years. I know this is obvious, but it bears mention to set the stage, that is 3,500 instances of one million years.
The differences between our DNA and that of chimpanzees are but a few percent. Once a certain level of complexity is achieved, a minor change can make what appear to be incredibly large differences. Chimpanzees are self aware. The chemically evaluated change in DNA between them and us is minor, the effect is huge.
Something like 50% to 75% of human conceptions fail before the mother aware any thing has happened. Maybe many of those failures were evolutionary changes that were not successful. Something to think about.
How many opportunities have there been for beneficial evolution? When seriously considered, the number is huge.
To be blatant, I have lost my fondness of religion, to say nothing of creationism and ID.

Truth fears no question.
bkelly

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

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 115 of 300 (251963)
10-15-2005 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jeremy
10-13-2005 12:21 PM


Re: Questions answered
jeremy, msg 102 writes:
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.
Excellent point. Refreshing. Welcome to the fray.
Can I suggest breaking your paragraphs up a little so that each point is more visible? Look at ones you find more "readable" to see what I mean. This can also help you clarify your thoughts in the process: you could break your second paragraph at "As far as evolution ..." and again at "Evolution is a theory ..." to separate your ideas in space a little.
ps -- another way to learn some of the tricks here is to use {peek mode} - radio button top right corner of message reply to window - to see the UBB codes for quote windows and the like.
ID may answer the question for life on earth, but it has huge holes in it whenever we leave this planet.
I'm not sure I would go that far. To me {ID as a pure concept} is close to Deism, and there needs to be some distinction between {ID as it is used} and {ID as it ought to be used}. You might see more of my point on this thread: { Forum Topic: Is ID properly pursued?} . Feel free to comment there.
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.
Are you sure this is the case? Or is it more that lack of communication makes it hard to determine whether that is so?
Enough for now. Enjoy.

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 102 by Jeremy, posted 10-13-2005 12:21 PM Jeremy has not replied

today9823 
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 300 (252393)
10-17-2005 12:33 PM


God
Will comes from will and because we have will there exists a being with will from eternity!
Love RIchard

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by AdminBen, posted 10-17-2005 12:43 PM today9823 has not replied
 Message 118 by mike the wiz, posted 10-17-2005 1:00 PM today9823 has not replied
 Message 119 by bkelly, posted 10-17-2005 9:23 PM today9823 has not replied

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 300 (252395)
10-17-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by today9823
10-17-2005 12:33 PM


Re: God
Hi Richard,
Welcome to EvC! Looks like you'll find some partners to engage in some debate here; I hope you'll enjoy your time here.
Our threads here are topical, so simply posting messages that is not specifically related to the thread content is discouraged. I'd encourage you to spend some time reading some threads and thinking about arguments and rebuttals that address points made by other posters. You can reply to a specific post by clicking the "reply" button found inside the post.
"Science Forums" are forums where debate is based in evidence and empiricism; "Faith Forums" are places for people to discuss their Faith and beliefs. It will be helpful for you to read threads in each area, so you can get a feel for how people generally deal with issues here.
Below are some links that will help make your stay at EvC more enjoyable and productive. Most basic issues can be addressed by following one of those links.
Thanks, and welcome!

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 116 by today9823, posted 10-17-2005 12:33 PM today9823 has not replied

    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4752
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 118 of 300 (252400)
    10-17-2005 1:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 116 by today9823
    10-17-2005 12:33 PM


    Re: God
    Welcome to the forum Richard.
    X comes from X (false and incorrect premise, because our "will"
    got here with random mutations and NS, so we have one example of why your premise is negated).
    Because we have X there exists Y which posesses X.
    I suppose that because I have icecream in my fridge, there's a magical pink icecream provider climbing up my invisible boob.
    Or I suppose that if I got mileage on my car driving forward, I can undo it driving backward.
    These are examples of thinking in simplistic terms.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 116 by today9823, posted 10-17-2005 12:33 PM today9823 has not replied

    bkelly
    Inactive Member


    Message 119 of 300 (252526)
    10-17-2005 9:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 116 by today9823
    10-17-2005 12:33 PM


    Re: god
    Hello Richard,
    Will comes from will and because we have will there exists a being with will from eternity!
    To paraphrase a bit:
    Evil comes from evil and because we have evil there exists a(an evil) being with evil from (and for all of) eternity!
    Love,
    bkelly

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 116 by today9823, posted 10-17-2005 12:33 PM today9823 has not replied

    Christian7
    Member (Idle past 249 days)
    Posts: 628
    From: n/a
    Joined: 01-19-2004


    Message 120 of 300 (264836)
    12-01-2005 5:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
    09-19-2005 7:56 PM


    This is God's world. He did not have to come from anywhere. The where is his creation.

    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 121 by bkelly, posted 12-01-2005 7:38 PM Christian7 has not replied
     Message 122 by ramoss, posted 12-02-2005 8:44 AM Christian7 has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024