Why would an intelligent designer design these?

Okay, sorry. Bad statement. It'll never happen again. ;)

Eledhan writes: What I think we disagree on is the fact that you can disagree with evolution, or at least question the evidence used to support it; but only if you are not trying to support ID, or creation, or whatever.

No, you can always disagree with evolution, no matter what your beliefs are.

But there are two things you must consider when disagreeing with evolution: first, that you must support why you disagree with (certain aspects of) evolution - if your support holds water, evolutionists will acknowledge that, because that's how science works - and two, don't expect that invalidating the theory of evolution implicitly supports ID or creationism. They need support of their own.

Eledhan writes: As for "God of the Gaps", my point is that both evolutionists and creationists use "gaps", the only difference is, creationists use a God to fill the gap, and evolutionists use extremely long lengths of time and miniscule chance in order to explain how something happened. Neither of these is satisfactory in a sense[...]

In what way are the "gaps" of evolution not satisfactory?

Eledhan writes: I think that if there is a God, which is what I believe, then He would have created a world where we could find His hand in it if we wanted to find Him.

Well, since many people have wanted this, and did indeed try to find God's hand in the world, and nothing definite has come up as yet, maybe the tentative conclusion should be that God might not exist. In the mean time, it might not hurt to try an alternative explanation, called evolution, and see what it has to offer. Did you know that medical science is for a large part based on the theory of evolution? If evolution is not true, then it's a complete mystery how some of it works.

Eledhan writes: I prefer to use more of a common sense

You know, the trouble with common sense is that is isn't really so common, and often it isn't even sense. At one time, it used to be common sense that the earth was flat.

Sometimes, common sense isn't the way to understand what's going on.

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 06-Jun-2005 10:57 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

Eledhan writes: Oh, and Parasomnium, I hope none of this seems too hostile. I'm not "attacking" you as a person, I'm "attacking" your ideas that you have presented. I hope you will do the same.

Don't worry. Your attacks are appreciated for what they are.

Anyway, you're ahead of me, post-wise. For now, I'll let others demolish your arguments, I'm off to bed.

---

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

quote:

---

In what way are the "gaps" of evolution not satisfactory?

---

Read the new post that I made about the link you gave for the multiple sexes scenario.

quote:

---

Well, since many people have wanted this, and did indeed try to find God's hand in the world, and nothing definite has come up as yet, maybe the tentative conclusion should be that God might not exist.

---

Well, that's exactly where you miss it. I HAVE discovered God, whether you believe me or not. And I would venture to say that He is trying to reach out to you as well. If you don't believe me, or if you think I'm crazy, then why is it that as you read this, you get this feeling inside as if there must be something more? There's no way to really put it into words, but that's the way it is. Right now as you read this reply, God is trying to get you to listen to Him. How do I know? Because that's how God works, with small, subtle hints. He is just waiting for you to give Him a chance, but if you don't, He will not force you to. That is how much He loves you. He wants you to love Him not because you must, but because you want to love Him. I know, because I have experienced it.

What ever happened to real, hard evidence?

Not everything that happens leaves evidence. We're talking about organisms that may have no hard parts whatsoever. What, exactly, do you think would be left to fossilize?

How come it's okay for an evolutionist scientist to say this, but it's not okay for a Christian to say something very similar about God, and still be taken seriously?

Because we know organisms exist, and we know that some of them are sexed, and we can directly observe the difference between them.

We don't know that God exists. We don't know anything about God for sure. There's absolutely nothing about God that we can directly observe.

Nothing you can say about God can be disproved, ever. Therefore statements about God don't tell us anything. They're just make-believe.

I believe that they are terrified of the thought of actually having to answer to a higher power, but that's just my oppinion.

Why would I be afraid of such a thing? Don't you think that there are higher "powers" that I answer to, every single day? As an atheist, trust me, there's nothing more that I would like than for there to be a God, a higher power to which people would be accountable, a power that would intervene to make things right for people.

But to every indication, there isn't. I'd love there to be a God. But there's no indication there is.

Well, I'll just use one, and we'll just see how well your theory holds up compared to the creationist theory

Actually I did not mean to hold that discussion specifically in this thread. With "many weaknesses" I would expect you should be able to start several different threads, perhaps in different forum areas. One at a time of course...

How do you explain the fact that almost every species of animal developed 2 sexes, and only 2 sexes? If evolution is true, then why don't we have some species which keep progressing into more sexes?

I personally could not answer that question as it is not even close to my fields of study, nor my direct knowledge base. However I know how to look things up. Just a simple yahoo on multisexual organisms resulted in the following online paper:

KLAUS JAFFE 1996. THE DYNAMICS OF THE EVOLUTION OF SEX: WHY THE SEXES ARE, IN FACT, ALWAYS TWO?. INTERCIENCIA 21(6): 259-267.

If you follow that link you will discover a scientist who has specifically attempted to study that aspect of reproduction, rather than throw up his hands at an immediate lack of knowledge. I'll let you read the paper for yourself, but here is a quote which appears to posit a plausible answer in a nutshell...

Simulations showed that asexual reproductive strategies were very stable in evolutionary competitions and consistently out-bred sexual ones. Bisexuality succeeded in replacing asexuality only in changing environments and could be maintained only if non-random mate selection mechanisms were at work... in trisexual organisms, mate selection mechanisms and natural selection do not work efficiently. Thus, reproductive strategies with more than two sexes are improbable. Polyploidy may improve evolutionary success among monosexuals as it reduces the exhaustion of the variability of the gene pool due to continuous selection pressure. I postulate that sex evolved under changing selection pressures, allowing the emergence of sexual selection, which allowed sex to stabilize, thanks to the strong irreversible dynamics in the evolution of complex organisms.

You should read the entire article to understand how the author reached those conclusions.

Also, how big of a genetic mutation would have to take place in order to go from dividing oneself into two separate organisms, into having two sexes that must mate in order to reproduce?

I am not sure, but from an outsider's perspective my guess would be not that hard. Perhaps it started with an entity capable of either form of reproduction, and then lost the ability to asexually reproduce.

Now do you see what I mean when I say that evolutionists do the same thing creationists do? Evolutionists simply say that "it had to happen. We don't know how, or when, but we're sure we'll find out someday." Creationists, on the other hand say something similar, yet entirely different. "

No I do not see that they do the same thing. Evolutionists, if they are scientists, say that something happened and we may not know what it was but we will find out... here is the current best theory given the mechanisms of which we are aware.

You are correct that Creationists, on the other hand, say something entirely different. They say they know their Biblical description of how life came to be must be accurate and therefore explanations and mechanisms and even evidence must be filtered through that lens.

Science starts with evidence and tries to move to a conclusion. Theology (or very early forms of scientific investigation) starts with a conclusion and tries to piece evidence together to support it.

and all of that just happened and the evolutionary theory can't do anything to explain it.

Let us pretend for a moment that I had not found that paper which answered your question. Why is it that an as yet unanswered question gets depicted as a theory not ever being able to explain it?

Science did not start with an answer for everything and so just has to make the pieces fit. Science starts with an immense blank space and is slowly working at the evidence to build models with an idea it might represent "the answer". It does not assume that any one model will be the "final" one, though it certainly is hesitant to shift to a new one without enough cause.

In the case of reproduction, there is a very large gap in our knowledge on how it works as a whole or how it definitively could have come to be. Asserting that there are mechanisms which we have yet to find is not just accurate, it is unquestionable fact.

The question is what do we pursue as the mechanisms we need to understand. Assuming that they are within, or similar to, the physical mechanisms currently at work in the world around us gives us ways to continue research. Assuming that there is some unseen and indescribable entity who used completely unknowable mechanisms ends research, perhaps needlessly. It also falls to Occam's Raxor.

But let me address the ending of research... when can we know where God's direct handiwork ended and current physical mechanisms took over? They must have somewhere unless you believe each new organism is still handcrafted by God. In that case don't we have to assume, and do research with the assumption, undirected physical mechanisms are still the answer until such time as we actually discover the God mechanisms?

Maybe that helps explain the practical side of Occam's Razor.

You still have to explain to me how it is possible for all that matter to get there in the first place. The origin of the universe is a great little topic, one for which evolutionists have absolutely NO answer for

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, nor even the origins of biological life (abiogenesis). Thus evolutionists better not have an answer for you on that topic, or they are no longer evolutionary theorists.

I believ you will find that very hard to do.

It was really easy, I just went to yahoo and typed in "multisexual organisms". I think the first thing you need to do is investigate your questions, rather than using a "god of the gaps" shrug and run.

I do believe that is what separates scientists from creationists.

Scientists have the willingness to say I don't know, followed by the patience to try and find out, and better still refine their methods of trying to find out.

Creationists want to say they know, or at least that they know as much as those who've spent their careers studying phenomena, without the necessary investment of time in the subject.

This message has been edited by holmes, 06-06-2005 06:15 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

then why is it that as you read this, you get this feeling inside as if there must be something more?

What is it with these theist types that makes them think everybody in the world thinks the same way they do?
I have no feeling inside that there "must be something more," Eledhan. You may well be a nice person, and you're certainly very welcome to this forum, but I'll bet you're not a mindreader......

If you give me the winning numbers for Wednesday's Texas Lotto, I'll reconsider the possibility of your psychic powers. ;)

Your theory is just as good as mine.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. My theory - that is, evolution, which isn't of course "my" theory in any sense that I came up with it - not only explains all the data, but it makes predictions which have been tested and found accurate. It provides a way to make sense of populations and predict how they'll respond to changes in their environment.

I'd just like to add that what I bolded in Crashfrog's post is what a THEORY should do. If it does not do these things then it is not a theory.

This is why creationism and ID are NOT THEORIES.
They don't fit natural explanations to data and they don't make predictions.

Well, that's exactly where you miss it. I HAVE discovered God, whether you believe me or not. And I would venture to say that He is trying to reach out to you as well. If you don't believe me, or if you think I'm crazy, then why is it that as you read this, you get this feeling inside as if there must be something more? There's no way to really put it into words, but that's the way it is. Right now as you read this reply, God is trying to get you to listen to Him. How do I know? Because that's how God works, with small, subtle hints. He is just waiting for you to give Him a chance, but if you don't, He will not force you to. That is how much He loves you. He wants you to love Him not because you must, but because you want to love Him. I know, because I have experienced it.

Hell, we`ve got another holy roller on our hands.:D

Want to give me a reason that the Bible skips any mention of bacteria? All those prokaryotes must figure somwhere in God`s plan, especially the 2300 varieties we carry around with us. Doubly so for the beneficial species. Dunno about tapeworms, though.

Eledhan writes: How come it's okay for an evolutionist scientist to say this, but it's not okay for a Christian to say something very similar about God, and still be taken seriously?

Because other scientists can check the claims of the first scientist, they can say: "If this claim is true then we should also see such-and-such", they can perform tests and see if the claim is valid. If so, further science can be built on it. If not, it is flatly rejected.

None of that can be done with regard to a claim of the god-did-it variety. And if you can't test them, you can never know whether such claims are reliable. That makes them useless.

Eledhan writes: This same scientist went on to say that "we THINK (emphasis added) that we got [mitochondria] about two billion years ago from bacteria taken into ourselves." Well, this still doesn't answer the question of how the bacteria developed these mitochondria

They didn't. They idea is that our mitochondria are these bacteria, or rather their descendants. By the way, the fact that the scientist said "we think" is normal practice, because scientists generally are very weary of making the mistake of saying that they know something for certain. Creationists, on the other hand, do make this mistake continually, in the absence of evidence for their claims, and even in the face of evidence against them.

Eledhan writes: nor does it answer the question of how we obtained traits from something that was living inside of us!!! I would sure like to see that explained!

Who said we obtained traits from our mitochondria? They have their own traits, they pass them on independently in the maternal line of descent. Please, pick up some basics before you engage in a debate about something you hardly know anything about.

Eledhan writes: The bottom line is, there are gaps that the evolutionary theory, or atheistic worldview, or whatever; cannot answer. It cannot give a comprehensive view of everything that must take place in order for us to be here without the existence of a supernatural being.

So, what should we do? Just give up and assume that a God did it all? Or should we try and fill the gaps in our knowledge, slowly but surely, as has been done for a few centuries by now, ever since real science took off?

[rant mode ON]

I am very tempted to suggest a stand-off between creationism and science. Let's not try to shoot each other's arguments out of the water any longer. Let's just leave one another in peace. In fact, why don't we just segregate altogether? Why don't we let religious people just rely on their god for whatever it is they need, and leave the benefits of science to those who hold it in high esteem. So: no more prayer for the unbelievers, no more spiritual guidance for them, no more consolation. But also: no more medication for the religious, no more electricity to their houses, no more computing power to their businesses, no more scientific education to their children. Let their god sort it out for them. Maybe we shouldn't even help them if disaster strikes. After all, isn't it the will of their god? Surely, if their god is so wonderful, won't he help them? Anyway, they wouldn't want us to go against its wishes, would they?

I say let them stew in their own broth of ignorance.

[rant mode OFF]

Have a nice day.

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-Jun-2005 09:11 AM

---

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

Read the new post that I made about the link you gave for the multiple sexes scenario.

I hope you read my post #36 above, to see a plausible answer to your original question.

Well, that's exactly where you miss it. I HAVE discovered God, whether you believe me or not.

Scientifically??? That is what is under discussion here, right? You were replying to a person who was suggesting we have not found any evidence of directed or artificial mechanisms. Even if you "found a God" did he reveal the evidence which is currently under discussion?

By the way many others have discovered different Gods, and with the same enthusiasm and who have different creation stories. How does science determine the difference between you and them?

On this subject I should also point out another problem with your theoretical argument of "equality" between evo and creo. You said that creo has the exact same method of postulation and so is equal, but what exactly is being postulated? Creo theories are very different and do not indicate your God at all.

When evo points to as unyet discovered mechanism it is wide and varied but within the same basic realm... connected to the modern mechanisms we see today. Once direct mechanisms are allowed who is to say it is one entity or many, or how they went about creating, or how many times they went about creating?

This is yet another reason why Occam's Razor steps in.

Ironically, if we allowed your argument to hold sway, your version of creo theory would simply get swamped by countless more theories rather than standing up as "equal".

Because that's how God works, with small, subtle hints.

That's his oversight, when nature provides much larger, less subtle hints as to how it worked.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Eledhan writes: please feel free to show me where I have erred, but I believ you will find that very hard to do.

You know, I had a fun time doing just that. All of the 6.9 seconds it took to google "why only two sexes" and clicking on the first result.

---

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

Who said we obtained traits from our mitochondria?

This is arguably true, leaving aside the dubious term 'traits', in as much as there is significant evidence of the transfer of mitochondrial DNA to the nuclear genome (Woischnik and Moraes, 2002).

TTFN,

WK

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-07-2005 05:33 AM

Wounded King writes: Who said we obtained traits from our mitochondria? This is arguably true, leaving aside the dubious term 'traits', in as much as there is significant evidence of the transfer of mitochondrial DNA to the nuclear genome (Woischnik and Moraes, 2002).

Thanks WK, I didn't know that. This answers Eledhan's question even better.

P.S.: I guess I should swallow "Please, pick up some basics before you engage in a debate about something you hardly know anything about."

Thanks for the humbling experience.

This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-Jun-2005 10:48 AM

---

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

[rant mode ON]

Along those same lines, you would have to get rid of the United States, as well as alot of those things that you say religious people would have to get along without; because alot of those things were developed by religious people. This very country, assuming you live in the U.S., was founded by Christian "religious" people. So, next time you want to attempt to slander "religious people", think again; because some of the most powerful people in the world are "religious"

[rant mode OFF]

I must have hit a nerve, but oh well. My only point in this whole thing is, there is a leap of faith on both sides, and no matter how you slice it, you are never going to be able to convince me that it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution, or whatever it is you want to call the whole atheistic worldview; just as I will never convince you that it doesn't take faith to believe in God. However, I am ready, willing, and able to admit that my belief is a religion; and that you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. You on the other hand, are not willing to admit that your belief is not 100% provable, and therefore, you think you can force it on every other person in the world in the name of SCIENCE. What happened in a creature's body 2 BILLION YEARS AGO is not science, but speculation. I can come up with any theory I want about how the sexes were developed, and as long as I use a scientific community, or a well known scientist to advance my ideas; and everybody will say, "oh, that's not speculation, that's science. And the way we know that this is the best theory as of today is becuase if it weren't, then other scientists would disagree."

Well, the fact of the matter is, hundreds of well-respected scientists, who were avid supporters of evolution, as well as atheists; have begun to question many different teachings that originated with the evolutionary theory. They have begun to raise questions about how these things could possibly come about by chance. However, as soon as they speak up, they immediately get branded as "religious" for trying to destroy science because they don't agree with the way that the scientists are using the information to support evolution. I just have to wonder what it is that makes evolutionists get so antsy as soon as someone brings up ID. Are evolutionists really so willing to listen to the flaws in their own theory as they say? And why is it that we can't say that evolution has numerous flaws without bringing another theory that has to be better? I am simply trying to say that the evolutionary theory is not perfect, but neither is my own theory.

This is primarily food for thought, but anyway, I don't really have a lot of time during the day to argue these things, so I will only answer the things I can answer the best.

So, let us put our personal differences behind, and I'll try not to do any "evangelism" as I am sure Parasomnium felt I was doing, any more. I hope I haven't offended you, because that is the last thing that I would want to do. I was simply trying to make a point that I do know that God exists because I have experienced Him, and that I know you at least have an inkling that He exists, because you could feel Him when you read that post.

Darn it!!! I just did it again! Oh, well. It won't happen anymore.