Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 300 (247031)
09-28-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by bkelly
09-27-2005 9:57 PM


Re: Really silly question
Do you believe in god?
Yes.
Why?
Because I was taught that I should.
Can you support that position?
No. But I believe anyway.
Why?
Religious Faith.
Is that logical?
No, but I believe anyway.
This is not the position I hold but I would like to say that I see nothing wrong with this position. People can believe whatever they want for whever reason they want. The problem arrises when those belief are imposed upon others.
The core question: Is religious faith good or bad?
The core answer: Yes.
The answer: Religious faith is evil. It is the greatest cause of harm this world has ever known.
A fine opinion but not a fact.
But in the meantime can you refute the logic?
What logic? That because people have done evil things in the name of faith then faith is evil. Do you not see a logical falacy here?
A lot of people do evil things when they are drunk so all drunk people are evil by your logic.
All squares are rectangles so all rectangles are squares, right? wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bkelly, posted 09-27-2005 9:57 PM bkelly has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 300 (247050)
09-28-2005 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2005 3:02 PM


Re: Do you believe in ID?
CS,
Rather than attempt to quible over my interpretations and deductions, I will appologize for miss-understanding you and will accept your position as you have stated it. Hopefuly, I will keep that in mind as we continue various discussions.
Thanks for your patience.

Time is the medium we use to express our priorities.
bkelly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2005 3:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 300 (247058)
09-28-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by david12
09-28-2005 2:01 AM


Nuggin gave you an excelent reply, but it can use a bit more explanation.
quote:
how do you justify evolution when the Law of Entropy and the Law of the conservation of matter have been scientifically proven?
quote:
These laws deal with closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. Sunlight beams down on earth 24/7/365. That energy into the system. There can be no entropy in a system which experiences constant input of energy. Likewise, conservation of matter.

Many of those against ToE make this claim about entropy, and almost all neglect the concept of a closed system as noted by Nuggin. The suns add energy to the surface of the earth and the ocean, which can be considered part of the surface. Elements and compounds enter the earth's surface through volcanic action. If we consider the total environment of the sun and all of the earth, the entropy is increasing. The quality of the energy of the sun is going down faster than it is going up on the surface of the earth. The same can be said about the interior of the earth. However, the quality of energy at the surface of the earth is constantly changing both up and down. Very well based arguments have been made that the second law demands that entropy decrease on the surface of the earth. It demands that the complexity will have a tendancy to increase.
Do a google search on laws of thermodynamics and evolution and entropy. In their pure and concise forms, the laws of thermodynamics can be quite difficult to understand. With some assistance and plain language explanations most of us can understand them with ease. If one site is too complex, find another, there are many.

Time is the medium we use to express our priorities.
bkelly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by david12, posted 09-28-2005 2:01 AM david12 has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 300 (247063)
09-28-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by TheLiteralist
09-27-2005 4:21 PM


abiogenesis, more than it appears
TheLiteralist writes:
appreciate your honesty in your answer. So, instead of the "ah-ha" attitude I began with (which I should probably apologize for)...let me ask why should abiogenesis be treated as anything other than the interesting speculations of scientists. Put THAT deep in the appendices.
Lets make an informal comparison between the science of a thousand years ago to the science of today. Things that we take for granted would be truely incomprehensible to people of that time. An adult would be hopelessly incapable of understanding what we know of biology know.
Now consider, what might we learn in the next hundred or thousand years about complex reactions among chemicals and organic compounds? What might we discover in the area of the most simple entity that might be catagorized a something that is alive?
As I said elsewhere, the ocean contains many billions of gallons of water, elements, compounds, and has energy entering and leaving constantly. A million years is an incredibly long time and there were many millions of years for things to happen.
Here is one of many web sites that discuss this:
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
That said, I still hold that the division between the most complext detailed organic molecules and collections thereof, and the simplest life that I can imagine, is, to understate the case, incredibly large. I can conceive that in the future we may be able to actually posit a valid theory as to how this could come about, but not now. The simplest of life is just awesome.
But back to the theme of this thread: The fact that the transition of noon life to life is more complex than we understand does not imply that there is a diety involved.
Imagine how someone from a thousand years ago would see the world today.

Time is the medium we use to express our priorities.
bkelly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-27-2005 4:21 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2005 8:30 PM bkelly has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 300 (247087)
09-28-2005 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by bkelly
09-28-2005 6:53 PM


Re: abiogenesis, more than it appears
An adult would be hopelessly incapable of understanding what we know of biology know.
Ancient people were ignorant, not stupid. Keep in mind that we somehow manage to explain 200 years of biological science to adolescents in about nine months of 50-minute classes.
I'm not trying to detract from your original point, and it's certainly the case that it took us 200 years to learn what we know now because that's how long it takes to discover what we know now.
But once somebody knows it, it's easily learned, I think. A reasonably intelligent adult of any time period could be easily taught state-of-the-art biology, presuming that they could already read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by bkelly, posted 09-28-2005 6:53 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by bkelly, posted 09-29-2005 8:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

david12
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 300 (247113)
09-28-2005 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Nuggin
09-28-2005 3:24 AM


Re: Welcome David12
3. How did the first components that "created the first cells" get there?
This topic is abiogenisis - life from not life. It's an interesting topic, but it's not really important to Theory of Evolution. Evolution takes over once life exists. How life got there, not important to the Theory.
How is this topic not important to the theory of Evolution? We are all here to find out where we came from, how it all started. So if you go back to how it all started, how did those first components get there? How would the space even be there for something to be created in? There needs to be a master, something that started it all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2005 3:24 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2005 10:54 PM david12 has not replied
 Message 83 by nwr, posted 09-28-2005 10:54 PM david12 has not replied
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 09-28-2005 11:00 PM david12 has not replied
 Message 85 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2005 11:45 PM david12 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 300 (247123)
09-28-2005 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by david12
09-28-2005 10:28 PM


Re: Welcome David12
How is this topic not important to the theory of Evolution?
Because evolution is a theory of biology, and the origin of life is a problem in chemistry.
Different fields of science. Evolution explains the history and diversity of organisms that reproduce variant offspring. The chemical origins of life begins with things that don't do that. Hence, evolution does not apply to them, and so they're not relevant to the study of evolution.
We are all here to find out where we came from, how it all started.
And evolution takes you back to the first population of genetic organisms. Farther back than that you need to ask a chemist. Farther back than that, you need to ask a astronomer (about planet formation.) Farther back than that you're talking to astrophysics (about solar system formation.) And farther back than that you need to pick the brain of a cosmologist (about the Big Bang.)
Evolution is just a theory in biology that explains the history and diversity of life on Earth. It's not a theory about the origin of life, or the formation of planets and stars, or the expansion of the universe. Those are different fields alltogether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by david12, posted 09-28-2005 10:28 PM david12 has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 83 of 300 (247124)
09-28-2005 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by david12
09-28-2005 10:28 PM


Re: Welcome David12
Abiogenesis is still an open problem at this time. But that doesn't affect the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by david12, posted 09-28-2005 10:28 PM david12 has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 84 of 300 (247128)
09-28-2005 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by david12
09-28-2005 10:28 PM


abiogenesis & evolution
david12 writes:
We are all here to find out where we came from, how it all started.
No, we're not, actually.
An analogy, if you will:
Evolution is like your car. What makes it go? What makes it not go, sometimes?
Abiogenesis is like coal mining. Maybe you need coal to build a car, but you don't need to know anything about coal mining to keep your car running.
Similarly, you don't need to know anything about abiogenesis to study evolution.
On the other hand, if you want to discuss abiogenesis, find a thread, or start one.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by david12, posted 09-28-2005 10:28 PM david12 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by bkelly, posted 09-29-2005 8:49 PM ringo has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 85 of 300 (247141)
09-28-2005 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by david12
09-28-2005 10:28 PM


Re: Welcome David12
How is this topic not important to the theory of Evolution? We are all here to find out where we came from, how it all started. So if you go back to how it all started, how did those first components get there? How would the space even be there for something to be created in? There needs to be a master, something that started it all.
I'm not saying it's not an important question. I'm just saying that the Theory of Evolution doesn't care how life began, it kicks in after that point.
Some theories of how life started: Abiogenisis, God, Comet carrying life, Aliens, etc. Theory of Evolution works the same no matter which of these is the cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by david12, posted 09-28-2005 10:28 PM david12 has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 300 (247442)
09-29-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
09-28-2005 8:30 PM


Re: abiogenesis, more than it appears
crashfrog writes:
Ancient people were ignorant, not stupid. Keep in mind that we somehow manage to explain 200 years of biological science to adolescents in about nine months of 50-minute classes.
You are right, I overstated the case a bit. If no one explained the gadgets of today, they would be quite difficult to understand. Right now, we have no one to explain how abiogenesis might have occured.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 09-28-2005 8:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 300 (247445)
09-29-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ringo
09-28-2005 11:00 PM


Avatar
Ringo,
Every time I see your avator I get a chuckle. Inquisitive, but more than just a bit skeptical. I like it.

Time is the medium we use to express our priorities.
bkelly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 09-28-2005 11:00 PM ringo has not replied

Springer
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 300 (247470)
09-29-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bkelly
09-23-2005 4:15 PM


ID
There are many evolutionists that believe in God... some on this forum, I suppose. I'm interested to know how anyone can believe in God and at the same time see no evidence of intelligent design in nature? If there is no evidence of ID, then on what basis is your belief in God? In books I've read and classes I've taken in college, the ToE always implies atheism, albeit no explicitly stated. There is no presumed need for ID... everything evolved on its own through natural selection. If that be the case, then why do so many evolutionsists believe in a God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bkelly, posted 09-23-2005 4:15 PM bkelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 09-29-2005 9:53 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2005 9:58 PM Springer has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 300 (247474)
09-29-2005 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Springer
09-29-2005 9:48 PM


Re: ID
If anyone looks at the design, the best we can find is that the designer was Idiotic or Incompetent. I might be able to support an Incompetent Designer movement or Idiotic Designer Movement.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:48 PM Springer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2005 10:00 PM jar has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 90 of 300 (247477)
09-29-2005 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Springer
09-29-2005 9:48 PM


Re: ID
and at the same time see no evidence of intelligent design in nature?
Because there are so many bad designs. Barely functional designs, designs that a human can see a better way of doing, designs that humans keep trying to fix with improved designs.
Creationists can claim the reason for bad designs is corruption, sin and the like.
Neo-paleyanism ("Intelligent" design) that is intentionally divorced from faith has no such excuse.
There is no reason for virus infections not to be beneficial and deliver new and improved disease resistance as well as cross-links to other ways of making features so that you can combine the best of the solutions into the next generations.
There is no reason for design to fail, on such a broad scale as it does, to meet the basic criteria of good design practices.
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 88 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:48 PM Springer 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