|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design explains many follies | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
inkorrekt writes:
Good to know that you're not addressing anyone here, at least regarding the way randomness applies to evolution. Evolution is not a random process. It is composed of two major parts: mutation and natural selection. While mutation is random, natural selection is not, so evolution as a whole is a process that acts nonrandomly upon something that is random. For those who believe in random chance: Let me clarify that with an example. Imagine if you had 100 dice. If you encountered a bunch of dice, all with the 6 side facing up, you would think that someone had simply set them all up like that. The reason you would think that is probably because if you dumped them all on the floor, it would be very unlikely that you would get all sixes. In fact, the odds of this occuring are about one chance in 6.53x10^77. But if you rolled the dice, and left all the dice with sixes on them on the floor, and picked up all the rest, then threw those back on the floor, you would have more sixes the second time around than you had the first. If you kept removing everything that wasn't a six and rethrowing it, it would probably take only a few dozen throws to get all sixes. Life works in a somewhat similar way. You start with something that is somewhat likely to come about suddenly, and then it is altered over many generations until it is very different from how it began. The end product is extremely unlikely to come about on its own, giving the illusion of design. Computers aren't the best analogy to describe either evolution or intelligent design, in my opinion. While they were certainly designed by intelligent humans, and though they changed over time as new designs were invented, they differ from living things in that computers do not reproduce the way life does. Living organisms carry genetic information in their DNA, and this is passed on to their offspring with a high, but imperfect, degree of accuracy. Computers do not do this. Entirely new components can be added or changed in ways that would be impossible for living things. If information is moved from one computer to another, changes during that transition are to be avoided as much as possible. Someone else touched on this point earlier in the thread, but there have been computer programs that use evolutionary algorithms to solve problems and design new software. These programs seem to evolve in a way much more similar to that of living things than does the entire computer, as natural selection and mutation is used to generate some new, complex program.
inkorrekt writes:
Creationists often say things like this, but I don't understand why. It is as though you expect all the biologists to stand up and say "Well that sounds reasonable, someone from Mars created everything!" We aren't so opposed to the idea of a god that we would rather have faith in aliens, we just want our beliefs to be supported by evidence. If we had some evidence that life originated on Mars, we would want to investigate that and figure out how it happened there, just as scientists are trying to figure out how life originated on Earth, according to our present understanding. Scientists would not stop asking questions just because someone gave an explanation that doesn't invoke a diety.
He could be an alien from Mars even.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chronos Member (Idle past 6225 days) Posts: 102 From: Macomb, Mi, USA Joined: |
If you shake up 50 puzzle pieces, chances of them ending up in any particular way is near impossible.
To your second statement: computers are fundamentally different from biological organisms. Oh, and I don't think any seriously considered modern theories of abiogenesis involve a complete cell instantaneously assembling from basal parts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
I am still confused as to how intligent people can deny the overwhelming evidence of evolutinary theory"
Where is the evidence? When I ask for evidence, all i get is" REad this book" No one has given me any concrete evidence for evolution to occur. Whatever was offered is irrational and boring. . "Science is a wonderful tool that is at it's best when helping to make sense of the physical world"Science is a branch of study. Tools for studying science are experiments, and observations. Whereas Evolution is a Philosophy based on naturalism. In a sense, it is a Religion by itself. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in an intelligent design. "Religion encompasses feelings and motivations.....often given insight to a percieved meaning to life" Science will never achieve this by it's very nature" No not true. When I make new inventions, I am exhilarated with Joy. This is pure scientific accomplishment. I am excited. When Archimidies discovered the basic principles of hydraulics, he ran with excitement shouting Eureka,Eureka." I am not sure if he was nude when he ran.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
inkorrect writes:
Uhm... maybe because that's where the evidence is? When I ask for evidence, all i get is" REad this book"you don't expect to have the information to seep into your head do you? People have studied this subject for lifetimes, the evidence keeps coming. If you're not prepared to read up and find the evidence you have no place asking the question. inkorrect writes:
Well if you refuse to even look at the evidence... of course it takes faith. IF, however you take a good look at the evidence you will be able to make an informed decision one way or the other and not have to rely on faith It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in an intelligent design. This message has been edited by Creavolution, 02-18-2006 11:17 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
I am still confused as to how intligent people can deny the overwhelming evidence of evolutinary theory"
Are you confused? Or are you quoting somebody who is confused? You have a closing '"' but no corresponding opening quote. How are we to tell whether you are quoting? Okay, those are rhetorical questions. I would like you to try quoting in the same manner that other people do. That is, mark off your quotes by putting them in a shaded box. Here is what I used to create the shaded box above:[qs] I am still confused as to how intligent people can deny the overwhelming evidence of evolutinary theory" [/qs]
See if you can give that a try. For other ideas, use the "peek" button to see how others achieve their special effects. This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 02-18-2006 12:08 PM To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
`Intrinsic' Hardware Evolution is the use of artificial evolution -- such as a Genetic Algorithm -- to design an electronic circuit automatically"
No mater what they are they are still man made devices. The analogy used here is the pieces of the puzzle "SELF ASSEMBLING" You can write algorithms to make this happen. Still, this process requires INTELLIGENCE. Algorithms do not fall from the sky.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE give me one evidence which is based on facts, logic and good reasoning. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Mutations are only assumptions and imaginary tools. They do not happen in reality. Millions of mutations have been carried out on the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. No useful mutant had been identified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Spot the contradiction:
quote: This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 24-Feb-2006 12:31 AM "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
The discovery Institute warned Dover School board not to intoroduce ID in the school curriculum. It needs lot of work. Not only this, but it must be represented properly both for the layman as well as for the Advanced Inquisitives. ID is too young to be taught in schools.All that they can say is there are too many gaps in the theory of evolution. Alternative explanations are under the way. This must be fair and reasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
No one has done it yet. The complexity is too enormous. Today, we know the composition of almost every living cell even up to the subatomic level. We may take them in proper proportions and apply any known force on earth. No matter what we do, they still remain only as mixture of chemicals and they never get organized as biological structures. This is a mystery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6081 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
"Creationists often say things like this, but I don't understand why".
The reason is they are honest about their knowledge. They do not try to explain anything away by some means.It is not bad at all. Last month, I attended a seminar by Dr. Templeman, M.D. He was fascinated by the antioxidant activity of a fruit and he himself conducted serious studies. I became curious and asked him few questions. I expected him to say that, yes, it works, yes, it works. But, he had the humility and courage to say no, when it was no. I was very impressed with his honesty. I do not know where he stands regarding Evolution/ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
Did Dr. Templeman study the mangosteen, by any chance? Though I am often skeptical of herbal or alternative medicine, many living things do produce chemicals that are useful to the body, including some that are can be used in medicine. It is certainly possible that mangosteens have some interesting and useful properties.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that either creationists or scientists were unable or unwilling to say "No" or "I don't know" when the time comes to do so. I was attempting to comment on the idea that Earth could have been seeded by aliens, because I've heard that suggestion made before. It seems to be a response to a certain criticism of Intelligent Design. Some people say that Intelligent Design makes no claims on the identity of the creator of life, although many of its proponents are young Earth creationists who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. If Intelligent Design makes no claims as to the creator's identity, it could have been aliens, rather than the Judeochristian God. However, this response simply begs the question as to who created the aliens, essentially moving abiogenesis or the act of creation to some other planet that we can't study right now, and without any explanation or evidence to do so. I expect that if any evidence ever arises indicating that life originated on some planet other than Earth, it will not be the proponents of Intelligent Design who find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
No not true. When I make new inventions, I am exhilarated with Joy. This is pure scientific accomplishment. I am excited. When Archimidies discovered the basic principles of hydraulics, he ran with excitement shouting Eureka,Eureka." I am not sure if he was nude when he ran. Who achieved this? I thought science was a tool? You, my friend, invent, using science. It's a great feeling yes? This simple oversight is quite wide spread. So very often we forget that we are the lynchpin of the equation. This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 02-23-2006 11:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No mater what they are they are still man made devices. Made by copying processes found in nature. Think about what you're saying. Think for a minute about what you're implying. How could laboratory science be legitimate if, everytime you set up an experiment to test a process found in nature, you wound up confirming only your own intelligence? If we can't test natural processes in the lab, if the results can't be carried over to the natural world, then laboratory science has no meaning. Yet, somehow it does. So clearly your objection is false. These studies confirm the effacacy of natural process regardless of having been set up by people in the lab. To argue anything else is to dismiss all of science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024