Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design explains many follies
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 302 (297548)
03-23-2006 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by John 10:10
03-23-2006 9:23 AM


Re: Definitions
Damn. Modulous beat me to this. Oh well, I'll post anyway.
quote:
True science is the study of cause and effect.
Although this isn't what science is (it is but a small part of science), the theory of evolution does fit into this. Darwin saw certain effects: the geographical distribution of species, Malthusian population dynamics, and perhaps the Linnaean classification of species. He proposed a cause: natural selection acting on randomly occurring variations over a very, very long period of time. Now, assuming that this cause is correct we can predict new effects, like the existence of tranisitional fossils, the pattern of vestigial organs, and the pattern of atavisms that occur.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 9:23 AM John 10:10 has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 302 (297557)
03-23-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by John 10:10
03-23-2006 9:44 AM


Try to stick to the topic
and support your assertions with evidence.
So far you have failed to support ANY of your assertions in this thread. This is a science debate and your personal mythology has nothing to do with it.

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 131 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 9:44 AM John 10:10 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 142 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 1:23 PM AdminJar has replied

    John 10:10
    Member (Idle past 2996 days)
    Posts: 766
    From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
    Joined: 02-01-2006


    Message 138 of 302 (297578)
    03-23-2006 12:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 130 by Chiroptera
    03-23-2006 9:39 AM


    Re: Definitions
    If you will read my complete statement, what you said is what I was trying to say in different words.
    Where I draw the line is in applying what we can actually observe and prove today, and declare that this definitely proves what happened in the past when it comes to understanding how organic and inorganic matter came to exist.

    The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 03-23-2006 9:39 AM Chiroptera has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2006 12:50 PM John 10:10 has replied
     Message 140 by Chiroptera, posted 03-23-2006 12:58 PM John 10:10 has not replied

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


    Message 139 of 302 (297580)
    03-23-2006 12:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 138 by John 10:10
    03-23-2006 12:46 PM


    Re: Definitions
    Where I draw the line is in applying what we can actually observe and prove today, and declare that this definitely proves what happened in the past when it comes to understanding how organic and inorganic matter came to exist.
    So, in other words, you abandon reasonable knowledge for unknowable, unreasonable speculation.
    John, when have the laws of physics ever been directly observed to change?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 138 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 12:46 PM John 10:10 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 144 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 1:31 PM crashfrog has replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 140 of 302 (297582)
    03-23-2006 12:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 138 by John 10:10
    03-23-2006 12:46 PM


    Re: Definitions
    quote:
    If you will read my complete statement, what you said is what I was trying to say in different words.
    I did read your entire statement. And what I wrote was in response to what I interpreted as what you were trying to say. Sorry if it wasn't an accurate interpretation.
    -
    quote:
    Where I draw the line is in applying what we can actually observe and prove today, and declare that this definitely proves what happened in the past when it comes to understanding how organic and inorganic matter came to exist.
    No one is claiming that anything proves anything. All anyone is trying to do is develop theories that are consistent with known phenomena, and then to use the theories to predict as yet unobserved phenomema. If a theory makes a prediction and that phenomena is subsequently confirmed, then the theory is considered provisionally verified. However, some theories like common descent in biology, quantum mechanics in physics, and the periodical table in chemistry, have been verified in so many ways that it now seems silly to add the phrase "provisionally"; that is when a "theory" becomes a "fact". Common descent is a "fact" -- after 150 years, it has withstood every test thrown at it and has become stronger. It is still "provisional", it is not "proven"; it is still possible that new observations will result in its being discarded as a working theory, but after 150 years it seems very unlikely.
    -
    If by "organic matter came to exist", you mean abiogenesis (the origin of life on earth), then definitely nothing has been proven; we are only really beginning to understand what was happening on the early earth. If by "inorganic matter came to exist" you mean the origin of the universe, then nothing is even known; we don't yet have a complete enough understanding of the fundamental laws of physics to probe back to the exact beginning of time.

    "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
    -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 138 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 12:46 PM John 10:10 has not replied

    John 10:10
    Member (Idle past 2996 days)
    Posts: 766
    From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
    Joined: 02-01-2006


    Message 141 of 302 (297585)
    03-23-2006 1:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 135 by Modulous
    03-23-2006 10:06 AM


    Re: Definitions
    You write,
    "The theory of Evolution is the proposed cause of the effect that is Evolution. What caused the change in life on earth over time?"
    If Evolution would state your exact words, "The theory of Evolution is the proposed cause of the effect that is Evolution," every time Evolution is presented, many of us who believe in ID would not object so much.
    Those of us who believe in ID do not believe life on earth has changed so much over time.
    I believe ID created new life forms to fit the new conditions on earth as the earth evolved over time. During the Cambrian peroid some 530 million years ago, fully developed life forms apperaed suddenly rather than evolved over long periods of time to get to this point.
    At least 5 different major extinction periods occurred after this, with new life forms again suddenly apperaing after the extinctions periods. Evolution has had to come with more and more bizarre theories to explain how fully formed creatures suddenly appeared, rather than evolve slowly over hundreds of millions/billions of years.

    The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 135 by Modulous, posted 03-23-2006 10:06 AM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 149 by Modulous, posted 03-23-2006 3:47 PM John 10:10 has not replied
     Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2006 4:28 PM John 10:10 has not replied

    John 10:10
    Member (Idle past 2996 days)
    Posts: 766
    From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
    Joined: 02-01-2006


    Message 142 of 302 (297587)
    03-23-2006 1:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 137 by AdminJar
    03-23-2006 11:11 AM


    Re: Try to stick to the topic
    This Topic is: Intelligent Design explains many follies.
    I have tried to show that those who believe in non-ID cannot show any more proof evidence that non-ID is the cause and effect of everything that exists any more than those of us who believe than ID is the cause and effect of everything that exists. I'm still waiting for the non-ID proof.
    When those who believe in non-ID bring up my faith first, I will defend it. I don't see you telling them to stop making fun of my faith.

    The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 137 by AdminJar, posted 03-23-2006 11:11 AM AdminJar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 143 by Chiroptera, posted 03-23-2006 1:29 PM John 10:10 has not replied
     Message 145 by AdminJar, posted 03-23-2006 1:36 PM John 10:10 has replied

    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 143 of 302 (297588)
    03-23-2006 1:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 142 by John 10:10
    03-23-2006 1:23 PM


    Re: Try to stick to the topic
    quote:
    I have tried to show that those who believe in non-ID cannot show any more proof evidence that non-ID is the cause and effect of everything that exists....
    Then you have been wasting your time. No one is claiming to be able show any kind of "proof", nor is it the goal of science to provide "proof" an anything.
    --
    quote:
    I'm still waiting for the non-ID proof.
    Then you'll be waiting a long time. Proof is for logicians and mathematicians. Nothing is ever really "proved" in the sciences. Although it may be that in the future there will be a tremendous amount of evidence for some particular mode where in life first arose on earth, or a great amount of evidence that shows how the universe actually originated. But you'll have to wait until that happens before someone can show it to you.

    "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
    -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 142 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 1:23 PM John 10:10 has not replied

    John 10:10
    Member (Idle past 2996 days)
    Posts: 766
    From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
    Joined: 02-01-2006


    Message 144 of 302 (297589)
    03-23-2006 1:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 139 by crashfrog
    03-23-2006 12:50 PM


    Re: Definitions
    You wrote,
    "So, in other words, you abandon reasonable knowledge for unknowable, unreasonable speculation.
    John, when have the laws of physics ever been directly observed to change?"
    These are your words, not mine. I have a degree in Engineering Physics and understand the laws of nuclear physics and how atoms behave. But understanding this does not tell me how matter came to exist in the first place, nor does it tell you non-ID caused matter to exist in the first place.

    The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2006 12:50 PM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2006 2:25 PM John 10:10 has not replied
     Message 148 by sidelined, posted 03-23-2006 2:40 PM John 10:10 has not replied

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 145 of 302 (297591)
    03-23-2006 1:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 142 by John 10:10
    03-23-2006 1:23 PM


    Re: Try to stick to the topic
    I have tried to show that those who believe in non-ID cannot show any more proof evidence that non-ID is the cause and effect of everything that exists any more than those of us who believe than ID is the cause and effect of everything that exists. I'm still waiting for the non-ID proof.
    You misunderstand how things work. You need to provide support for YOUR position. So far you have provided NO evidence in support of your position.

    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 142 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 1:23 PM John 10:10 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 146 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 2:01 PM AdminJar has not replied

    John 10:10
    Member (Idle past 2996 days)
    Posts: 766
    From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
    Joined: 02-01-2006


    Message 146 of 302 (297595)
    03-23-2006 2:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 145 by AdminJar
    03-23-2006 1:36 PM


    Re: Try to stick to the topic
    You wrote,
    "You misunderstand how things work. You need to provide support for YOUR position. So far you have provided NO evidence in support of your position."
    I have provided plenty of support why "Intelligent Design explains many follies," but not to your satisfaction.
    When I explain, you say, "Give me proof evidence."
    Chiroptera says, "Nothing is ever really "proved" in the sciences."
    It seems we have reached Catch 22 where not much more can be said that will satisfy anyone.
    Since I am the only one who must provide proof evidence, and you are not satisfied for me to continue this dialogue, I bid you adieu.

    The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 145 by AdminJar, posted 03-23-2006 1:36 PM AdminJar has not replied

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


    Message 147 of 302 (297601)
    03-23-2006 2:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 144 by John 10:10
    03-23-2006 1:31 PM


    Re: Definitions
    These are your words, not mine. I have a degree in Engineering Physics and understand the laws of nuclear physics and how atoms behave. But understanding this does not tell me how matter came to exist in the first place, nor does it tell you non-ID caused matter to exist in the first place.
    I'm sorry, could you try answering my question? When have the laws of physics ever been observed to change?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 144 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 1:31 PM John 10:10 has not replied

    sidelined
    Member (Idle past 5908 days)
    Posts: 3435
    From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
    Joined: 08-30-2003


    Message 148 of 302 (297605)
    03-23-2006 2:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 144 by John 10:10
    03-23-2006 1:31 PM


    Re: Definitions
    John10:10
    . I have a degree in Engineering Physics and understand the laws of nuclear physics and how atoms behave
    Really? When an electron emits a photon where does the photon come from?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 144 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 1:31 PM John 10:10 has not replied

    Modulous
    Member
    Posts: 7801
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 149 of 302 (297612)
    03-23-2006 3:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 141 by John 10:10
    03-23-2006 1:10 PM


    Not a lot of change since pre-Cambrian?
    If Evolution would state your exact words, "The theory of Evolution is the proposed cause of the effect that is Evolution," every time Evolution is presented, many of us who believe in ID would not object so much.
    That is how it was presented to me, as someone who took time to read what Evolulution is actually saying - rather than the streamlined version they are forced (by time and skill set) to teach in high school and on TV Documentaries.
    Those of us who believe in ID do not believe life on earth has changed so much over time.
    Sounds more like creationism justified through ID to me. There are plenty of IDers out there (eg Behe) who think life has changed an awful lot, but believe some aspects of life must have had intelligent intervention to get started.
    I believe ID created new life forms to fit the new conditions on earth as the earth evolved over time. During the Cambrian peroid some 530 million years ago, fully developed life forms apperaed suddenly rather than evolved over long periods of time to get to this point.
    Are you saying that if we start at pre-Cambrian and then look at today, you don't think that life on earth has changed a great deal?
    At least 5 different major extinction periods occurred after this, with new life forms again suddenly apperaing after the extinctions periods. Evolution has had to come with more and more bizarre theories to explain how fully formed creatures suddenly appeared, rather than evolve slowly over hundreds of millions/billions of years.
    It's fine that you think the theories are bizarre, but they are perfectly straightforward to me. If you want to engage me on this, we should take it to the Biological Evolution forum.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 141 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 1:10 PM John 10:10 has not replied

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


    Message 150 of 302 (297620)
    03-23-2006 4:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 141 by John 10:10
    03-23-2006 1:10 PM


    Re: Definitions
    Evolution has had to come with more and more bizarre theories to explain how fully formed creatures suddenly appeared, rather than evolve slowly over hundreds of millions/billions of years.
    What do you mean when you say "fully formed"? How would an organism that was alive, and not dead, not be fully-formed? If you mean to say that the vast majority of organisms in the fossil record are "fully formed" in the sense that they are not juveniles or neonates, well, it's hardly surprising that we would find so many organisms die in their adult stage.
    In regards to the Cambrian - the organisms (some 1500 species that we know of, compared to the 15 million species we know of that are alive today) may be "fully formed", whatever that means, but they are also certainly primitive, and don't represent even a millionth-part of the development and diversity of species we observe today.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 141 by John 10:10, posted 03-23-2006 1:10 PM John 10:10 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