|
|
|
|
|
| | Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent DesignPage 41 of 54 (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54) |
wrong, the argument does not assume the existance of a designer, the argument POVES the existance of a designer just like the existence of a watch proves the existance of a watchmaker. And the same would be true even if you can´t study the watchmaker.
in science an expanation can be valid, even if you don´t have an expanation for the expanation You can yell "wrong" all you'd like. But your argument fails to prove anything. Others have pointed out in a much better way than I have been able to point it out, so why don't you address them?
Your analogy of a watchmaker is also wrong. Go read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Or even watch the video. It's on youtube. For someone who is trying to be scientific, I don't think you really know the facts. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 10:01:51 AM |
Premise 1 contains an arbitrary and subjective thing called "specified complexity" that's defined as being the product of an "inteligen mind" (sic).
This simply assumes there is such a thing as "specified complexity" without establishing it's existence, and then defines it by producing an undefined "inteligen mind" out of thin air.
Premise 2, uses an undefined term - "specified". No parameters have been established and no definition is given.
Biological systems are indeed complex, and may be specific in their individual purpose, but "specified" is meaningless except as a quality deriving from the "inteligen mind" thing you earlier produced out of thin air.
tht simply is not true, the terms specified and complexity are objective terms, as I said
Complexity = unlikelly
specified = organiced = independent pattern
you can´t drop the argument just because you don´t understand the meaning of the words
for example look at these series of numers
1) 1,2 (specified)
2) 8392456021 (complex)
3) 0123456789 (specified and complex)
so now that you know the definiton of these words, ¿do you have any objection?
of the 3 series of numbres, you can be sure that the third one was a product of design, the other two could have been a product of chance
in order to make a strong case against the argument from design you should refute the argument, and then substitud the argument for a better argument that suports a natural origin of life. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 10:07:29 AM |
And this adaption, when done on a genetic level (as it obviously is with those examples), is what is called evolution.
no, because these changes occure thanks to preexisting mechanisms, not by random mutations. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 10:09:40 AM | Dan399:
With your argument i put forward the phoenician creation myth as the true creation story, for this i hold all the same arguments as you do.
Surely this means you have to take my belief seriously and therefore given the same amount of evidence it should be seen as an equally likely occurence, oh....no, it IS what happened and you cant deny it, even if you deny it its still true, i dont need to know anything of the watchmaker after all for it to be true!
Looks like your theory is one of several thousand, all with the same amount of evidence, so why do you so fervently believe yours?
^^^^ Random mutations are a common occurence, we have seen it in action and have witnesses evolution in action, one example that springs to mind is the finches on the galapagos islands.
You clearly do not have a great understanding of evolution, with that in mind, id refrain from make false assertions | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 10:23:40 AM |
no, because these changes occure thanks to preexisting mechanisms, not by random mutations.
It's random mutations, filtered through natural selection (remember that it's natural selection which is the key to evolution, not mutations). The mechanism is natural forces. No divine hand is needed. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 10:31:11 AM | I think intelligent design is legitimate in light of the way the universe is unfolding, particularly if we make the assumption that the universe itself is "intelligent"*. If we add to that the definition of God as the universe itself (a unitarian universalist belief), then all pro/anti theist arguments become irrelevent arguments made for the sake of argument itself. We are then left only with a debate over whether or not the universe is sentient.
*It is my contention that the universe unfolds intelligently because the universe's own laws of nature "sculpt" the "clay" of the universe in accordance with the universe's own "desires". This leaves us to select a definition for "desire" compatible with all rational beliefs, in this case, the only real question is whether or not "all that is" is sentient or not. (I side with the former argument, but that's just a preferences I'd just as soon not try to justify at this point.) In either event, we can define "desire" as "a propensity of the universe to unfold (evolve) in accordance with the laws of nature". Put in metaphorical terms for greater clarity, we could say that the "clay" (stuff of which the universe is composed) sculpts itself using the sculpting tool (laws of nature) as it "desires" | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 10:44:48 AM |
tht simply is not true, the terms specified and complexity are objective terms, as I said
Complexity = unlikelly
specified = organiced = independent pattern
you can´t drop the argument just because you don´t understand the meaning of the words
for example look at these series of numers
1) 1,2 (specified)
2) 8392456021 (complex)
3) 0123456789 (specified and complex)
so now that you know the definiton of these words, ¿do you have any objection?
of the 3 series of numbres, you can be sure that the third one was a product of design, the other two could have been a product of chance
in order to make a strong case against the argument from design you should refute the argument, and then substitud the argument for a better argument that suports a natural origin of life.
Wikipedia defines complexity as: "Complexity tends to be used to characterize something with many parts in intricate arrangement." Ironically, I think your number example is a bit too simple. After all, what are the chances of getting a lottery ticket with the numbers 123456, as opposed to a ticket with the numbers 564839? Exactly the same.
The idea behind ID is that something complex is needed in order to bring about complexity. It's a self-defeating idea though since, by that very definition, the designer would also need to be designed. To make an exception for the designer shows that some complex things don't need a designer, in which case the theory itself is not needed. This is the paradox behind creationism and ID.
1. All complex things need a designer.
2. A designer is necessarily more/as complex than the thing designed (clocks don't design humans). Therefore a designer is complex.
3. A designer does not need to be designed.
---
As you can see, premise 1 conflicts with premise 3. In order to make the argument work one of them has to be changed (take your pick). | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 10:45:37 AM |
Premise 1 contains an arbitrary and subjective thing called "specified complexity" that's defined as being the product of an "inteligen mind" (sic). This simply assumes there is such a thing as "specified complexity" without establishing it's existence, and then defines it by producing an undefined "inteligen mind" out of thin air. Premise 2, uses an undefined term - "specified". No parameters have been established and no definition is given. Biological systems are indeed complex, and may be specific in their individual purpose, but "specified" is meaningless except as a quality deriving from the "inteligen mind" thing you earlier produced out of thin air. tht simply is not true, the terms specified and complexity are objective terms, as I said
Complexity = unlikelly
specified = organiced = independent pattern
The aren't objective when they are simply arbitrarily 'detected' in biological systems.
The complexity of biological systems is completely explained by gradual evolution via natural selection. Supernatural designers are not required.
for example look at these series of numers
1) 1,2 (specified)
2) 8392456021 (complex)
3) 0123456789 (specified and complex)
so now that you know the definiton of these words, ¿do you have any objection?
of the 3 series of numbres, you can be sure that the third one was a product of design, the other two could have been a product of chance
All three could have been a product of chance. I hope you are not suggesting a god thing invented the number sequence 0 to 9?
Number sequences aren't subjected to evolutionary pressures of millions of years, and there is no influence of natural selection. The origins and meaning of biological systems have nothing in common with the number sequence 0 to 9.
The lowest prime number is 2. It isn't very 'complex' but the largest known prime number is very 'specified' and 'complex'. At what point did 'a designer' start 'designing' these number sequences?
Are the simple ones random, and the complex ones designed?
Or are they all just products of a simple law, extrapolated in what looks like a 'specific 'and 'complex' way?
The definitions of 'specified' and 'complex' are arbitrarily applied to selected biological systems in an entirely self serving way that ignores the well explained and rational origins of those systems. 'Designers' are redundant.
in order to make a strong case against the argument from design you should refute the argument, and then substitud the argument for a better argument that suports a natural origin of life.
The (literally) mountains of evidence that support evolution and natural selection do refute your argument.
Have you read any of the links I posted for you?
Can you produce any evidence that 'refutes' the theory of evolution?
I think intelligent design is legitimate in light of the way the universe is unfolding, particularly if we make the assumption that the universe itself is "intelligent"*. If we add to that the definition of God as the universe itself (a unitarian universalist belief), then all pro/anti theist arguments become irrelevent arguments made for the sake of argument itself. We are then left only with a debate over whether or not the universe is sentient.
*It is my contention that the universe unfolds intelligently because the universe's own laws of nature "sculpt" the "clay" of the universe in accordance with the universe's own "desires". This leaves us to select a definition for "desire" compatible with all rational beliefs, in this case, the only real question is whether or not "all that is" is sentient or not. (I side with the former argument, but that's just a preferences I'd just as soon not try to justify at this point.) In either event, we can define "desire" as "a propensity of the universe to unfold (evolve) in accordance with the laws of nature". Put in metaphorical terms for greater clarity, we could say that the "clay" (stuff of which the universe is composed) sculpts itself using the sculpting tool (laws of nature) as it "desires"
That ^^^ says more about the human tendency to anthropomorphise everything than it does about the universe. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 11:21:03 AM | No, because inteligent minds are not phisical nor biological entities, minds are not material.
As bhawk said, a mind is a product of the brain and there are numerous examples of people's memories, personalities and even thinking processes being modified by changes in the brain. This has been well-documented, to the point where it would ludicrous to deny it.
BTW, if a fleshy material organ like the brain is not needed for people to have a mind, then why do we have brains? It would seem like a completely wasteful design, especially considering that the brain consumes a vast amount of oxygen and other resources and is highly susceptible to injury (if we didn't have brains then a stroke would be just a mild case of internal bleeding). A large brain like ours also makes it extremely difficult for women to give birth - much more difficult than other animals. Can you really call this intelligent design?
Inteligent desing is detectable by scientific methods, for example archeologists have methods to detect inteligent desing in tools and pyramids. What design scientists do is that they use the same methods that other scientists use to detect design in nature. If life fails to have the atributes that desinged stuff should half, you would disprove inteligent desing.
Archeologists do not detect intelligent design, they detect HUMAN design. We can detect stuff that WE HUMANS make (e.g., tools, pottery, paintings, watches, etc.), but not anything else. One could claim that mountain ranges and rivers are instances of design (they were formed from complex forces and achieve a specific result), but we don't see them that way. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 12:15:43 PM |
Wikipedia defines complexity as: "Complexity tends to be used to characterize something with many parts in intricate arrangement." Ironically, I think your number example is a bit too simple. After all, what are the chances of getting a lottery ticket with the numbers 123456, as opposed to a ticket with the numbers 564839? Exactly the same.
yes, that is the point both, numbres are equaly unlikelly therefore equally complex, however the first number is also SPECIFIED. complexity itself does not prove inteligent design, it has to be complexity + specificity = design unlike the number 564839 lacks an independet pattern.
that is the basis from the argument from, desing, the fact that you did´t even understand the basis of the argument suggest that you´ve been rejecting the argument without even understanding it ¿how do you know that inteligent desing is wrong, if you don´t even understand the arguments for inteligent desing?
1. All complex things need a designer.
2. A designer is necessarily more/as complex than the thing designed (clocks don't design humans). Therefore a designer is complex.
3. A designer does not need to be designed.
premise two is not necesarly true, minds are not necesarly complex, minds are not matirial and are not made of ´´parts´´ ofcourse the human mind depends on material stuff (like the brain) in order to work, but god doesn´t have the same limitations that humans have.
about premise 3, you are correct, a designer with infinit power does not need a designer, so the only designer that can excist without a designer is someone with infinit power.
but at the end, my answer is I DON´T KNOW WHERE DID GOD COME FROM, but an expanation can be valid even if you don´t have the explanations of the explanation. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 12:24:54 PM |
Archeologists do not detect intelligent design, they detect HUMAN design. We can detect stuff that WE HUMANS make (e.g., tools, pottery, paintings, watches, etc.), but not anything else. One could claim that mountain ranges and rivers are instances of design (they were formed from complex forces and achieve a specific result), but we don't see them that way.
That is not true, archeologists have detected inteligent design in neaderthals and homoerectus (that according to evolution, they where not human) as I said the the precense of design proves the existance of an inteligent desinger; not the other way around.
NASA is looking for specified complexity in extraterrestrial radio signals, because these signals would indicate extraterrestial inteligence, EVEN IF WE NEVER GET TO KNOW THE ALIENS, | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 12:36:13 PM | Ok as requested before, yet seemingly avoided; Supply ONE piece of peer reviewed evidence you claim exists supporting ID.
Surely if its so obvious one piece of evidence will not be hard to produce
^^^In your profile you claim to like science, so i expect to see evidence that has undergone full scientific procedure to confirm it as fact. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 12:41:13 PM | That is not true, archeologists have detected inteligent design in neaderthals and homoerectus (that according to evolution, they where not human) as I said the the precense of design proves the existance of an inteligent desinger; not the other way around.
Seeing as I'm the only one here who comes anywhere close to being a scientist
(Molecular Biology and Chemistry student in 2 prestige universities and a book on Evolutionary Biology being written as we speak)
I think I should clarify a few things...
#1 . No credited Biologist accepts Intelligent design outside of personal beliefs and has no evidence to support it. Such scientists even acknowledge this and avoid the field.
#2. At no point has any biologist found anything even remotely close to 'proof of intelligent design/creation'.
Especially not in Neanderthalensis or Homo Erectus.
#3. No Hypothesis on Creation/Intelligent design has ever passed peer-review (Infact I doubt any have even been presented).
#4. No credited scientist agrees with anything that you have just said.
You are free to believe what ever you want, but don't try and construct some nonsensical argument for how there is evidence to support your beliefs, there isn't. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 1:08:25 PM | yes, that is the point both, numbres are equaly unlikelly therefore equally complex, however the first number is also SPECIFIED. complexity itself does not prove inteligent design, it has to be complexity + specificity = design unlike the number 564839 lacks an independet pattern.
Like I said, your example is not a valid example. A lottery ticket with 123456 is not "special" or "designed" any more than a ticket with 573847. Of course many people think a ticket with 123456 is more unlikely than other combination (what are the chances that those specific numbers would be arranged exactly like that???), yet the chances are exactly the same as 573847.
Your analysis seems similar to that which William Demski said, which is that the mathematical chances of life forming by itself is so astronomically large that it's virtually impossible. DNA is arranged in such a complex and specific way that there's no way it happened by chance. This seems to be what your number analysis amounts to.
that is the basis from the argument from, desing, the fact that you did´t even understand the basis of the argument suggest that you´ve been rejecting the argument without even understanding it ¿how do you know that inteligent desing is wrong, if you don´t even understand the arguments for inteligent desing?
Rrright, so just because I reject it means I don't understand it. I already gave you my analysis.
premise two is not necesarly true, minds are not necesarly complex, minds are not matirial and are not made of ´´parts´´ ofcourse the human mind depends on material stuff (like the brain) in order to work, but god doesn´t have the same limitations that humans have.
There's no such thing as a disembodied mind. We have never observed or studied such a thing, therefore what you're saying is just an assumption. Second, this is special pleading, saying that this god's mind is somehow special and is not subject to the limitations of a normal mind.
about premise 3, you are correct, a designer with infinit power does not need a designer, so the only designer that can excist without a designer is someone with infinit power.
Again, this is special pleading. You're saying nothing new; this is the same old 'a designer is special and doesn't need to be designed' assumption. Invoking some special being is like those games that kids play:
Kid 1: "I shot you with my supergun, you're dead!"
Kid 2: "Nooo, because I have infinity armor that can stop anything!"
The summary of your "argument" is that god/designer is not subject to any of the normal rules and has properties that allows it to do anything. This is not an argument, it's just magical thinking.
1. Assumption
2. Assumption
3. Special pleading
---
C. A designer exists | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 1:22:09 PM |
That is not true, archeologists have detected inteligent design in neaderthals and homoerectus (that according to evolution, they where not human) as I said the the precense of design proves the existance of an inteligent desinger; not the other way around.
NASA is looking for specified complexity in extraterrestrial radio signals, because these signals would indicate extraterrestial inteligence, EVEN IF WE NEVER GET TO KNOW THE ALIENS,
And yet every single one of those are based on HUMAN standards of intelligence/design (early hominids also used human-like tools). Even with SETI, we are searching for human-like intelligence. Human intelligence is the only real sentient intelligence that we know of, which is why we use it as the standard (we simply don't know about anything else). Thus the "designer" that is talked about with ID is invariably a man-like designer, which basically represents the god(s) of most religions. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 2:27:55 PM |
wrong, the argument does not assume the existance of a designer, the argument POVES the existance of a designer just like the existence of a watch proves the existance of a watchmaker. And the same would be true even if you can´t study the watchmaker.
in science an expanation can be valid, even if you don´t have an expanation for the expanation
So, what if evolution was false? Let's pretend that we have no evidence for evolution. What proof do you have of ID? How did it happen? So, what proof do you have? Evolution is false, wrong, and isn't real. prove your point. Explain ID. How did it happen? What's the evidence? | |
|
| |
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/28/2012 6:39:40 PM | 1010, 1012:
"random mutations" is of a contextual use. This is another example of word-games. Yes, random mutations are born of preexisting mechanisms...but concerning a bit of DNA being perfectly copied, the mutation isn't intended, so it's called random.
When I have a car accident, it's called an accident because it wasn't intended by me. The car that came out of nowhere randomly and hit me was simply random in this sense, though also that car going down it's road the way it did at that time was a preexisting mechanism.
1013:
Pantheism, or panentheism. An early Hindu thing as well.
1016:
OLD MAN ( sarcastically )- Being spiritual, the mind cannot
be affected by physical influences?
YOUNG MAN - No.
OLD MAN - Does the mind remain sober when the body
is drunk?
> MARK TWAIN
| |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/29/2012 3:51:45 AM | does anyone actually think that kent hovind and his kind really believe what they peddle (when not in prison)?
is it actually possible to be intelligent and a fast thinker and have studied nearly the whole subject, yet still believe what they say they believe?
i guess the priesthood must be in the same boat - how can you study theology as a relatively (at least) intelligent person for what..3 years..without thinking... is this right? or are all our vicars and pastors just careerists who have set out their stall and are too embarrassed to admit it is all a load of hogwash? | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/29/2012 4:08:57 AM | 1025:
I've gotten the impression...and it's really weird to me...that priests and ministers and etc have ALWAYS ended up feeling that their lot is hogwash, but it's a case where they're already caught up in the momentum and groove of their vocation, job, and social position, that they just keep 'rolling with it', and it is they from whom we get some of the crazy rationalizations and interpretations and attempts to account for this-and-that but remain this-and-that. Yet another evil aspect of religion, I feel. It does things like this to social dynamics, like cause this to happen on such a large scale and for such a long time. This and other things have their effect pretty easily.
But remember that, yes, some of them actually do believe the things they do and say, because of this compulsion to weave together some weird rationalizing to desperately reconcile their cognitive dissonance...things not making sense in their own heads. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/29/2012 4:37:19 AM | | i dont know of a single on who said - 'you know what, i've believed this stuff for ages and spent my entire life on the subject but i now have to say i cannot hold this belief any longer' | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/29/2012 6:08:31 AM |
A lottery ticket with 123456 is not "special" or "designed" any more than a ticket with 573847´´
yes the series 123456 was designed, (product of your mind in this case) I know that 123456 is no a product of chance, while the number 573847, could have been a product of chance.
both numbers are equaly unlikelly, therefore equally complex, however 123456 is also specified, it has an independent pattern, that is why I know that 123456 is a product of your inteligent mind. How can you reject Inteligent design if you don´t understand the concept of specified complexity? you are not different form creationists that reject evolution without knowing what natural selection is.
but anyway, I already posted my argument
Premise 1, specified complexity can only come from a mind
premsie 2, life and biological systems (like the reproductive system) are specified and complex
therefore life came from a mind.
If you belive that there is something wrong with my agument please povide a better argument that suggests a natural origin of life.
your argument has to have tesable and objective premises, the conclution has to follow naturally from the premises, and you have to explain why are your premises more likelly to be true, than mine. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/29/2012 6:26:41 AM |
#1 . No credited Biologist accepts Intelligent design outside of personal beliefs and has no evidence to support it. Such scientists even acknowledge this and avoid the field.
that simply is not true, there are some scientists that reject evoluton and accept inteligent design, it is true that most biologists accept evolution but so what? most theologians believe in a God, and most astrobiologists believe that there is extraterrestrial life. but would you use those statistics to prove that God and Aliens excist?
I don´t know why are most biologists evolutionists but I have two hypothesis
1) most biologists accept evolution, because most of them entered to study biology with the preconcieve idea that evolution is true, and most had teachers that are evolutionists...I mean if you are a creationists who descided to study biology with creationists teacheachers, then it is likelly that you will end up being a creationists, if you believe in evolution and study biology with evolutionists teachers, you will end up being and evolutionary biologist.
2) Evolution is the best naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, and scientists feel like supernatural explanations are simply unacceptable. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/29/2012 6:34:34 AM |
So, what proof do you have? Evolution is false, wrong, and isn't real. prove your point. Explain ID. How did it happen? What's the evidence?
I am not saying that evoluton is false, I just say that Inteligent desing is a better explanation. ¿what is so special about evolution that makes it so convincing for you? I have studied the topic and the arguments for evolution, and none of them are convincing. so please provide the best agument for evolution, and I will explain why I reject the argument. | |
|
| Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design
Posted: 7/29/2012 7:19:21 AM | You have proved how little study you have done on evolution when you stated evolution explains the origins of life, that is simply not true.
My work means i speak to many many leading avian biologists, many world renowned vets, not ONE of them has ever thought there was any reason to believe in ID.
Evolution is so convincing because we have both direct and indirect proof from a VAST aray of different sciences, it is commonly accepted to be fact and thousands of papers have been published and open for peer review.
Not ONE paper has been peer reviewed claiming evidence for ID.
So as requested before i shall put it to you again:
Show ONE piece of peer reviewed evidence that proves in any way a creator or ID?
Why avoid the questions? | |
|
|
|
|
Page
41
of
54 (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
|
|
Home
login 
