Intelligent design taught in schools

[Dragoon Fighter]

Sorry about that.

Okay: Bob disappears, occams razor says he was murdered. BUT, he was actually captured by terrorists.

Ocam's razor is wrong.

Are you ok Dark Horse? Normally you are better than this. Instead of saying it is flat out wrong show WHY it is wrong with a few examples.

Edit: I mean real world historical examples.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Lucy also lasted 40 years, and is still around.

Lucy's "birthdate" is predated by man walking upright, so she isn't a true transitional form.

Links or it didn't happen.

And I quote:

By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html

(Of course, he has his own atheistic theory as to why this is the case, but that's not we're debating at the moment)

My point exactly. Since it's hardly fundamental, we should be able to remove it, and it wouldn't affect the universe.

See above quote by Hawking.

Electrons in between orbits? Never heard of that.

*shrug* Well, the electron is shared by each atom. That's really the basics of covalent compounds.

Sorry about that.

Okay: Bob disappears, occams razor says he was murdered. BUT, he was actually captured by terrorists.

Ocam's razor is wrong.

Yeah, it isn't foolproof, but it's usually a good guideline. I mean, if Bob disappears, it's safer to assume he's been kidnapped than abducted by aliens.

How?

It's the complexity of even the simplest lifeforms and the improbability of them arising by chance. The book in question was "A case for a creator" if you're interested. (I don't remember a lot of the details, sorry.)

Says the guy that had just done thy a couple of posts back.

Sorry then. Anyway, the part that was a repeat was only a small part of my argument.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Let me say a few things.

First of all, evolution has nothing to do with the fine-tuned universe argument. It only has to do with the changes in the genomes of organisms from the results of mutation and natural selection. Whether our existence is probable or not, has almost nothing to do with it.

Second of all, Hawking doesn't actually know the probability of the universe being the way it is. And why is the improbability of our existence relevant, as Hawking says it is, but not his explanation for our existence? It seems you're quote-mining here.

And this whole fine-tuned universe argument seems a little fallacious. The argument, as I see it, is: it's unlikely that something occurred, so it couldn't have occurred without divine intervention. It just seem very weak. It should be no surprise that the universe is welcoming to life. We exist for goodness sake, so the laws of physics must act in such a way to allow our existence. There is no divine intervention required. It looks improbable, it is, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It's like winning a lottery.

I don't believe our existence is actually that improbable either. The universe is extremely large, and it's existed 13.75 Billion years IIRC. If the laws of physics can accommodate life, there must be countless planets for which life may be able to occur on.

I'm going to roughly calculate the number of advanced civilisations in the observable universe. The actual universe is far larger. This calculation is based of the drake equation, except I've applied it to the whole of the observable universe.

A galaxy has at least a few billion stars ranging to a few Trillion. So let's say around 100 Billion on average. There are 170 Billion Galaxies in the observable universe. So, there are around 1.7x10^22 stars in the observable universe. Let's say around half of them have planets So, around 8.5x10^21 stars have planets. Let's say that half of all stars live long enough to support life. So we have 4.25x10^21 stars with planets that are suitable for life to evolve on. Let's say there are 5 planets on average, for stars that have planets. So there are 2.13x10^22 planets in the known universe. Let's say on average there 1/5 planets exist in the zone around the star where life may arise. So, 4.26x10^22 planets are suitable for life. Now let's say that the chance of life arising on a suitable planet is 1/10^3 or 1/1000. So that leaves us 4.26x10^19 planets with life on them. Let's say only half of the time, life develops into a civilisation, which leaves us, 2.13x10^19 civilisations that have or do exist in the observable universe. 2.13x10^19, using conservative numbers.

So I don't believe that life, or even intelligent life is particularly improbable in our universe.

 

[Dre89]

It should be no surprise that the universe is welcoming to life. We exist for goodness sake, so the laws of physics must act in such a way to allow our existence. There is no divine intervention required. It looks improbable, it is, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It's like winning a lottery.

It's funny that scientists seem to take Ockham's Razor as an invincible golden rule (which it isn't), yet OR would clearly suggest that a higher deity is more simple and probable than the enmormous improbabilty atheists believe in.

I don't believe our existence is actually that improbable either. The universe is extremely large, and it's existed 13.75 Billion years IIRC.

But that itself is hugely improbable seeing as you have no governing intellect to maintain consistency.

So I don't believe that life, or even intelligent life is particularly improbable in our universe.

But what is improbable is that the laws of the unvierse have remained consistent for billions of years. If there is no governing intellect, what's stopping half of the laws from ceasing to exist right now? Why is it that a completely coherent set of laws formulated at the beginning of the universe, and then after that no more laws were formed? That itself implies some sort of higher structure.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Bob
The problem is, it's not just a small improbability. If it were 1 in 10, or 1 in 100, fine, odd stuff just happens sometimes. (We've been over the tons of planets argument before, by the way) But unless you can give me an excellent reason to believe in a 1 in 10^20th chance over the possibility of God, you have no logical ground to stand on.

If you want an experiment to find out just how big that number is... Go outside, take a coin, and try to flip 10 straight heads. The odds of that happening is 1 in 1024 or about 10^-3. Takes a while, right? Now try to do that 6 times in a row. And you only get one try.

 

[freeman123]

Dre.
It's funny that scientists seem to take Ockham's Razor as an invincible golden rule (which it isn't), yet OR would clearly suggest that a higher deity is more simple and probable than the enmormous improbabilty atheists believe in.

How would OR suggest the existence of a deity? The idea of OR is to make as few assumptions as possible. I'd say assuming the existence of an all knowing, all powerful being is a pretty big assumption.

Dre.
But what is improbable is that the laws of the unvierse have remained consistent for billions of years. If there is no governing intellect, what's stopping half of the laws from ceasing to exist right now?

How is everything staying the same evidence of a governing intellect? If there was an intelligent being operating the laws of nature, then I would expect them to inexplicably change from time to time.

That's like coming home, noticing that your house is exactly the way you left it, and thinking "Someone must have gone into my house and kept everything the same."

If you were looking for evidence of someone being in your house, you'd look for changes; like if something was missing or had been moved. Things staying the same is not a sign of intelligent interaction. That's just silly reasoning.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@Freeman
I'd say assuming we just happened to luck out on an 1 in 10^20th chance is a much bigger assumption. I mean, what would it take to convince you that there just might actually be a God? Because it seems like we're getting nowhere here.

 

[Dre89]

Freeman-

The house example is poor, because in the house example, the fundamental laws aren't changed, just what those laws govern.

If everything was truly random and not moving towards some goal or purpose, then every single millisecond that goes by presents the possibility of the laws changing, and the slightest of tweaks would render life impossible.

It just so happens that all the laws happen to be perfectly coherent, totally consistent and unchanging, yet also completely random.

I mean, where is this randomness displayed?

Someone once said that evolution (atheist evolution it would have meant) is as probable as an explosion at a printing press creating a dictionary.

 

[Reaver197]

Sigh, the amount of misunderstanding in this thread exhausts me.

Also, there seems to be a preponderance of debaters in here, we should make our own thread.

 

[freeman123]

Dre.
If everything was truly random and not moving towards some goal or purpose, then every single millisecond that goes by presents the possibility of the laws changing, and the slightest of tweaks would render life impossible.

How do you know that? You're claiming that the only way the laws of nature can exist is if everything has a purpose. Please explain how you got that information.

Dre.
It just so happens that all the laws happen to be perfectly coherent, totally consistent and unchanging, yet also completely random.

I mean, where is this randomness displayed?

What do you mean "just so happens?" You're assuming that it's even possible for the laws to be inconsistent. How do you know that?

Dre.
Someone once said that evolution (atheist evolution it would have meant) is as probable as an explosion at a printing press creating a dictionary.

The reason why we don't assume that an explosion could create a dictionary is because we're familiar with dictionaries and we know how they're made.

Saying that evolution is as likely as a dictionary being created in an explosion demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of evolution.

Nicholas1024
I'd say assuming we just happened to luck out on an 1 in 10^20th chance is a much bigger assumption.

That's not an assumption. I can look at the fact that every other planet that we know of has no life on it, and the fact that almost every species known to have ever existed is now extinct, and I can reasonably conclude that we're pretty lucky to be here.

Nicholas1024
I mean, what would it take to convince you that there just might actually be a God?

That's hard to answer. I don't really know what it would take to convince me. I would say seeing God would convince me, but I don't know how I would know a god if I saw one. There isn't really a consistent definition of what a god is.

All I can say is that if you believe in God, however you define God, then you must think that you have a good reason for believing in him/her/it. All you can do is tell me what your reasons are for believing in God and why you think those reasons are valid. If I disagree with your reasons, I'll tell you why I don't think they're valid. That's the best answer I can offer you. I can't tell you exactly what would convince me. I don't think anything would convince me, because I don't think that there is anything to be convinced of. If there is something that could convince me that a god exists, I haven't seen or heard it yet.

If God is omnipotent, as many people believe he is, then he must be capable of convincing me of his existence. If he couldn't convince me, then he wouldn't be omnipotent. So, if an omnipotent god exists, he must not care if I believe in him or not(which would make him inconsistent with Yahweh).

 

[Dre89]

Freeman to convince you if His existence, He would have to alter your free will.

And with regards to the laws, of course they should be inconsistent if they're not designed. Why should only some things be random and others be consistent?

Honestly look at what you're trying to argue. Of all the infinite possibilities if laws there could have been, the few that were selected happen to be perfectly harmonious. Not only that, but by enormous chance, the laws never change, and never will change, and laws will never conflict with each other. On top of this, these Spwcific selection of laws, and only this specific selection can harbour life, and the slightest tweak would render life impossible.

And you're telling me that it's More logical to believe that's random, than structured?

Reaver- You were let into the DH to contribute, not to make pointless remarks to try and make you sou d smart.

And I love how you think there's a factual answer to the debate I'm having, when in fact it isn't scientific at all. Science can't deal with what came before principles such as space and time etc., so this is not a scientific debate.

 

[ballin4life]

Ok you guys have convinced me. Humans were designed by God.

I still think God evolved from monkeys though.

 

[_Keno_]

I never disagreed with that, I don't consider evolution a science however since it can not be confirmed anytime soon, the main reason [or flaw] I find in evolution is that, in effect, order is coming out of chaos, with genetic errors somehow benefiting a group of animals in such numbers that over time these errors can be spread throughout the whole "community". In order to have these errors come up in such large numbers to sway a whole population's genetic matchup, then transitional forms should vastly outnumber "true" forms, most notably on the reptile-amphibian, amphibian-fish, and reptile-mammal lines.

Evolution is observable even in our own lifetimes. My biology professor (Dr. Robert Fischer) helped finish a 63 year-long experiment, which he shared with our class last week.
In Journal of Fish Biology (2008), an experiment was reported where hundreds of two types of fish (one the predator one the prey) were isolated in a small area of water. The prey fish (bluegill) started out with a tall/thin body which is built for maneuvering around plants/rocks/etc (which there were none of in this area). After 27 birth cycles, the entire bluegill population's genetic makeup spawned longer and wider bluegill (fins and tails had quite different shapes too), and they were tested to be much faster than the average bluegill (and therefore could escape the predator). The fish were also tested and found to be genetically different from the average bluegill. These bluegill were later taken out of the enclosed environment and put into their natural environment. The bluegill did not even slightly revert back to to their original forms after a few birth cycles.

So pretty much, evolution is science backed, while ID is not. Only science should be taught in science classrooms. I do think ID should be taught as a possibility in philosophical classrooms, but not without criticisms.

And you're telling me that it's more logical to believe that's random, than structured?

And so the least complex solution is that somehow a being exists with the ability to create all these laws, all matter, and life as we know it?

 

[Dre89]

And so the least complex solution is that somehow a being exists with the ability to create all these laws, all matter, and life as we know it?

God is not a being.

God is considered "otherwise than being". There are a number of issues with saying God is a being (which I won't get into now unless asked).

Secondly, the point is what the theists are claiming appears far more probable and logical than what the atheists are claiming.

Also, the God argument doesn't just come from simplicity, it comes from necessity. It wasn't just "this is simple and convenient, so we'll go with this", it's more like "no being is capable of actuating the existence of the unvierse, therefore something alternate must have caused such an actualisation". It's obviously more compelx than (also ddepends on which God argument), but you get the point.

I'm not saying that God arguments are right, but that's the reasoning they follow.

And please, for the love of God (mind the pun), if you're going to criticise notions of God (which is perfectly fine), please don't be one of these people who still thinks theists beleive God is a man in the clouds with a beard, or that Dawkins is good atheist, or that the Flying Spaghetti argument is actually made by people who understand philosophy of religion (ie. God arguments), or something else uninformed like those.

It's an embarrassment to the Debate Hall that people come into God debates, considering themselves authoratitive enough to throw their weight and say stupidly uninformed things such as those. It's like that out of all the good atheist arguments there are, they go and chose the three worst ones.

I'm not saying you're one of them, I'm just really hoping you're not.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It's funny that scientists seem to take Ockham's Razor as an invincible golden rule (which it isn't), yet OR would clearly suggest that a higher deity is more simple and probable than the enmormous improbabilty atheists believe in.

Huh? Source?

But that itself is hugely improbable seeing as you have no governing intellect to maintain consistency.

But what is improbable is that the laws of the unvierse have remained consistent for billions of years. If there is no governing intellect, what's stopping half of the laws from ceasing to exist right now? Why is it that a completely coherent set of laws formulated at the beginning of the universe, and then after that no more laws were formed? That itself implies some sort of higher structure.

How do you know? The laws of physics appear to be set in stone, that so called improbability doesn't have anything to do with god. The fact is, that order needn't arrive from intellect.

The problem is, it's not just a small improbability. If it were 1 in 10, or 1 in 100, fine, odd stuff just happens sometimes. (We've been over the tons of planets argument before, by the way) But unless you can give me an excellent reason to believe in a 1 in 10^20th chance over the possibility of God, you have no logical ground to stand on.

I don't believe you've actually looked at the answer I gave you. I said it's likely that there were more than 2.13x10^19 civilizations that have existed in the course of the universe. So, yeah, maybe you might like to reevaluate the statement that, "we've been over the tons of planets argument before"?

And honestly, how do you know it's a 1/10^20? You don't. And really, if the laws of physics were different, we have no idea what universe would be created. There are so many different ways life is theoretically possible, so we don't know that it's 1/10^20, it's probably less, because life is adaptable stuff. Hawking might not think so, but I don't believe him. Furthermore, people have won lotteries, improbable stuff happens so it's not impossible.

And really what's the probability of a being powerful enough to create the universe just existing before the universe? Not very probable if you ask me.

 

[Dre89]

Bob that's exactly my point. The laws of physics, apart from the fact they are totally coherent, also never change, despite supposedly being totally random.

How does that appear random at all?

How is it logical to believe that a set of laws that compliment each other, and are totally consistent and unchanging, came from randomness?

What other totally random thing has ever done that?

 

[Nicholas1024]

Evolution is observable even in our own lifetimes. My biology professor (Dr. Robert Fischer) helped finish a 63 year-long experiment, which he shared with our class last week.
In Journal of Fish Biology (2008), an experiment was reported where hundreds of two types of fish (one the predator one the prey) were isolated in a small area of water. The prey fish (bluegill) started out with a tall/thin body which is built for maneuvering around plants/rocks/etc (which there were none of in this area). After 27 birth cycles, the entire bluegill population's genetic makeup spawned longer and wider bluegill (fins and tails had quite different shapes too), and they were tested to be much faster than the average bluegill (and therefore could escape the predator). The fish were also tested and found to be genetically different from the average bluegill. These bluegill were later taken out of the enclosed environment and put into their natural environment. The bluegill did not even slightly revert back to to their original forms after a few birth cycles.

So pretty much, evolution is science backed, while ID is not. Only science should be taught in science classrooms. I do think ID should be taught as a possibility in philosophical classrooms, but not without criticisms.



And so the least complex solution is that somehow a being exists with the ability to create all these laws, all matter, and life as we know it?

*Facepalm. Just mega facepalm*

That is the phenomenon known as micro-evolution. I am not debating that, nor is anyone else. Species change somewhat to adapt, fine. However, did your precious bluegills evolve lungs and feet to run away from predators on land? The difference between a fish becoming faster, and a fish turning into a bear or some other land animal is huge.

@Bob
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (10^67:1) against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:10^50) have a zero probability of ever happening (“and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!”).

There can't be more than 10^30th planets out there (I think the number you gave was 10^20th, well I'll increase that to give you guys the benefit of the doubt), so even with that you have 1 in 10^37 odds to overcome. I guess the question is, do you feel lucky?


@Freeman
I'd have to take that to a different topic. But anyway, the reasons I believe in God are mainly due to the historical grounding and evidence behind the new testament. (But as I said, that's a different topic.)

@Anyone that wants my side of the argument in greater detail
I suggest you read "A case for a creator". I don't have my copy of the book right now, but it's a former atheist going to christian biologists, chemists, etc. and going over all the evidence and objections for/against God. (It's where I first found a lot of my arguments, actually.)

 

[_Keno_]

Bob that's exactly my point. The laws of physics, apart from the fact they are totally coherent, also never change, despite supposedly being totally random.

How is it logical to believe that a set of laws that compliment each other, and are totally consistent and unchanging, came from randomness?

What other totally random thing has ever done that?

Can you explain why you believe that the laws of the universe should be changing? I do not understand why you think that initial randomness implies inconsistency. The laws are nothing more than facts about the universe, set in stone at its very beginnings.

*Facepalm. Just mega facepalm*

That is the phenomenon known as micro-evolution. I am not debating that, nor is anyone else. Species change somewhat to adapt, fine. However, did your precious bluegills evolve lungs and feet to run away from predators on land? The difference between a fish becoming faster, and a fish turning into a bear or some other land animal is huge.

*facepalm*

I didnt know people could be so stubborn as to believe in micro-evolution and yet still deny the theory of evolution. I guess I just dont get out enough.

What could possibly prove evolution to you? Is the only way for us to wait a few million years and observe it?

 

[Nicholas1024]

facepalm*

I didnt know people could be so stubborn as to believe in micro-evolution and yet still deny the theory of evolution. I guess I just dont get out enough.

What could possibly prove evolution to you? Is the only way for us to wait a few million years and observe it?

The difference between micro and macro evolution is huge. One is merely minor variations within a species, the other is complete transfer between species. Using the former as "proof" of the latter has less logic behind it than most government policies.

Anyway, as to what would be needed to convince me of evolution:

1) A good reason as to why the universe as we know it should exist at all, given how fragile it is.
2) An explanation as to how life itself manages to start up at all without the guiding hand of God.
3) Better fossil records as to the actual process of evolution itself.
4) A complete refutation of the excellent historical backing behind the Bible (and the new testament in particular)

 

[1048576]

2+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=200

Use your imagination.

Anyone else want to dig up the evidence that the flood never happened? My Google-fu is lacking.
I saw an excellent video demonstrating the transition from primordial ooze to land mammals. I'll try to find it. It really is just a whole bunch of micro-evolutions going from paramecium to bear.

 

[Nicholas1024]

2+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=200

Use your imagination.

Anyone else want to dig up the evidence that the flood never happened? My Google-fu is lacking.
I saw an excellent video demonstrating the transition from primordial ooze to land mammals. I'll try to find it. It really is just a whole bunch of micro-evolutions going from paramecium to bear.

*slow clap* Are you finished trolling yet, or should I turn my brain off for a while? Congratulations on making a completely useless post and adding absolutely nothing to the topic. I'm sorry, but evolving stuff like eyes, lungs and legs does not qualify as micro-evolution regardless of how you twist it. And as for the flood's evidence, fossilized seashells have been found in mountainous regions, implying that they must have been underwater at some point in time. In addition, if there never was a flood, why is it that almost all mythologies contain some sort of story regarding one? I find it difficult to believe that various cultures all over the world managed to come up with the exact same idea.

Actually wait, let me try your style of debating.

2+2 = 4

Use imaginaztion n00b

Sa\/\/ realy c001 utube other day, proves mai point, kthxbai.

Wow, this really is easier. I've been doing it wrong all along, haven't I?

 

[_Keno_]

The difference between micro and macro evolution is huge. One is merely minor variations within a species, the other is complete transfer between species. Using the former as "proof" of the latter has less logic behind it than most government policies.

The difference between micro evolution and micro evolution is huge, yes, huge time periods. Minor variations over huge periods of time add up to complete species transfers. Macro-evolution just doesn't happen without micro-evolution. Its called "micro-evolution" for a reason...

1) A good reason as to why the universe as we know it should exist at all, given how fragile it is.
2) An explanation as to how life itself manages to start up at all without the guiding hand of God.
3) Better fossil records as to the actual process of evolution itself.
4) A complete refutation of the excellent historical backing behind the Bible (and the new testament in particular)

All of those? Just one? A few? I'll try my best to find information on those. Also, saying the Bible has excellent historical backing doesn't remotely mean it does...since it doesnt.

 

[Nicholas1024]

The difference between micro evolution and micro evolution is huge, yes, huge time periods. Minor variations over huge periods of time add up to complete species transfers. Macro-evolution just doesn't happen without micro-evolution. Its called "micro-evolution" for a reason...

The thing is, micro evolution isn't enough to prove macro evolution. Cars have become faster, sleeker, better each year. Does that mean that in a hundred years they'll become interstellar space ships with fully functional AI? Of course not.

All of those? Just one? A few? I'll try my best to find information on those. Also, saying the Bible has excellent historical backing doesn't remotely mean it does...since it doesnt.

All of them.

I know saying something doesn't make it true, but the evidence is indeed out there. Quick comparison: The gospels of the new testament were recorded at most 70 years after the actual events. (There's reason to believe it's sooner, but that's the liberal dating.) By comparison, the first written accounts of Alexander the great's conquests appeared around 400 years after the events.

 

[freeman123]

Dre.
Freeman to convince you if His existence, He would have to alter your free will.

You can convince me of your existence without altering my free will. Are you saying that you are capable of doing something that God is not?

Dre.
And with regards to the laws, of course they should be inconsistent if they're not designed. Why should only some things be random and others be consistent?

I'm not sure if I understand what you're talking about, so you'll have to give me a specific example.

Dre.
Honestly look at what you're trying to argue. Of all the infinite possibilities if laws there could have been, the few that were selected happen to be perfectly harmonious. Not only that, but by enormous chance, the laws never change, and never will change, and laws will never conflict with each other. On top of this, these Spwcific selection of laws, and only this specific selection can harbour life, and the slightest tweak would render life impossible.

The vast majority of the known universe is just dead space. If I saw an entire garden of roses, I'd be inclined to assume that they were planted by a gardener. But if I saw one flower in the middle of a desert, I'd think it was most likely random luck that resulted in the right conditions for that flower to grow. We're like a flower in the middle of the desert; not a rose garden.

Nicholas1024
That is the phenomenon known as micro-evolution.

"Micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are not scientific terms. They're terms made up by creationists. Arguing that "micro-evolution" is possible, but that "macro-evolution" isn't is like arguing that it's possible for a person to take a step, but it's not possible for them to walk down a hallway. If the person keeps taking steps long enough, they'll eventually end up a the end of the hallway. Likewise, if a species continues to have small changes("micro evolution"), those changes will eventually add up and result in large changes("macro-evolution").

It's not possible for "micro-evolution" to be true without "macro-evolution" also being true. If a species is capable of experiencing small changes, then it will eventually have so many small changes that it will become something completely different. It's illogical to argue otherwise.

 

[Nicholas1024]

"Micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are not scientific terms. They're terms made up by creationists. Arguing that "micro-evolution" is possible, but that "macro-evolution" isn't is like arguing that it's possible for a person to take a step, but it's not possible for them to walk down a hallway. If the person keeps taking steps long enough, they'll eventually end up a the end of the hallway. Likewise, if a species continues to have small changes("micro evolution"), those changes will eventually add up and result in large changes("macro-evolution").

It's not possible for "micro-evolution" to be true without "macro-evolution" also being true. If a species is capable of experiencing small changes, then it will eventually have so many small changes that it will become something completely different. It's illogical to argue otherwise.

No. Let's take the bit about where fish supposedly grow lungs. Sure, while they're in the water, they can go ahead and become faster, stronger, better swimmers, whatever. But how would they grow lungs? If the lungs don't work, they suffocate whenever out of water, and it's just a useless change that wouldn't get copied by natural selection. If the lungs DO work, you're claiming that they evolved perfectly functional organs in one generation. (And don't give me the lungs that sorta work idea. At the microscopic level, they would have had to evolve something that extracts oxygen from air. It either works or it doesn't. No middle ground.) Growing lungs would be a change completely different from any micro-evolution within the water. It's like arguing you can get to the north pole by walking west.

 

[_Keno_]

No. Let's take the bit about where fish supposedly grow lungs. Sure, while they're in the water, they can go ahead and become faster, stronger, better swimmers, whatever. But how would they grow lungs? If the lungs don't work, they suffocate whenever out of water, and it's just a useless change that wouldn't get copied by natural selection. If the lungs DO work, you're claiming that they evolved perfectly functional organs in one generation. (And don't give me the lungs that sorta work idea. At the microscopic level, they would have had to evolve something that extracts oxygen from air. It either works or it doesn't. No middle ground.) Growing lungs would be a change completely different from any micro-evolution within the water. It's like arguing you can get to the north pole by walking west.

Early fish lungs were used as buoyancy control instead of a swim bladder. (On a side note, lungs were actually more primitive than a swim bladder). The lungs seconded as a holder of oxygen for fish that ended up in stagnant pools of water during drought seasons. It was pretty much a back-up breathing system for fish that got temporarily stranded. Modern animal lungs evolved from these.

 

[Nicholas1024]

What? So fish evolved the ability to breathe air... as a backup system? I'm sorry, but that's not exactly a significant advantage to get replicated via natural selection. Somehow I don't think getting temporarily stuck in pools of water was a regular thing for fish. And if that is the case... why don't fish have them now? If it was useful back then, it should still be useful now. Plus, you still have the problem of learning to breathe air in just one generation.


And as a side note, whoever comes up with this stuff should become a writer, as that's a pretty good imagination.

 

[_Keno_]

What? So fish evolved the ability to breathe air... as a backup system? I'm sorry, but that's not exactly a significant advantage to get replicated via natural selection. Somehow I don't think getting temporarily stuck in pools of water was a regular thing for fish. And if that is the case... why don't fish have them now? If it was useful back then, it should still be useful now. Plus, you still have the problem of learning to breathe air in just one generation.


And as a side note, whoever comes up with this stuff should become a writer, as that's a pretty good imagination.

No, fish evolved the ability to hold in oxygen to great degrees as a back up system. It was common for widespread droughts to occur in the Devonian period (which is the period when fish are known to have evolved lungs, legs, etc). This left many freshwater fish in these stagnant pools.

The problem of breathing air is not just one generation, it took several generations that extended the time a fish was able to go without water (which was a great survival trait), until fish could literally go without water.

Maybe you mean that it went from one generation that could hold oxygen in its lungs to another generation that could filter oxygen with its lungs. I am not sure of the exact processes of how that occurred, but I am no biologist.

And yeah, it seems like great imagination since it actually makes sense.

 

[ballin4life]

If we are still talking about the creation of the universe, then who created God? If God can exist without being created by anything, then why can't the universe exist without being created by anything?

 

[Nicholas1024]

Maybe you mean that it went from one generation that could hold oxygen in its lungs to another generation that could filter oxygen with its lungs. I am not sure of the exact processes of how that occurred, but I am no biologist.

This is what I meant. Merely holding air in a body cavity isn't a big deal, actually breathing it is. Also, why didn't some of these air-breathing fish survive to the present time? After all, you'd figure air-breathing fish would outlive similar fish that couldn't breathe air.

@ballin4life
Try to come up with something more original. Nobody created God, and the reasons that the universe couldn't have had a similar non-creator is due to how fragile it is. (I've gone over the stuff before, I don't particularly feel like repeating myself right now.)

 

[ballin4life]

Well ... I don't find that very convincing. The universe is "fragile" but God isn't?

As I see it, you are arguing that there is one ultimate cause in the universe, one thing that began the chain of causation and has no cause itself. I fail to see why that ultimate cause couldn't be the universe itself.

As for fundamental constants to the laws of physics implying a designer, I contend that 1) we don't know how the universe would have turned out if those constants were different and 2) those constants aren't proven truths anyway, just a theory based on aggregated observations, much like evolution.

Finally, any idea why God gave humans an appendix?

 

[freeman123]

No. Let's take the bit about where fish supposedly grow lungs. Sure, while they're in the water, they can go ahead and become faster, stronger, better swimmers, whatever. But how would they grow lungs? If the lungs don't work, they suffocate whenever out of water, and it's just a useless change that wouldn't get copied by natural selection. If the lungs DO work, you're claiming that they evolved perfectly functional organs in one generation. (And don't give me the lungs that sorta work idea. At the microscopic level, they would have had to evolve something that extracts oxygen from air. It either works or it doesn't. No middle ground.) Growing lungs would be a change completely different from any micro-evolution within the water. It's like arguing you can get to the north pole by walking west.

Evolution is random genetic mutations. The species that happen to inherent mutations that help them survive in their particular environments are the ones who survive and pass on those genes. The species with mutations that are useless usually die before they can reproduce and their genes don't get passed on. Evolution isn't about evolving to do anything. Evolution is nature throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.

And, as far as I know, biologists say that life began under water.

What? So fish evolved the ability to breathe air... as a backup system? I'm sorry, but that's not exactly a significant advantage to get replicated via natural selection. Somehow I don't think getting temporarily stuck in pools of water was a regular thing for fish. And if that is the case... why don't fish have them now? If it was useful back then, it should still be useful now. Plus, you still have the problem of learning to breathe air in just one generation.

Snakehead fish are a species of fish, alive today, that can breathe both in and out of water. They're a living transitional form of a species transitioning from sea to land. http://www.answers.com/topic/snakehead-fish

Try to come up with something more original. Nobody created God, and the reasons that the universe couldn't have had a similar non-creator is due to how fragile it is. (I've gone over the stuff before, I don't particularly feel like repeating myself right now.)

Who says you can determine whether or not something had a creator by how fragile it is? And how do you know how fragile God is? And, for that matter, how do you even know how fragile the universe is? How do you determine how fragile something can be before it requires a creator, and then how do you measure that?

 

[_Keno_]

This is what I meant. Merely holding air in a body cavity isn't a big deal, actually breathing it is. Also, why didn't some of these air-breathing fish survive to the present time? After all, you'd figure air-breathing fish would outlive similar fish that couldn't breathe air.

Well, I just found that actually quite a few modern fish have both lungs and gills, which means the evolution from air holding lungs to air breathing lungs isnt as big a step as either of us thought.
Also, dolphins and whales breath air directly, and they are the "big fish", which makes sense if you consider that since they didnt evolve onto land, they probably improved in the water.

 

[Nicholas1024]

How can you measure how fragile the universe is? Like this:

By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html

On the other hand, an all-powerful all-knowing God can hardly be considered fragile, don't you agree?

And look, I don't care about exact boundaries. But something THIS fragile, THIS delicate, implies that it didn't come about by random chance. Does a terrorist bomb create anything in its chaos aside from destruction? No, something that needs such specific conditions to work implies that someONE set those conditions in place. Order implies an orderer, a design implies a designer. If you walk outside and see 7 leaves on the ground in a perfect line, do you think "Huh, random chance does the most interesting things sometimes", or "Who on earth bothered to order those leaves like that?".

@Fish thing
Wow, I didn't know that we have both air/water breathing fish today. I thought the closest thing was amphibians. Anyways, you still need to prove on this point that they learned to breath air in one generation.

 

[_Keno_]

How can you measure how fragile the universe is? Like this:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html

On the other hand, an all-powerful all-knowing God can hardly be considered fragile, don't you agree?

And look, I don't care about exact boundaries. But something THIS fragile, THIS delicate, implies that it didn't come about by random chance. Does a terrorist bomb create anything in its chaos aside from destruction? No, something that needs such specific conditions to work implies that someONE set those conditions in place. Order implies an orderer, a design implies a designer. If you walk outside and see 7 leaves on the ground in a perfect line, do you think "Huh, random chance does the most interesting things sometimes", or "Who on earth bothered to order those leaves like that?".

@Fish thing
Wow, I didn't know that we have both air/water breathing fish today. I thought the closest thing was amphibians. Anyways, you still need to prove on this point that they learned to breath air in one generation.

What do you want me to post? The genetic science behind fish lungs developing the ability to filter air? Or that some fish lungs can already partially absorb oxygen from the air, and going from that to being able to absorb a large percentage of air is small enough to only be a few "micro-evolutionary" steps.
Also, I agree that the universe is fragile in the sense that if you change the laws of nature by certain amounts that everything would fall apart, but how does the universe being fragile imply that random chance didnt cause it?
It may very well be the case that it isnt completely random; this does not imply any type of creator though. It may be the case that some/many/all of these laws are necessary for the universe to even exist.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@Fish thing
Wow, I didn't know that we have both air/water breathing fish today. I thought the closest thing was amphibians. Anyways, you still need to prove on this point that they learned to breath air in one generation.

Don't mean to be insulting at this point, but unless you've really researched evolution, critiquing it is like coming into a discussion about gravity and using terminal velocity as a reason why modern gravitational theories don't work.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob that's exactly my point. The laws of physics, apart from the fact they are totally coherent, also never change, despite supposedly being totally random.

How does that appear random at all?

How is it logical to believe that a set of laws that compliment each other, and are totally consistent and unchanging, came from randomness?

What other totally random thing has ever done that?

They're not "supposedly" totally random. Who told you that?

 

[Dre89]

So then they're governed by some principle?

I thought the idea was it just by chance that life exists.

 

[Nicholas1024]

What do you want me to post? The genetic science behind fish lungs developing the ability to filter air? Or that some fish lungs can already partially absorb oxygen from the air, and going from that to being able to absorb a large percentage of air is small enough to only be a few "micro-evolutionary" steps.
Also, I agree that the universe is fragile in the sense that if you change the laws of nature by certain amounts that everything would fall apart, but how does the universe being fragile imply that random chance didnt cause it?
It may very well be the case that it isnt completely random; this does not imply any type of creator though. It may be the case that some/many/all of these laws are necessary for the universe to even exist.

I admit defeat for now on the fish thing. BPC is right, I'm not equipped to really debate this point any further right now. (Still though, I hope to get "A case for a creator" for Christmas, maybe then I can resume the debate here.)


The point is that the random chance is just so ludicrously small. We've been over the numbers before, but the odds of random chance creating the universe make winning the lottery look like a sure thing.

Anyways, the universe would still EXIST with different laws. The point is that it wouldn't be able to sustain life. For example, if the strong force was just a few percent weaker, we couldn't have atoms, but we'd still have a universe filled with elementary particles. You can't just say "It might just happen that these laws are necessary for the universe to exist." There's no evidence for that at all.

 

[_Keno_]

. You can't just say "It might just happen that these laws are necessary for the universe to exist." There's no evidence for that at all.

Most of the debating Christians here say that, but replace "these laws" with "God." Why can't I say it, and yet they can?
But yes, I do agree that I cant say it. I also hold that Christians cant say the counterpart.

Also, wouldnt any multiverse theory refute your probability claims? Of course, then I could only argue from the multiverse perspective. I've not gone in-depth enough into any of the prevalent multiverse theories to argue about them, but someone else probably has.