Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

creationism or evolution

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1314151617 33>
Poll Question: which do you believe is right and why
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
12 [16.67%]
47 [65.28%]
13 [18.06%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: creationism or evolution
    Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 07:34
Originally posted by King John

Cuauhtemoc, would you care to share with us some studies that prove Intelligent Design, as we have shown to you evidence of Evolution? Please go beyond just citing the laws of biology and thermodynamics (both of which Evolution agrees with) and provide actual scientific studies that support ID.
King John, I am satisfied that whatever you have defined as "evidence" for the theory of Evolution, is obvious to any of those reading this thread that it has been found wanting. At this point I would urge new readers to go back to page 9, and begin their reading of this thread and examine our discourse, as well as anyone else's posts and responses. I am confident that many will be surprised that what you believe is "evidence" for the theory of Evolution is lacking and that much of what you have called "evidence" has been contradictory and therefore not evidence at all. I have offered as you pointed out above, the Laws of Biology and the Laws of Thermodynamics that are in support of the theory of Intelligent Design. Lets just allow the readers to make their own decisions whether the Laws of Biology and the Laws of Thermodynamics support the theory of Intelligent Design or the theory of Evolution as presented in this thread, beginning on page 9. All can read that those points cannot be questioned regarding Scientific Laws in support of Intelligent Design. Readers can go back and evaluate how the theory of Intelligent Design is pro-science because it is in agreement and supported by Scientific Laws that you yourself want me to ignore, my friend. If you believe the 4 theories of Evolution are evidence for the theory of Evolution, all can read that these theories contradict each other in regards to the fact that the FOSSIL RECORD, does not have enough evidence to support the theory of Evolution. Remember 3 of the theories admit the changes that "supposedly" happened in geological history, occurred "so fast" as to not leave any FOSSIL TRANSITIONAL FORMS in the FOSSIL RECORD. Thus the FOSSIL RECORD supports the theory of Intelligent Design as that is what is expected, that is, Fossils fully formed with Micro-Evolution changes until they became extinct, as admitted by one of the 4 theories of Evolution. That being the case, the Fossil Record does not support the theory of Evolution. These 4 theories of Evolution, can be read on page 14, as posted in a response to Cezar, the 10th post from the top. The 4 theories of Evolution was posted earlier in this thread, and I have included my original responses to that post and the presentation of the 4 theories. Anyone can read and realize that Transitional forms do not exist in the Fossil Record, according to these theories. Anyone reading our thread will see that from different posts, the "evidence" offered in support for the theory of Evolution, included such things as refrigerators as examples of Thermodynamics, to the denial of the law of Casuality, to iguanas from different areas as examples of Macro-Evolution, to the already mentioned contradictory 4 theories of Evolution, as well as other so called "evidence." On balance and objectivity, readers will see that the theory of Intelligent Design is not only much more reasonable, but also much more scientific then the theory of Evolution, as a result of being in conformance with Scientific Laws.


Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 30-Jun-2008 at 21:05
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 15:52
Again you wish to represent statements like "...virtually no evidence..." as the same as "...no evidence[...]." I have already pointed out the differences between these two statements. You have failed to answer the question, Cuauhtemoc. An argument against Evolution is not an argument for Intelligent Design. I asked you to cite scientific studies that support ID, you respond with a paragraph that doesn't even come close to answering the question. Your response is entirely about evidence for Evolution. When did I ask you to ignore the Laws of Biology or Thermodynamics? What I asked you to do was go beyond those laws when you attempt to prove that ID is supported by scientific studies. Does evolution not work in support of scientific laws? Does Evolution not say that life comes from life? It does, evolution says that life comes from/develops from previously living things. How does this not conform with the Laws of Biology? Again I ask you to provide specific scientific studies that support ID. People have cited specific evidence (evolution of horses, birds, cats, dogs, etc) in support of evolution, but the only evidence that you cite in support of ID is laws of biology, thermodynamics, causality (all of which support the theory of Evolution as well) and problems with the evidence for Evolution. As I said earlier an argument against evolution is not an argument for ID. Please answer the question and show studies that prove Intelligent Design.
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2008 at 12:01
 Deadkenny, I am happy to respond to you regarding making points in support of the theory of Intelligent Design without referring to the theory of Evolution. As you know, I was successful in not mentioning once the theory of Evolution in my response to you. It is quite interesting you "acted" as if I did mention Evolution, but all can read from your quoting of me and my initial response to you on page 13, that not once did I have to mention it. Thus when you said I mentioned it, all will see that was not the case. It appears you are the one who was hoping I could not respond in that manner, or you are the one that cannot form an argument without thinking of Evolution. All will see my positive arguments in support for the theory of Intelligent Design stands as a result of your inability to refute them.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc


With this said, let me First begin with the complexity of natural processes in "dead inanimate matter" that we observe in the universe. For example, the earth is at the necessary distance from the sun with the exact tilt to produce seasons and not burn up. Could the exact necessary distances be accounted by chance? Such exactness necessitates an Intelligent Designer.

 
Originally posted by deadkenny

What has the tilt in the Earth's rotational axis got to do with not buring up?  What exactly is the 23.5 degree tilt evidence of?  Seems like a pretty arbitrary, 'random' degree of tilt to me.  Are you suggesting that we couldn't survive with a 20 degree tilt?  Or 25 degrees?  The planets are at various distances from the Sun.  Some are too hot, some are too cold.  Chances are one would be about right.  In fact, both Venus and Mars are not out of the question with respect to distance from the Sun, it is simply atmospheric issues that make Venus and Mars inhospitable as they are now.  Sorry, but I don't see anything in 3 random planets out of 9 being about the 'right' distance from the Sun, or anything special about a 23.5 degree tilt in the rotational axis that 'necessitates' an Intelligent Designer.
Deadkenny, this was just one example to show that conditions on the earth are not "accidents" that make life possible. Such facts as the tilt of the earth are evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Let me list things that make life possible and thus are not arbitrary and when considered altogether are incredible odds! First, the tilt of the earth is not arbitrary or random, even if taken by itself. the earth is not straight up and down, the axis is tilted at about 23%, no other planet is tilted like this in the known universe. Why? The tilt makes for equal distribution of the heat from the sun. Second, lets consider the wobble of the earth. Our earth wobbles off of that 23% tilt by about 3%. It wobbles up 3%, then back to 23%, and then down 3%, and then up again to the 23% average tilt. And it does it with amazing regularity, while spinning at 1000 miles an hour. Our seasons and climate depend on this oscillation of 6 degrees. Anything more than 3% up from the average and the sun would strike the earth with such force and heat that it would evaporate the oceans, and we'd have 2 massive ice caps at the poles and a boiling cauldron of lava in the middle. Life as we know it would perish from off the earth. Third, lets consider the rotation of the earth. The earth is rotating on that titled axis at about 1000 miles an hour. And this rate of speed is critical for life to exist. Let's say it turned at 10 times less or 100 miles an hour, our days and nights would be 10 times as long. What do you think would happen to you on an August day that lasted 10 times as long? Life could not exist on earth due to long days or nights as it would become too hot or cold! Fourth, lets consider the elliptical orbit and the speed. We are moving around the sun in an elliptical orbit at just the right speed--Not a circular orbit but an elliptical orbit. We are spinning through space around this elliptical orbit at the rate of 18 miles per second. And this is the right speed. If the earth slowed just a couple of miles per second we would be pulled into the sun and burned to a crisp. Or if we increased our speed, we would freeze to death. So our speed around the sun is just right. Fifth, lets consider the distance from the sun. Our earth is just the right number of miles from the sun--about 93 million miles. At this distance we get just the right amount of heat to survive. The surface of the sun is about 12,000 degrees. But 100 degrees seems like hot weather to us, and we are so fragile that we would perish if the temperature varied 50 degrees plus or minus the average. That's only 1/2 a percent of the 12,000 degrees radiating from the sun--a very narrow margin indeed. If we were just a few degrees closer, we would burn like a torch. If we were just a few degrees further away, we would freeze like Popsicles. Sixth, the distance from the moon. While the earth is spinning, oscillating, and racing round the sun, the moon is moving around the earth at just the right distance. Because at the present distance, the pull of the orbit causes the tides to ebb and flow at just the right rate. If our moon were to orbit closer, the increased gravitational pull would cause the lower regions of the earth would be flooded, and the tide would erode the landmasses until finally the mountains would crumble into the sea. So the distance of the moon is just right. Deadkenny as we can see, when we consider all the facts in regards to the complexity of "dead inanimate matter" that enables Life on Earth to exists, we can see such could not have happened by "chance." As stated originally, such exactness necessitates an Intelligent Designer. The odds of all these conditions occuring by chance as you know would be astronomical or infinitesimal.
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc


Second, lets note the complex processes that we see in nature in the natural processes of living organisms. For example, the complexity of the prompts in DNA are much more complex then the prompts in a programmed computer. No one would say that the computers we are using were programmed by "chance." Nor would someone say that a computer programmed its prompts itself. Thus the "complexity in nature points to a programmer" that is Intelligent.

 
Originally posted by deadkenny

Sorry, but I don't get your point here really.  It sounds like you're saying that if man created anything less complex than DNA, then DNA must be the result of an Intelligent Designer because it is more complex than what man create - e.g. a computer program, or a toothbrush for that matter.
No problem, let me clarify. In fact whether we are talking about DNA or a toothbrush, my point is established. For both point to an Intelligent Designer. Lets give as an example, in a cave we find a crude toothbrush! Crude but clearly identifiable as a toothbrush! We would say that is indicative of an Intelligent Designer! Such artifacts are found in caves as you know around world, not necessarily toothbrushes (I am going along with your example), and anthropologists conclude, artifacts that require "intelligent Design!" Their conclusion, an "intelligent designer" that is humanity! Thus my point for DNA is the same as with your toothbrush! Such complexity indicates, Intelligent Design! Thus whether we are talking about DNA, computers, toothbrushes or an axe in a cave, we are talking about indicators of Intelligent Design! Thus my positive point, DNA points to an Intelligent Designer due to its complexity, as a toothbrush points to an intelligent designer when found in a cave, due to its complexity.

 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc


Next I will offer points that support the theory of Intelligent Design that are in agreement with scientific laws. Third, the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with the Law of Casuality. That law states every effect has a cause. Intelligent Design can supply the First Cause. This law has been empirically established, to the extent that this is taught in elementary schools. What better "first cause" then an Intelligent Designer? Something is postulated to be Eternal. Is Matter eternal or is an Intelligent Designer Eternal? As you can see the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this established law.

 
Originally posted by deadkenny

That lack of conflict doesn't 'rule out' Intelligent Design, nor does it rule it in either.  It is not a 'positive' argument in favour of one theory to say that there is no conflict with another theory.  I asked for positive evidence in favour, not the absence of a contradiction in one specific case.
Deadkenny, you inserted Evolution. I did not! This is a positive argument for the theory of Intelligent Design. I pointed out that the theory of Intelligent Design is in conformance with the Law of Casuality, and that is true as the theory of Intelligent Design can supply the First Cause. No need to mention or THINK of Evolution as you did for my "point" to be made. Again, something is postulated to be Eternal. Is Matter eternal or is an Intelligent Designer Eternal? As you can see the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this established law.

 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc


Fourth, another law is the basic Law of Biology and that is Life comes from Life. This law also has been established by empirical investigation resulting from observation and experimentation. Thus again we can see that Intelligent Design can account for the necessary Pre-Existing Life that must account for the origin of subsequent Life. We are here! Thus the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this scientific law.

 
Originally posted by deadkenny

Two comments, first, as above, the lack of contradiction is not positive evidence supporting the theory, it is simply the absence of contrary evidence.  Second, are you suggesting that the Intelligent Designer is 'alive' his / her self, in the sense that we usually mean 'alive'?  If so, then where did the Intelligent Designer come from originally?
Deadkenny, it is obvious my point stands as positive evidence. Why, empirically, due to observation and experimentation, there is no question, we KNOW that Life arises from Pre-existing Life! Thus on the face of it you are not presenting a valid argument. Your comment does not address this point at all, absence of evidence? Life from Life is the basic, bedrock Law of Biology! As for where did the Intelligent Designer come from, well that was answered above and I am happy to repeat it here. Something is postulated to be Eternal. Is Matter eternal or is an Intelligent Designer Eternal? Which is more logical Matter or Intelligence? Even better then that, which is in conformance with the established Scientific Law, that Life comes from Life? As you can see the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this established law. Thus where did the Intelligent Designer come from? The Intelligent Designer, unlike Matter that violates the Laws of Themodynamics, is Eternal. What Scientific Law would exclude the "possibility" of an Intelligent Designer? None!


 
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc


Fifth, the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As are observed, all changes in the universe are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, or running down. For example, as we know the sun will one day, burn itself out! The energy will dissipate. That means the sun had a "beginning."

 
Originally posted by deadkenny

Again, absence of a contradiction in a particular case is not positive evidence supporting the theory.
Deadkenny, apparently you cannot address a positive point or you have no response. The universe in conformance with the Laws of Thermodynamics is running down. No question about that, due to empirical evidence and conformance to these established Scientific Laws. Is it not a fact that the sun will burn out? Did we not learn that in our educational systems? Using these Laws, the point is, the theory of Intelligent Design has as an expectation that the universe will run down. Its that simple. The fact that the universe will run down and the sun will burn out, indicates that there was a BEGINNING! An Intelligent Design scientist, would have this expectation, that Science and Scientific Law would agree that there was a "beginning."

 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc


Sixth, irreducible complexity exists. There are a number of Biochemical systems that are Irreducibly Complex. For example cilia that are used by organisms for movement is irreducibly complex, remove any part and the cilia cannot function. That means the cilia could not have "evolved" as it has to be complete to have any functional purpose.

 
Originally posted by deadkenny

Argument against evolution is not positive evidence in favour of Intelligent Design.  This goes back to my original point - 99.9% of the arguments supposedly in favour of Intelligent Design are really refutations of Evolution - Intelligent Design is assumed to be the 'default' alternative if Evolution cannot explain something.   Your arguments are exactly what I described, and exactly what you said you would avoid.
Who mentioned Evolution? I did NOT! As the last 3 responses to me, you seem incapable of answering. You simply demonstrate what you asked me to do, but your incapable of, and that is without thinking about the theory of Evolution. Irreducible Complexity is a fact. You cannot dispute it and so you mention Evolution where I have no need to mention Evolution! Anyone reading this thread can see that you were apparently  hoping I would have to mention Evolution to make positive points for the theory of Intelligent Design, and since you cannot answer them or even address them, I have succeeded. The example of the cilia used by organisms for movement is that cilia is not functionable if any part is removed, and therefore an example of Irreducible Complexity! I did not need to mention Evolution! You apparently thought I would have to mention it, but as you are aware, I did not! You seem to have to mount an argument as if I mentioned Evolution. It only shows you have no response at all. Obviously, you cannot form any arguments without mentioning Evolution. However, anyone reading our thread, can see that I have answered you as you asked, by making positive points supporting the theory of Intelligent Design without mentioning Evolution. In fact making positive points in support of Intelligent Design that YOU cannot refute without your need to mention Evolution!

 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc


Seventh, the fossil record supports the theory of Intelligent Design as what we find is a lack of Transitional Forms in this Fossil Record. This admission is made by numerous Paleontologists. Here is a quotation to establish that fact, made earlier in this thread,
In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this idea. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
The theory of Intelligent Design would expect a lack of Transitional Fossils with little change in the Fossil Record. As we see the quotes of the above paleontologists, admit that transitional fossils are "virtually nonexistent in the fossil record." An Intelligent Design scientist would expect this in the FOSSIL RECORD.
 
Originally posted by deadkenny

Again, 'gaps' in the fossil record are an absence of evidence, not positive evidence in support of.  Further, the fossil record is a very 'sparse', incomplete and 'random' record.  It is simply fortuitous that anything exists in the fossil record.  There may very well not be any fossil record at all.  That would then make it very difficult, if not impossible to make the case for Evolution.   However, lack of evidence in support of Evolution is not positive evidence supporting Intelligent Design.
Deadkenny, I rather think you missed or misunderstood the point then purposely disregard it. So let me clarify it for you, if you misunderstood. The positive argument, is the FOSSIL RECORD, is going to show, "that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species" as stated in the quote above. Stasis is defined as, state of no change: a state in which there is little or no apparent change in a species of organism over a long period of time. It is most evident in so-called living fossils such as the coelacanth, which have remained unchanged for many millions of years. Thus the condition of stasis, is what an Intelligent Design scientist would expect to find in the FOSSIL RECORD, and as a result of these facts, the FOSSIL RECORD supports the theory of Intelligent Design. Let me give you another quotation so no misunderstanding will occur. This is from an earlier post ir our thread regarding Punctuated Equilibrium,
Punctuated equilibrium is a theory of evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing populations experience little change for most of their geological history, and that when phenotypic evolution does occur, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation
As you can see, my point was NOT regarding GAPS or sparse or incomplete fossil evidence! My POSITIVE point is the FOSSIL RECORD supports the theory of Intelligent Design as stated in the quote above, "most sexually reproducing populations experience little change for most of their geological history," I am sure you see my positive point, the kind of changes in the FOSSIL RECORD are the little changes that we find in FOSSIL FORMS and that we see today. Thus, we find in the fossil record Micro-Evolution changes that an Intelligent Design scientist would expect to find. The kind of changes that are empirical and based on observation and experimentation that humanity has produced through selective breeding. However, since you had to bring the theory of Evolution, YOUR admission that there are GAPS, that TRANSITIONAL FORMS are SPARSE and INCOMPLETE is refreshing. However, you are only agreeing with the Evolutionists who postulated 3 of the 4 theories of Evolution faced with the same problem, the LACK of TRANSITIONAL FORMS in the FOSSIL RECORD.

 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc


An Intelligent Design scientist would also expect to find "micro- evolutionary changes" in the Fossil Record as well. These of course are exactly the kind of changes that has been produced by humanity empirically, in selective breeding of dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigeons or guppies ect. Thus the condition of "stasis" in the Fossil Record supports the theory of Intelligent Design. As you can see, it is not necessary to establish support for the theory of Intelligent Design by using the the word Evolution. I can only think that it appears that way due to the direction that such discussions take. In addition deadkenny, let me conclude by pointing out that the theory of Intelligent Design is a better model then the theory of Evolution as it is in agreement with scientific laws and is therefore pro-science.

 
Originally posted by deadkenny

In fact I noted that you used the word evolve or evolutionary, which amounts to the same thing.
In my response to you, in forming the  points supporting Intelligent Design that I posted on page,13, or as illustrated in your quoting of me above, not once did I use the word Evolution, however you did. It seems you thought that I could not state my position without using the word Evolution, but as you and anyone reading this thread, I did exactly that! However, I wonder if you were hoping I would have to mention Evolution, but as you know, I did not have to. As a result you had to act as if I had to mention Evolution because it is apparent you could not respond to my positive points for the theory of Intelligent Design, except to use as a red herring that I supposedly mentioned Evolution. 
Originally posted by deadkenny

Do I understand your point here correctly?  Are you saying that with Intelligent Design, the Designer initially created life but then life has 'evolved' since it was originally created?  Isn't that then a sort of 'hybrid' theory Intelligent Evolutionary Design or something?
Yes you understood me correctly! The word Micro-Evolution was used by me! And as you know, it is a term describing CHANGES within KINDS! It is a term I used alright to describe the kind of CHANGES we see that are EMPIRICAL and observable. Those changes are the changes we see in dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigeons or guppies ect. Thus I used a Scientific term that defines those "type" of changes. As a result, let me clarify the use of that word by giving you the example of Charles Darwin. That is to discuss the mistake of Darwin, and my appropriate use of the term, Micro-Evolution. Darwin observed Micro-Evolutionary changes and extrapolated without any evidence, Macro-Evolutionary changes that he never observed! The kind of changes that Darwin observed was Micro-Evolution changes, for example, iguanas are iguanas whether they swim or not! Tortoises are tortoises ect., just like dogs are dogs and cats are cats, ect.! This as we can see is the error of Darwin!


Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 02-Jul-2008 at 13:39
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
  Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2008 at 12:12
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Let me list things that make life possible and thus are not arbitrary and when considered altogether are incredible odds! First, the tilt of the earth is not arbitrary or random, even if taken by itself. the earth is not straight up and down, the axis is tilted at about 23%, no other planet is tilted like this in the known universe. Why? The tilt makes for equal distribution of the heat from the sun. Second, lets consider the wobble of the earth. Our earth wobbles off of that 23% tilt by about 3%. It wobbles up 3%, then back to 23%, and then down 3%, and then up again to the 23% average tilt. And it does it with amazing regularity, while spinning at 1000 miles an hour. Our seasons and climate depend on this oscillation of 6 degrees. Anything more than 3% up from the average and the sun would strike the earth with such force and heat that it would evaporate the oceans, and we'd have 2 massive ice caps at the poles and a boiling cauldron of lava in the middle. Life as we know it would perish from off the earth. Third, lets consider the rotation of the earth. The earth is rotating on that titled axis at about 1000 miles an hour. And this rate of speed is critical for life to exist. Let's say it turned at 10 times less or 100 miles an hour, our days and nights would be 10 times as long. What do you think would happen to you on an August day that lasted 10 times as long? Life could not exist on earth due to long days or nights as it would become too hot or cold! Fourth, lets consider the elliptical orbit and the speed. We are moving around the sun in an elliptical orbit at just the right speed--Not a circular orbit but an elliptical orbit. We are spinning through space around this elliptical orbit at the rate of 18 miles per second. And this is the right speed. If the earth slowed just a couple of miles per second we would be pulled into the sun and burned to a crisp. Or if we increased our speed, we would freeze to death. So our speed around the sun is just right. Fifth, lets consider the distance from the sun. Our earth is just the right number of miles from the sun--about 93 million miles. At this distance we get just the right amount of heat to survive. The surface of the sun is about 12,000 degrees. But 100 degrees seems like hot weather to us, and we are so fragile that we would perish if the temperature varied 50 degrees plus or minus the average. That's only 1/2 a percent of the 12,000 degrees radiating from the sun--a very narrow margin indeed. If we were just a few degrees closer, we would burn like a torch. If we were just a few degrees further away, we would freeze like Popsicles. Sixth, the distance from the moon. While the earth is spinning, oscillating, and racing round the sun, the moon is moving around the earth at just the right distance. Because at the present distance, the pull of the orbit causes the tides to ebb and flow at just the right rate. If our moon were to orbit closer, the increased gravitational pull would cause the lower regions of the earth would be flooded, and the tide would erode the landmasses until finally the mountains would crumble into the sea. So the distance of the moon is just right. Deadkenny as we can see, when we consider all the facts in regards to the complexity of "dead inanimate matter" that enables Life on Earth to exists, we can see such could not have happened by "chance." As stated originally, such exactness necessitates an Intelligent Designer. The odds of all these conditions occuring by chance as you know would be astronomical or infinitesimal.


All of this is utter nonsense. You fail to realize that life has adapted to the prevailing circumstances. If for examples days would the 10 times longer, the animals would have adapted to those circumstances eons ago, and it wouldn't have been a problem. You're making a long argument based on non-existing grounds.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2008 at 14:02
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

 Deadkenny, I am happy to respond to you regarding making points in support of the theory of Intelligent Design without referring to the theory of Evolution. As you know, I was successful in not mentioning once the theory of Evolution in my response to you. It is quite interesting you "acted" as if I did mention Evolution, but all can read from your quoting of me and my initial response to you on page 13, that not once did I have to mention it. Thus when you said I mentioned it, all will see that was not the case. It appears you are the one who was hoping I could not respond in that manner, or you are the one that cannot form an argument without thinking of Evolution. All will see my positive arguments in support for the theory of Intelligent Design stands as a result of your inability to refute them. 
  
 
You did in fact mention 'evolve' and 'evolutionary' in your response, which (as I said) amounts to the same thing.  You were in fact, in several of your points, saying that 'such and such' could not have evolved, it could only have come about by Intelligent Design.  The implicit assumption is that there are only 2 possiblities, either evolution or intelligent design.  What if things just came into existence 'poof' with no intelligent design, and things that 'worked' survived and  things that didn't died out?  What if every possible combination of chemicals / elements existed somewhere at sometime, and it just so happens that this is where a particular combination came about that is known as 'life'?  You kinda missed by point entirely, which was if evolution is off the table, then convince me that intelligent design is necessary, as opposed to any other possible theory.  That purpose of the exercise was not some 'word game' where you make your arguments without using the word 'evolution' but then get around it by using 'evolve' or 'evolutionary'.  Your arguments simply confirmed me in my view that Intelligent Design supporters have the attacking of evolution so ingrained that they are incapable of any other form of argument, and in fact can't even see that fact for themselves.  I will address some specific points as I have time.
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

  
Deadkenny, this was just one example to show that conditions on the earth are not "accidents" that make life possible. Such facts as the tilt of the earth are evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Let me list things that make life possible and thus are not arbitrary and when considered altogether are incredible odds! First, the tilt of the earth is not arbitrary or random, even if taken by itself. the earth is not straight up and down, the axis is tilted at about 23%, no other planet is tilted like this in the known universe. Why? The tilt makes for equal distribution of the heat from the sun. Second, lets consider the wobble of the earth. Our earth wobbles off of that 23% tilt by about 3%. It wobbles up 3%, then back to 23%, and then down 3%, and then up again to the 23% average tilt. And it does it with amazing regularity, while spinning at 1000 miles an hour. Our seasons and climate depend on this oscillation of 6 degrees. Anything more than 3% up from the average and the sun would strike the earth with such force and heat that it would evaporate the oceans, and we'd have 2 massive ice caps at the poles and a boiling cauldron of lava in the middle. Life as we know it would perish from off the earth. Third, lets consider the rotation of the earth. The earth is rotating on that titled axis at about 1000 miles an hour. And this rate of speed is critical for life to exist. Let's say it turned at 10 times less or 100 miles an hour, our days and nights would be 10 times as long. What do you think would happen to you on an August day that lasted 10 times as long? Life could not exist on earth due to long days or nights as it would become too hot or cold! Fourth, lets consider the elliptical orbit and the speed. We are moving around the sun in an elliptical orbit at just the right speed--Not a circular orbit but an elliptical orbit. We are spinning through space around this elliptical orbit at the rate of 18 miles per second. And this is the right speed. If the earth slowed just a couple of miles per second we would be pulled into the sun and burned to a crisp. Or if we increased our speed, we would freeze to death. So our speed around the sun is just right. Fifth, lets consider the distance from the sun. Our earth is just the right number of miles from the sun--about 93 million miles. At this distance we get just the right amount of heat to survive. The surface of the sun is about 12,000 degrees. But 100 degrees seems like hot weather to us, and we are so fragile that we would perish if the temperature varied 50 degrees plus or minus the average. That's only 1/2 a percent of the 12,000 degrees radiating from the sun--a very narrow margin indeed. If we were just a few degrees closer, we would burn like a torch. If we were just a few degrees further away, we would freeze like Popsicles. Sixth, the distance from the moon. While the earth is spinning, oscillating, and racing round the sun, the moon is moving around the earth at just the right distance. Because at the present distance, the pull of the orbit causes the tides to ebb and flow at just the right rate. If our moon were to orbit closer, the increased gravitational pull would cause the lower regions of the earth would be flooded, and the tide would erode the landmasses until finally the mountains would crumble into the sea. So the distance of the moon is just right. Deadkenny as we can see, when we consider all the facts in regards to the complexity of "dead inanimate matter" that enables Life on Earth to exists, we can see such could not have happened by "chance." As stated originally, such exactness necessitates an Intelligent Designer. The odds of all these conditions occuring by chance as you know would be astronomical or infinitesimal.
 
Sorry, but this just makes no sense whatsoever.  Yes, if the Earth's rate of rotation, and / or tilt of the axis of rotation were significantly different then the Earth's climate would be different.  Yes, that would be devestating to life as it now exists on Earth.  However, if life (however it came about) is adapted to the particular circumstances on the Earth, then a different climate would simply support different lifeforms.  Are you actually claiming that life itself (in any form) could not survive a much longer or shorter day?  Could not survive longer or shorter (or no) seasons?  Let us assume for a moment that the Earth's rotational axis was exactly perpendicular to the orbital plane, and further that it had no 'wobble' (precession I believe is the term) to it at all.  Further assume that everything else is unchanged.  That would then imply that there were no seasons at all.  Please explain how / why that would make life on Earth impossible.  The fact is that change would have very little impact on a wide belt around the middle of the Earth - the equatorial region - that is quite rich in diversity of life.  I have already commented regarding the distance from the Sun.  The issue regarding sustainability of life on Venus and Mars has little to do with distance from the Sun, the issues in both cases appear to be atmospheric (too thick / too thin respectively).  So although the Earth is a very exact distance from the Sun, there is no reason to beleive that life would not be possible in a wide range of distances, from Venus out to Mars.  You've really made no case at all that such changes would make life impossible, only that it would negatively impact (in some but not all cases) life that is adapted to conditions as they exist currently on Earth.  Even relatively minor changes in climate on Earth have resulted in the extinction of some species and the 'rise' of others.  If the 'Intelligent Designer' that you have postulated is really 'intelligent', presumably he / she / it would have 'designed' life to be adapted to conditions, not designed life and then created conditions that suited that life.  You appear to be postulating an 'Intelligent Creator' as well as a Designer.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2008 at 16:05
Deadkenny, I will repost my response to you from page 13 and and will remove the time I used the word evolve when talking about Irreducible Complexity, for as you know, the word evolve was not necessary to the point. I apologize, as I simply did not notice it initially, however I appreciate you pointing that out to me and I am happy to make that correction. The word evolutionary was used in regards to Micro-Evolution and is a scientific term, that describes what we observe in the fossil record and what we find in living organisms, changes within kinds. For that word, I used it appropriately. 
Originally posted by deadkenny

You did in fact mention 'evolve' and 'evolutionary' in your response, which (as I said) amounts to the same thing.  You were in fact, in several of your points, saying that 'such and such' could not have evolved, it could only have come about by Intelligent Design.  The implicit assumption is that there are only 2 possiblities, either evolution or intelligent design.  What if things just came into existence 'poof' with no intelligent design, and things that 'worked' survived and  things that didn't died out?  What if every possible combination of chemicals / elements existed somewhere at sometime, and it just so happens that this is where a particular combination came about that is known as 'life'?  You kinda missed by point entirely, which was if evolution is off the table, then convince me that intelligent design is necessary, as opposed to any other possible theory.
 
Originally posted by deadkenny

That purpose of the exercise was not some 'word game' where you make your arguments without using the word 'evolution' but then get around it by using 'evolve' or 'evolutionary'.  Your arguments simply confirmed me in my view that Intelligent Design supporters have the attacking of evolution so ingrained that they are incapable of any other form of argument, and in fact can't even see that fact for themselves.  I will address some specific points as I have time.
I agree it is not a word game, unless it is one on your part, as even when "evolved" was mentioned in regards to cilia, you could see it was not necessary to the point. I decided to repost the response and make the necessary correction in my use of the word evolve by simply removing that sentence, and thus the point stands. If I missed any others, I will be happy to change it. The points I made stands, and here is the initial posts,
Originally posted by deadkenny

It seems to me that 99.9% of the argument in 'favour' of 'Creationism' is in fact only a 'refutation' of the Theory of Evolution.
This is far from the case as far as the support for the theory of Intelligent Design is concerned. It may be you have that impression from discussions in our forum, but that is simply not the case. I have been making the points that I will bring to your attention, not only in this thread, but also in a thread I begun in AE Tavern to Modern Culture on the movie, Expelled, No Intelligent Allowed. I would urge you to read those posts, if you have the opportunity, as other important points to this topic that we are discussing are brought up as well, that may have not been brought up in this thread. I would urge you or anyone else who participates in this thread to also watch the above movie, which will eventually be released in DVD, it is an excellent movie. I don't know if you had an opportunity to read my posts in this thread, as I began to participate on page 9 in this thread, but if you have, you will note I have made many of these points earlier. I am glad to be able to put them altogether for anyone's examination, I will be as concise as I can. With this said, let me First begin with the complexity of natural processes in "dead inanimate matter" that we observe in the universe. For example, the earth is at the necessary distance from the sun with the exact tilt to produce seasons and not burn up. Could the exact necessary distances be accounted by chance? Such exactness necessitates an Intelligent Designer. Second, lets note the complex processes that we see in nature in the natural processes of living organisms. For example, the complexity of the prompts in DNA are much more complex then the prompts in a programmed computer. No one would say that the computers we are using were programmed by "chance." Nor would someone say that a computer programmed its prompts itself. Thus the "complexity in nature points to a programmer" that is Intelligent. Next I will offer points that support the theory of Intelligent Design that are in agreement with scientific laws. Third, the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with the Law of Casuality. That law states every effect has a cause. Intelligent Design can supply the First Cause. This law has been empirically established, to the extent that this is taught in elementary schools. What better "first cause" then an Intelligent Designer? Something is postulated to be Eternal. Is Matter eternal or is an Intelligent Designer Eternal? As you can see the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this established law. Fourth, another law is the basic Law of Biology and that is Life comes from Life. This law also has been established by empirical investigation resulting from observation and experimentation. Thus again we can see that Intelligent Design can account for the necessary Pre-Existing Life that must account for the origin of subsequent Life. We are here! Thus the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this scientific law. Fifth, the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As are observed, all changes in the universe are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, or running down. For example, as we know the sun will one day, burn itself out! The energy will dissipate. That means the sun had a "beginning." Sixth, irreducible complexity exists. There are a number of Biochemical systems that are Irreducibly Complex. For example cilia that are used by organisms for movement is irreducibly complex, remove any part and the cilia cannot function. Seventh, the fossil record supports the theory of Intelligent Design as what we find is a lack of Transitional Forms in this Fossil Record. This admission is made by numerous Paleontologists. Here is a quotation to establish that fact, made earlier in this thread,
In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this idea. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
The theory of Intelligent Design would expect a lack of Transitional Fossils with little change in the Fossil Record. As we see the quotes of the above paleontologists, admit that transitional fossils are "virtually nonexistent in the fossil record." An Intelligent Design scientist would expect this in the FOSSIL RECORD. An Intelligent Design scientist would also expect to find "micro- evolutionary changes" in the Fossil Record as well. These of course are exactly the kind of changes that has been produced by humanity empirically, in selective breeding of dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigeons or guppies ect. Thus the condition of "stasis" in the Fossil Record supports the theory of Intelligent Design. As you can see, it is not necessary to establish support for the theory of Intelligent Design by using the the word Evolution. I can only think that it appears that way due to the direction that such discussions take. In addition deadkenny, let me conclude by pointing out that the theory of Intelligent Design is a better model then the theory of Evolution as it is in agreement with scientific laws and is therefore pro-science.
 



Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 02-Jul-2008 at 16:13
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jul-2008 at 22:50
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

With this said, let me First begin with the complexity of natural processes in "dead inanimate matter" that we observe in the universe. For example, the earth is at the necessary distance from the sun with the exact tilt to produce seasons and not burn up. Could the exact necessary distances be accounted by chance? Such exactness necessitates an Intelligent Designer.
 
This concept / argument is badly flawed and invalid (see my previous post).  You've failed to establish that there is anything special about the exact distance from the Earth to the Sun, or about the tilt of the rotational axis with respect to the orbital plane.  Just that life on Earth as it now exists is (obviously) adapted to conditions as they exist.
 
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Second, lets note the complex processes that we see in nature in the natural processes of living organisms. For example, the complexity of the prompts in DNA are much more complex then the prompts in a programmed computer. No one would say that the computers we are using were programmed by "chance." Nor would someone say that a computer programmed its prompts itself. Thus the "complexity in nature points to a programmer" that is Intelligent. Next I will offer points that support the theory of Intelligent Design that are in agreement with scientific laws.
 
This is a very weak argument supporting Intelligent Design at best.  Quite complex structures exist in nature, other than life, without the suggestion that an Intelligent Designer was involved.
 
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

 Third, the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with the Law of Casuality. That law states every effect has a cause. Intelligent Design can supply the First Cause. This law has been empirically established, to the extent that this is taught in elementary schools. What better "first cause" then an Intelligent Designer? Something is postulated to be Eternal. Is Matter eternal or is an Intelligent Designer Eternal? As you can see the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this established law.
 
How would the Intelligent Designer be the 'first cause'?  Wouldn't whatever brought the Intelligent Designer into existence be the true first cause, with 'life' then following from that?
 
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

 Fourth, another law is the basic Law of Biology and that is Life comes from Life. This law also has been established by empirical investigation resulting from observation and experimentation. Thus again we can see that Intelligent Design can account for the necessary Pre-Existing Life that must account for the origin of subsequent Life. We are here! Thus the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this scientific law.
 
If 'life comes from life' and you're claiming that the Intelligent Design theory is consistent with that 'law', then that implies that the Intelligent Designer is a lifeform.  But then where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
 
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Fifth, the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As are observed, all changes in the universe are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, or running down. For example, as we know the sun will one day, burn itself out! The energy will dissipate. That means the sun had a "beginning."
 
OK, but then are you claiming that the Sun was also a result of Intelligent Design?  I believe that you are mis-reading the Laws of Thermodynamics, but I'm not sure how you are claiming consistency.  Isn't the continuance of life a violation of the laws?  How would 'evolution' be a violation of the the laws?  It seems that there are any number of theories that do not violate the laws of thermodynamics (or they all equally violate the laws).  I don't see how this favours Intelligent Design over any other theory.  Although it does admittedly not rule out Intelligent Design either.  It is simply neutral.
 
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Sixth, irreducible complexity exists. There are a number of Biochemical systems that are Irreducibly Complex. For example cilia that are used by organisms for movement is irreducibly complex, remove any part and the cilia cannot function.
 
OK, I will score some points for your argument here.  Evolution theory does have some difficulty in explaining the 'sudden' appearance of 'complex' structures that are not fully functional in 'transitional' phases.  However, the 'random sudden appearance' theory would equally explain this.  Another argument based on the lack of contradictory evidence.
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Seventh, the fossil record supports the theory of Intelligent Design as what we find is a lack of Transitional Forms in this Fossil Record. This admission is made by numerous Paleontologists. Here is a quotation to establish that fact, made earlier in this thread,
In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this idea. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
The theory of Intelligent Design would expect a lack of Transitional Fossils with little change in the Fossil Record. As we see the quotes of the above paleontologists, admit that transitional fossils are "virtually nonexistent in the fossil record." An Intelligent Design scientist would expect this in the FOSSIL RECORD. An Intelligent Design scientist would also expect to find "micro- evolutionary changes" in the Fossil Record as well. These of course are exactly the kind of changes that has been produced by humanity empirically, in selective breeding of dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigeons or guppies ect. Thus the condition of "stasis" in the Fossil Record supports the theory of Intelligent Design. As you can see, it is not necessary to establish support for the theory of Intelligent Design by using the the word Evolution. I can only think that it appears that way due to the direction that such discussions take. In addition deadkenny, let me conclude by pointing out that the theory of Intelligent Design is a better model then the theory of Evolution as it is in agreement with scientific laws and is therefore pro-science. 
 
Again, it seems that you are accepting some parts of evolution, just not the entire package.  Regarding the fossil record, I would say that Intelligent Design should say that there should exist no 'transitional' form at all, not a single one.  Why would there be any?  If intelligently designed, then all forms should be created just as they were intended to be.   So, I will leave it to those who support the Theory of Evolution to provide clear evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record that would contradict the Theory of Intelligent Design.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 07:20
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

Cuauhtemoc:
If Intelligent Design is a serious scientific theory, it should be able to answer some basic questions about its claims:

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

1) Who is the designer? You claim it exists, so what do you know about it? What does it look/sound/smell/feel/taste like?
Let me begin by defining the theory of Intelligent Design. The theory of Intelligent Design is the concept that the order and complexity seen in nature must be the result of a rational design. It is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. The existence of the Designer is obvious. Why? Obvious because of what has been created. That which is made, therefore is indicative of a Maker or Builder. For example, the house you live in, you don't look at your house and say it just happened! You know it was built by an "intelligent designer." What we have to remember Bernard, is that intelligent design is used in many academic areas. For example, when an archaeologist on a dig finds a rock shaped like a spear or arrow point, he concludes due to the unique shape, the footprints of intelligence and concludes, human intervention. Another example would be an anthropologist entering a cave and due to paintings, or formations that indicate division of tasks would conclude intelligent designers or a designer pointing to humanity lived or used the cave. As far as WHO is the designer, any names used by humanity are appropriate names for the Designer, therefore some may refer to gods, God, Allah, Yahweh, Wanka Tanka, ect. Intelligent Design is NOT specific to any creation story, whether it be American Indian, Hindu, ect. That is the difference between the theory of Intelligent Design and what is commonly called creationism. Who is the Designer? As pointed out earlier in this thread, something is Eternal, as something cannot come from nothing (note quotation from Thermodynamics later)! What is Eternal, Matter or Intelligence? Something is postulated to be Eternal. Is Matter Eternal or is an Intelligent Designer Eternal? Which is more logical for being Eternal, Matter or Intelligence? Of course an Intelligent Designer. Even better then that, which is in conformance with the established Scientific Law, that Life comes from Life? You know the answer to this one. As you can see the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this established law. Thus where did the Intelligent Designer come from? The Intelligent Designer, unlike Matter that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, is Eternal. What Scientific Law would exclude the "possibility" of an Intelligent Designer? None!
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

2) What exactly was designed? You seem to accept that "micro-evolution" happens, so have all species been gradually drifting away from the original design or are they constantly being tweaked to maintain the designer's vision? What evidence supports do you draw on? 
That which is designed is that which exists. Lets first define Micro-Evolution. Micro-Evolution are changes within kinds. For example, humanity has understood this principle for centuries, and through selective breeding has sped up Micro-Evolution and has produced many different kinds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigeons, guppies, ect. Thus everyone accepts Micro-Evolution for that is what is empirical and that is what is observed in the FOSSIL RECORD as well as in  living animals. Micro-Evolution resulted in the mistake of Charles Darwin who only observed Micro-Evolution and extrapolated and speculated beyond that which is empirical and came up with the theory of Evolution. Darwin observed Iguanas, but they were Iguanas, tortoises are tortoises, finches are finches ect. Darwin only observed MICRO-EVOLUTIONARY changes and nothing more!
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

3) When was life created? Was life created just once, at the beginning, and then allowed to evolve on its own, or did the designer plop new species down onto the Earth as time went on, deciding for some reason or another that the time was right to introduce them?
All Life, that is the Kinds, were created "in the Beginning." Science supports the idea of  a beginning, and this is a positive affirmation of what an Intelligent Design scientist expects. What in science supports a beginning, the theory of the Big Bang! For example, because of that theory, we know there was a "beginning." Because there was a beginning, we know that the sun, which had a beginning will someday "burn itself out!" Thus all Life that exists occurred in the Beginning on the earth.
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

4) How were organisms designed? Were they moulded out of clay? Were they made in a workshop and then brought to Earth, or built and activated in-situ? What evidence shows the method of their construction?
Organisms as stated above were created by an Intelligent Designer. We know that an Intelligent Designer was involved because of the complexity that we undeniably observe in creation. In the same way, the complexity is undeniable to an anthropologist who enters a cave and knows by the "clues" from the tools he finds in the cave, intelligence was involved that we call humanity!  Thus no workshop needed as that which is created and exists shows the Intelligent Designer's "invisible attributes" and "eternal power" in the same way you know your house was designed and built by intelligence, even though you never met the person who built it!
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

5) Why were organisms made the way they were? Why were so many imperfections, redundancies and inefficiencies built in to the genetic code? What reasons for this does ID posit, and what is the evidence behind them?
As a Christian, my answer will be from that perspective. If you were to ask a Muslim or a Hindu or a Native American, the answer would be different. As I mentioned earlier, any names designated by humanity would be appropriate to call the Intelligent Designer or Designers. Bernard, it is not that God made imperfections, redundancies or inefficiencies. You must not be aware of the reasons, at least from a Biblical perspective, and as a Christian as I mentioned, it will be from that perspective I will answer. The Bible gives an explanation and these things are a result of the "fall." Before the fall of man these problems did not exist. There was perfection, but as a result of the "fall," what you call imperfections, redundancies and inefficiencies were initiated. As you know religions believe in an "Intelligent Designer." Here is an example of a website in support of Intelligent Design by a Muslim. His name is Harun Yahya, here is a quotation from his website,
But research in the intervening 150 years has revealed a major error. Branches of science such as population genetics and comparative biology show that there is no evolutionary family tree as Darwinism maintained. On the contrary, genetic variations within any one species never exceed a specific limit.
As you can see, the theory of Intelligent Design is NOT religion specific. That is the key difference from Creationism.
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

The first is that you should think a little harder on the Asimov quote you keep repeating. Part of what necessitated the development of evolutionary theory in the first place was to explain the chaotic state of the natural world. Evolution affirms that ecosystems tend to become more complex and disorderly as time goes on. Nothing would be more orderly than if all life had remained a single species - or, for that matter, if all the universe was hydrogen.
It seems your upset about the use of the quote of Asimov. The fact of the matter, both Asimov and I agree that ALL changes are in the direction of disorder. Thus as you can see, Bernard, Asimov, would not agree with your statement above, as he did not say things become more complex and then disorderly as you do. Bernard, you directly contradict the Evolution Scientist, Asimov. So your not just disagreeing with me, but with the Evolutionist Asimov. Here is his quote again to clarify,
"As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, or running down" (Isaac Asimov.)
In addition you are in disagreement with the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The first law of thermodynamics suggests that we can't get something for nothing. We can apply the second law of thermodynamics to chemical reactions by noting that the entropy of a system is a state function that is directly proportional to the disorder of the system.
Did you notice that according to the Law of Thermodynamics, Something cannot come from Nothing?! Did you also notice like the Evolutionist Asimov and me the Laws of Thermodynamics state, that entropy and disorder are the direction in systems.
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

My second comment is a suggestion. You should learn the role that adverbs play in structuring English sentences.
I have no problem with adverbs. The point I made was in regards to the fact that the FOSSIL RECORD does not support the theory of Evolution. In fact as I pointed out, 3 of the theories of Evolution were proposed for that very reason, that is, a lack of TRANSITIONAL FORMS in the fossil record. I quoted from one of the authors of one of those theories (Punctuated Equilibrium) that used the word "virtually." Here it is,
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
I don't have to limit myself to this quote. If this quote bothers you so much, let me quote from another so called theory of Evolution, this time from Quantum Evolution,
The word "quantum" therefore refers to an "all-or-none reaction," where transitional forms are particularly unstable, and perished rapidly and completely.
Bernard, did you notice according to this theory of Evolution, TRANSITIONAL FORMS are particularly unstable, and perished rapidly and COMPLETELY?! As you can see, Bernard facts are facts, and 3 of the theories of Evolution were proposed because the fossil record, does not support the theory of Evolution. This can only bother those who embraced Evolution and who have been misled to believe the fossil record supports the theory of Evolution, when in FACT it does not.


Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 04-Jul-2008 at 09:56
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1366
  Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 16:11
Cuauhtemoc, as I said in an earlier post, using the bible to explain away the imperfections found in humans and nature is not a valid scientific response to the question. The Bible is a religion specific document that is not scientific in any way. The book is meant to be the tenets of the faith, not a scientific resource. It is these types of responses that cause people to not be able to separate Creationism and ID.

You have missed the point a number of times. If ID is in accordance with the laws of Biology, specifically the law that says life comes from life, then something had to imbue the Designer with life. This must be true since for the designer to give life, the designer must be alive. Moreover if the Designer is alive then something/somebody must have given life to the Designer and the Designer's Designer, and so forth. You explain this away as "something is postulated to be eternal" however that still implies that something is coming from nothing. This seemingly violates the life comes from life idea.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

That which is designed is that which exists. Lets first define Micro-Evolution. Micro-Evolution are changes within kinds. For example, humanity has understood this principle for centuries, and through selective breeding has sped up Micro-Evolution and has produced many different kinds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigeons, guppies, ect. Thus everyone accepts Micro-Evolution for that is what is empirical and that is what is observed in the FOSSIL RECORD as well as in living animals. Micro-Evolution resulted in the mistake of Charles Darwin who only observed Micro-Evolution and extrapolated and speculated beyond that which is empirical and came up with the theory of Evolution. Darwin observed Iguanas, but they were Iguanas, tortoises are tortoises, finches are finches ect. Darwin only observed MICRO-EVOLUTIONARY changes and nothing more!
So you accept that Evolution happens, or rather that certain types of evolution occur? Micro-Evolution is still Evolution it is what describes the difference(s) between two members of the same species. If you look at the biological classification of the dog you will see it belongs to the species lupus, when comparing a dog to a wolf (lupus) you will see many similarities the difference(s) come in size, power, and behavior. Although dogs and wolves can interbreed (and they do) dogs and wolves are different animals who are very closely related. If you go into the forest and see a pack of wolves you will not mistake them for a pack of dogs. Even if man did play a part in domesticating the wolf that is still evidence of evolution, which your statement above seems to agree with. You can have Micro-Evolution in a species that has undergone Macro-Evolution. What separates a finch from a hawk and a hawk from a condor and a condor from a humming bird? Are the differences in these birds all micro-evolutionary changes or are they macro-evolutionary changes? A hawk can never be confused with a finch, a condor with a hawk, and a humming-bird with a hawk.

When does the Earth begin? The simple fact of the matter is that Earth began millions of years before life appeared on it. Is the beginning the point when life appeared on Earth or when Earth was formed?
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 18:12
Originally posted by King John

Cuauhtemoc, as I said in an earlier post, using the bible to explain away the imperfections found in humans and nature is not a valid scientific response to the question. The Bible is a religion specific document that is not scientific in any way. The book is meant to be the tenets of the faith, not a scientific resource. It is these types of responses that cause people to not be able to separate Creationism and ID.
King John, it is amazing your making this statement. Do you understand a scientific point? I was asked a question why imperfections occur when an Intelligent Designer is the creator. Maybe you didn't understand the initial question. I will clarify it for you. The question implies, how can imperfections occur when the Intelligent Designer is "perfect." Maybe you don't understand this kind of question, but such an question requires a "philosophical" answer! No one would expect a scientific answer to this question, and that is why I stated before I answered, that it would depend upon the person's background religiously as what answer one would give. I made this very clear and it seems King John, you were unable to comprehend it. However, the Bible as you can see from the Christian perspective, has a very logical and legitimate answer that gives a reason for the existence of imperfections! If a religious person could not give an answer, then I can see that you would have a valid criticism. Maybe you need to ask a Hindu, an American Indian or a Muslim to discover, whether they can give an adequate answer to that type of a question. If a religious person cannot give a reasonable answer that makes sense even from their religious perspective, then you would have a legitimate point. However as a Christian, as you can see, such a question does not give me a problem. I am not answering this question to please you or anyone else. However, I can give an answer to that question that gives a reason for imperfections. Remember the point of the question, imperfections exist and the Intelligent Designer is perfect, so why are there imperfections at all. Christianity can give answer! You can see why I wonder if you understand the nature of the question.
Originally posted by King John

You have missed the point a number of times. If ID is in accordance with the laws of Biology, specifically the law that says life comes from life, then something had to imbue the Designer with life. This must be true since for the designer to give life, the designer must be alive. Moreover if the Designer is alive then something/somebody must have given life to the Designer and the Designer's Designer, and so forth. You explain this away as "something is postulated to be eternal" however that still implies that something is coming from nothing. This seemingly violates the life comes from life idea.
King John, it is not I who has missed the point. You may not like my answer but it is as legitimate as when I have offered it to you or anyone else before. You are the one puzzled with the obvious answer. So I will simplify it for you. We are here! We are Life! Thus in conformance to the "basic" Law of Biology, that Life comes from Life, only the theory of Intelligent Design can supply the "Pre-Existing Life" that is required for Life to Exist. You must think this creates a problem for me. In fact it enhances my position for we both know the theory of Evolution cannot supply a scientific or reasonable answer! Instead the theory of Evolution is ANTI-SCIENCE because it violates the fact that Life has never been shown to arise from "Dead Inanimate Matter." The idea that Life can arise from Dead Inanimate Matter, that is Spontaneous Generation was disproven by Louis Pasteur. I am glad when you bring this up, because over and over again, I will point out Evolution is Anti-Science, because in spite of the fact that there is not any Empirical evidence that Life arose from Dead Inanimate Matter, the theory of Evolution "tenaciously" continues to "believe" it MUST have happened! At least the theory of Intelligent Design is in conformance with the Bedrock Law of Biology that Life comes from Pre-Existing Life! In addition to further the point, as stated earlier in this thread, something is Eternal, as something cannot come from nothing, which is in conformance with the Laws of Thermodynamics, which I will post below. What is Eternal, Matter or Intelligence? Something is postulated to be Eternal. Is Matter Eternal or is an Intelligent Designer Eternal? Which is more logical for being Eternal, Matter or Intelligence? Of course an Intelligent Designer. Even better then that, which is in conformance with the established Scientific Law, that Life comes from Life? You know the answer to this one. As you can see the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this established law. Thus where did the Intelligent Designer come from? The Intelligent Designer, unlike Matter that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, is Eternal. What Scientific Law would exclude the "possibility" of an ETERNAL Intelligent Designer? None! In fact notice not only does the basic Law of Biology support the Intelligent Design, but so does the Law of Thermodynamics, this is from, http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/entropy.php
The first law of thermodynamics suggests that we can't get something for nothing.
Thus each time you or anyone else brings this up, I will have the opportunity to show the theory of Intelligent Design is pro-science and the theory of Evolution is Anti-Science! Thus you can see why something has to be Eternal! Matter cannot be Eternal, it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics! There is no scientific Law that excludes the possibility of an Eternal Intelligent Designer! This is simple and not a problem for me but for you as we can see or really a problem for the fallacious theory of Evolution.

Originally posted by King John

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

That which is designed is that which exists. Lets first define Micro-Evolution. Micro-Evolution are changes within kinds. For example, humanity has understood this principle for centuries, and through selective breeding has sped up Micro-Evolution and has produced many different kinds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigeons, guppies, ect. Thus everyone accepts Micro-Evolution for that is what is empirical and that is what is observed in the FOSSIL RECORD as well as in living animals. Micro-Evolution resulted in the mistake of Charles Darwin who only observed Micro-Evolution and extrapolated and speculated beyond that which is empirical and came up with the theory of Evolution. Darwin observed Iguanas, but they were Iguanas, tortoises are tortoises, finches are finches ect. Darwin only observed MICRO-EVOLUTIONARY changes and nothing more!

Originally posted by King John

So you accept that Evolution happens, or rather that certain types of evolution occur? Micro-Evolution is still Evolution it is what describes the difference(s) between two members of the same species. You can have Micro-Evolution in a species that has undergone Macro-Evolution. What separates a finch from a hawk and a hawk from a condor and a condor from a humming bird? Are the differences in these birds all micro-evolutionary changes or are they macro-evolutionary changes? A hawk can never be confused with a finch, a condor with a hawk, and a humming-bird with a hawk.
Hmmmm King John, you always dig yourself into a hole. Of course I accept Micro-Evolution! The theory of Evolution requires MACRO-EVOLUTION! I like you or anyone else accepts Micro-Evolution because it is EMPIRICAL, Micro-Evolution has been observed and no one questions it, in fact humanity has used this principle in selective breeding for centuries. However it has boundaries! Micro-Evolution CANNOT CREATE NEW GENETIC MATERIAL! It seems you do not understand what is required for the type of Evolution required for the theory of Evolution. MACRO-EVOLUTION requires NEW MATERIAL! All Micro-Evolution does is to allow, to shuffle what is already in the GENETIC material to occur. Macro-Evolution requires making NEW GENETIC MATERIAL and that has never happened!
Originally posted by King John

  If you look at the biological classification of the dog you will see it belongs to the species lupus, when comparing a dog to a wolf (lupus) you will see many similarities the difference(s) come in size, power, and behavior. Although dogs and wolves can interbreed (and they do) dogs and wolves are different animals who are very closely related. If you go into the forest and see a pack of wolves you will not mistake them for a pack of dogs. Even if man did play a part in domesticating the wolf that is still evidence of evolution, which your statement above seems to agree with.
King John, thank you! You seem to want to make my points for me! Yes wolves and dogs are CANIS LUPUS, and therefore are a "Kind," and as I have pointed out, this is MICRO-EVOLUTION! Thus the genetic material already present in the wolf resulted in the dog! There was NO NEW GENETIC material created! You simply do not understand the difference between Micro and Macro Evolution. You may not understand this, but you have established my point on Micro-Evolution. That is, the only kind of change that is empirical, that is observable, that is testable is Micro-Evolutionary changes! Wolves and dogs are an example of Micro-Evolution. Just like cows, cats, horses, pigeons, guppies ect. are examples of Micro-Evolution. Just like what Darwin observed, and from where he made his great mistake, because iguanas whether they are from Cuba or the Galapagos are still iguanas, tortoises are tortoises and finches are finches, ect., and all of course are examples of Micro-Evolution!



Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 05-Jul-2008 at 06:03
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154
  Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2008 at 20:21
My full response will have to wait until I return from a 2-week trip, but for now I'll just point out that I was not, in fact, looking for a philosophical answer. If you're claiming something is scientific, then you have to have a firm theory based on evidence. "You can find your own truth" is a nice sentiment, but in this context it's basically a cop out. If this is your way of saying nobody knows, then please share with us what research is being planned to find out more about the nature of the Designer and his or her design processes.
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 04:23
Bernard, no problem in waiting for your full response as I am off for the summer and will be in and out as well. The theory of Intelligent Design is a scientific theory on origins and is not religion specific. However, when you ask me, why do imperfections exist even though the Intelligent Designer is perfect, I naturally will give the answer supplied by the Intelligent Designer. Thus you are correct, when it comes to where imperfections result from, I will answer you from a Christian perspective, however that does not change the points regarding the theory of Intelligent Design which is not religious specific. I am a Christian and when you ask me a question that is "my truth" as you term it, I will not shy away from that. As I posted in my response to you, I gave you a Muslim Intelligent Design website. Thus the theory of Intelligent Design is embraced as you know by those that are religious, and as you can see with good reason. In your response, I hope you address my points in answering your questions, after all they are your questions. I hope you will address each of my answers and points to you, including the fact that the FOSSIL RECORD does not support the theory of Evolution as admitted by the authors of Neo-Darwinian Evolution theories, as I posted on page 14 in my response to Cezar. Of course, in awaiting your answer, I hope you will focus on the points I have made in my response to you. As a result, here are the points I hope you will address below your current quote.
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

My full response will have to wait until I return from a 2-week trip, but for now I'll just point out that I was not, in fact, looking for a philosophical answer. If you're claiming something is scientific, then you have to have a firm theory based on evidence. "You can find your own truth" is a nice sentiment, but in this context it's basically a cop out. If this is your way of saying nobody knows, then please share with us what research is being planned to find out more about the nature of the Designer and his or her design processes.
 
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

Cuauhtemoc:
If Intelligent Design is a serious scientific theory, it should be able to answer some basic questions about its claims:

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

1) Who is the designer? You claim it exists, so what do you know about it? What does it look/sound/smell/feel/taste like?
Let me begin by defining the theory of Intelligent Design. The theory of Intelligent Design is the concept that the order and complexity seen in nature must be the result of a rational design. It is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. The existence of the Designer is obvious. Why? Obvious because of what has been created. That which is made, therefore is indicative of a Maker or Builder. For example, the house you live in, you don't look at your house and say it just happened! You know it was built by an "intelligent designer." What we have to remember Bernard, is that intelligent design is used in many academic areas. For example, when an archaeologist on a dig finds a rock shaped like a spear or arrow point, he concludes due to the unique shape, the footprints of intelligence and concludes, human intervention. Another example would be an anthropologist entering a cave and due to paintings, or formations that indicate division of tasks would conclude intelligent designers or a designer pointing to humanity lived or used the cave. As far as WHO is the designer, any names used by humanity are appropriate names for the Designer, therefore some may refer to gods, God, Allah, Yahweh, Wanka Tanka, ect. Intelligent Design is NOT specific to any creation story, whether it be American Indian, Hindu, ect. That is the difference between the theory of Intelligent Design and what is commonly called creationism. Who is the Designer? As pointed out earlier in this thread, something is Eternal, as something cannot come from nothing (note quotation from Thermodynamics later)! What is Eternal, Matter or Intelligence? Something is postulated to be Eternal. Is Matter Eternal or is an Intelligent Designer Eternal? Which is more logical for being Eternal, Matter or Intelligence? Of course an Intelligent Designer. Even better then that, which is in conformance with the established Scientific Law, that Life comes from Life? You know the answer to this one. As you can see the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this established law. Thus where did the Intelligent Designer come from? The Intelligent Designer, unlike Matter that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, is Eternal. Matter in violating Thermodynamics cannot be eternal. What Scientific Law excludes the "possibility" of an ETERNAL Intelligent Designer? None!
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

2) What exactly was designed? You seem to accept that "micro-evolution" happens, so have all species been gradually drifting away from the original design or are they constantly being tweaked to maintain the designer's vision? What evidence supports do you draw on? 
That which is designed is that which exists. Lets first define Micro-Evolution. Micro-Evolution are changes within kinds. For example, humanity has understood this principle for centuries, and through selective breeding has sped up Micro-Evolution and has produced many different kinds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigeons, guppies, ect. Thus everyone accepts Micro-Evolution for that is what is empirical and that is what is observed in the FOSSIL RECORD as well as in  living animals. Micro-Evolution resulted in the mistake of Charles Darwin who only observed Micro-Evolution and extrapolated and speculated beyond that which is empirical and came up with the theory of Evolution. Darwin observed Iguanas, but they were Iguanas, tortoises are tortoises, finches are finches ect. Darwin only observed MICRO-EVOLUTIONARY changes and nothing more!
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

3) When was life created? Was life created just once, at the beginning, and then allowed to evolve on its own, or did the designer plop new species down onto the Earth as time went on, deciding for some reason or another that the time was right to introduce them?
All Life, that is the Kinds, were created "in the Beginning." Science supports the idea of  a beginning, and this is a positive affirmation of what an Intelligent Design scientist expects. What in science supports a beginning, the theory of the Big Bang! For example, because of that theory, we know there was a "beginning." Because there was a beginning, we know that the sun, which had a beginning will someday "burn itself out!" Thus all Life that exists occurred in the Beginning on the earth.
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

4) How were organisms designed? Were they moulded out of clay? Were they made in a workshop and then brought to Earth, or built and activated in-situ? What evidence shows the method of their construction?
Organisms as stated above were created by an Intelligent Designer. We know that an Intelligent Designer was involved because of the complexity that we undeniably observe in creation. In the same way, the complexity is undeniable to an anthropologist who enters a cave and knows by the "clues" from the tools he finds in the cave, intelligence was involved that we call humanity!  Thus no workshop needed as that which is created and exists shows the Intelligent Designer's "invisible attributes" and "eternal power" in the same way you know your house was designed and built by intelligence, even though you never met the person who built it!
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

5) Why were organisms made the way they were? Why were so many imperfections, redundancies and inefficiencies built in to the genetic code? What reasons for this does ID posit, and what is the evidence behind them?
As a Christian, my answer will be from that perspective. If you were to ask a Muslim or a Hindu or a Native American, the answer would be different. As I mentioned earlier, any names designated by humanity would be appropriate to call the Intelligent Designer or Designers. Bernard, it is not that God made imperfections, redundancies or inefficiencies. You must not be aware of the reasons, at least from a Biblical perspective, and as a Christian as I mentioned, it will be from that perspective I will answer. The Bible gives an explanation and these things are a result of the "fall." Before the fall of man these problems did not exist. There was perfection, but as a result of the "fall," what you call imperfections, redundancies and inefficiencies were initiated. As you know religions believe in an "Intelligent Designer." Here is an example of a website in support of Intelligent Design by a Muslim. He is Dr. Harun Yahya, here is a quotation from his website,
But research in the intervening 150 years has revealed a major error. Branches of science such as population genetics and comparative biology show that there is no evolutionary family tree as Darwinism maintained. On the contrary, genetic variations within any one species never exceed a specific limit.
As you can see, the theory of Intelligent Design is NOT religion specific. That is the key difference from Creationism.
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

The first is that you should think a little harder on the Asimov quote you keep repeating. Part of what necessitated the development of evolutionary theory in the first place was to explain the chaotic state of the natural world. Evolution affirms that ecosystems tend to become more complex and disorderly as time goes on. Nothing would be more orderly than if all life had remained a single species - or, for that matter, if all the universe was hydrogen.
It seems your upset about the use of the quote of Asimov. The fact of the matter, both Asimov and I agree that ALL changes are in the direction of disorder. Thus as you can see, Bernard, Asimov, would not agree with your statement above, as he did not say things become more complex and then disorderly as you do. Bernard, you directly contradict the Evolution Scientist, Asimov. So your not just disagreeing with me, but with the Evolutionist Asimov. Here is his quote again to clarify,
"As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, or running down" (Isaac Asimov.)
In addition you are in disagreement with the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The first law of thermodynamics suggests that we can't get something for nothing. We can apply the second law of thermodynamics to chemical reactions by noting that the entropy of a system is a state function that is directly proportional to the disorder of the system.
Did you notice that according to the Law of Thermodynamics, Something cannot come from Nothing?! Did you also notice like the Evolutionist Asimov and me the Laws of Thermodynamics state, that entropy and disorder are the direction in systems.
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

My second comment is a suggestion. You should learn the role that adverbs play in structuring English sentences.
I have no problem with adverbs. The point I made was in regards to the fact that the FOSSIL RECORD does not support the theory of Evolution. In fact as I pointed out, 3 of the theories of Evolution were proposed for that very reason, that is, a lack of TRANSITIONAL FORMS in the fossil record. I quoted from one of the authors of one of those theories (Punctuated Equilibrium) that used the word "virtually." Here it is,
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
Bernard, you seem to want to focus on the word "virtually" but you ignore that these Evolutionists stated that STASIS DOMINATES the HISTORY of most FOSSIL SPECIES! However, I don't have to limit myself to this quote. If this quote bothers you so much, let me quote from another so called theory of Evolution to clarify my point, this time from Quantum Evolution,
The word "quantum" therefore refers to an "all-or-none reaction," where transitional forms are particularly unstable, and perished rapidly and completely.
Bernard, did you notice according to this theory of Evolution, TRANSITIONAL FORMS are particularly unstable, and perished rapidly and COMPLETELY?! Don't miss the point, TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL FORMS PERISHED RAPIDLY and COMPLETELY, the conclusion, no fossil support for EVOLUTION! As you can see, Bernard facts are facts, and 3 of the theories of Evolution were proposed because the fossil record, does not support the theory of Evolution. This can only bother those who embraced Evolution and who have been misled to believe the fossil record supports the theory of Evolution, when in FACT the Fossil Record does not.



Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 05-Jul-2008 at 06:29
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 07:05
You say there is a ID. If this ID is intelligent, he needs something like a brain. If he designs or creates he needs something like arms. If he has something like a brain or arms he's a person and persons are materia, is life. Life comes from life you said. So god has to come from somewhat. If we argue that a god is not materia, not life but just god, besides all laws and understanding, he doesn't need a brain or arms or anything else to think, to work and so on. But than everything, every emotions are consequences of life, even thinking and intelligence. So god would be far away from intelligence and designing. You say god is beyond all laws. But you describe him as a normal person. A god who loves and hates, who creates and kill or murder, a man who's making a kid with a human being, a person that is doing witchcraft. If god is far beyond all laws, he is for sure far beyond of all that.
I don't know if something like a god exists, I don't need a god. I said it above, why a god can't be evolution. Why he has to create something like a designer? The god of the bible is a fake. There is no god, even God and he doesn't have prophets.
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 09:07
Beorna, I am surprised, as you have stated that you were going to answer the post that I made in response to you, and that you were going to answer the ideas I presented. Instead, when you have an opportunity to post, you post above a rant without responding to me as you promised. You stated the reason I had to await your response, was because you were occupied with the European Soccer Championship. I of course understand that, however you did say you would answer the ideas in the post I made to you, and this you have not done.
Originally posted by beorna

Please forgive me, Cuauhtemoc, I am very busy in the moment and then it's European Championship, too. Adeus Portugal! I'll answer you and your ideas, but give me just some more days.
However, instead answering the post you refer to, you post what is essentially a rant regarding your unbelief in God. However, in my response, I dealt with the reason denying the existence of an Intelligent Designer, or suggesting that man created an Intelligent Designer does not make sense. Please answer my "ideas" as you put it, that I presented as you said you would. So my question is why would you simply post a rant and not answer my post as you said you would? Naturally, I expect you to respond to me when you tell me you will. However the way you responded, appears to be hit and run tactics. I have always answered you, my friend beorna. As a result, I will repost the post you promised to answer, and I have highlighted so you will address those points. I hope you will focus and give me answers to my ideas, as you stated above.  Here it is,
Originally posted by beorna

If we look back some hundred years ago, scientist couldn't explain the stars and planets. Does that mean Astronomy is no science. If Evolutionists can't explain the origin of life, perhaps we just have to wait some time?
The difference with what your attempting to draw a parrelel, Astronomy and the origin of Life, is that Astronomy is based on empirical evidence as a result of observation. However, when it comes beorna to the origin of life, there is no possible observation as Life has not been observed to arise from "dead inanimate matter." In fact Louis Pasteur is given credit for proving that Life cannot arise from dead inanimate matter. In spite of the fact that there is no empirical evidence, whether it be observation or experimentation to support the idea that life arose from dead inanimate matter, Evolutionist desperately and "tenaciously," in spite of the empirical evidence, has to hope and speculate, that Life must have arose from dead inanimate matter. You may not realize it beorna, your exhibiting BLIND FAITH in the theory of Evolution. It is the kind of Blind Faith that is associated with a religious person that blindly follows their religious faith. Your position as you stated is no different! Your exhibiting "blind faith" in the theory of Evolution, even though you have no scientific evidence that Life arose from DEAD INANIMATE MATTER.
Originally posted by beorna

Evolution exists, it exists every day.
Do you mean the theory of Evolution exists? Again this is a statement of faith. The type of change we see in nature is the same kind of change that humanity has used for centuries! Humanity has used selective breeding to produce Micro-Evolutionary changes! This is change within kinds, that is why there are many types of dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigeons, guppies ect. That was the great mistake of Charles Darwin, he saw Micro-Evolutionary changes and extrapulated and speculated and came up with the theory of Evolution. Thus the theory of Evolution in the first place is a theory of FAITH, without any Empirical Evidence at all! Beorna, Darwin observed Iguanas but they were Iguanas, tortoises are tortoises, finches are finches ect. Darwin only observed MICRO-EVOLUTIONARY changes and nothing more!
Originally posted by beorna

Perhaps some parts of the Evolutionism theory aren't right, perhaps Hyracotherium stands not in a direct row with the later equus, perhaps proboscidea did not originate from Asian or American condylarthra but from Afritheria or whatever, but they evolved. I told you before, evolutionism just wants to describe how process works, it doesn't want to explain God.
Finally a second admission, Evolution could be wrong. beorna, your statement is Blind Faith again, perhaps, it is not right? In fact your statements are a direct contradiction of an Evolutionist who clearly stated that horse evolution as your representing it in your quote above did not happen! Here is the quote,
"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."—*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.[quote] By the way Beorna, Simpson proposed one of the 3 Neo-Darwinian theories that has support today and was proposed due to the fact the FOSSIL RECORD does not support Evolution. Here is a second quote beorna, to make this point clear, by the same EMINENT Evolutionist, [QUOTE]"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
Beorna, do you want to continue to disagree with Eminent Evolutionists like George G. Simpson? Do you think that enhances your credibility?
Originally posted by beorna

By the way if it is an Intelligent design. Why God made so many mistakes? Why do species, even families or orders extinct? Why are deformed kids are born? What's intelligent?
beorna it is not that God made mistakes. You must not be aware of the reasons, at least from a Biblical perspective, why we age, why we eventually will die, why there are deformities, and why there are extinctions or many other problems we face. The Bible gives an explanation and these things are a result of the "fall." Before the fall of man these problems did not exist. Yes no death ect! Thus your observation was not as the Intelligent Designer created the universe, but were a result of FREE WILL that resulted in disobedience! I am glad has given humanity Free Will. Are you not glad too? That is why you have a choice to accept His existence or not. Thus you can see that a legitimate explanation is given for the "imperfections" that exists in the world and you thought were problems. Most people are aware of the fall that resulted because of Free Will. Would you prefer that the Intelligent Designer would have created robots, beorna?
Originally posted by beorna

ID doesn't go on a line with science, it's not at all pro-science. It's pseudo-(pro)-science. It pretends to stand in a row with physics, astronomy and all the others, but that's not true ID use this to undermine science. ID is no answer for the question how life started.
Beorna, the theory of Intelligent Design alone can answer how Life started. The Law of Causality states that every effect has a cause, what better First Cause then an Intelligent Designer! You can disagree with a scientific law, but that would be your problem beorna. Should we discard this law because beorna does not like it? As I have pointed out, what is Eternal, Matter or Intelligence? Thus the the Law of Casuality supports the theory of Intelligent Design as it alone can supply a First Cause that conforms to that law, an Eternal Intelligent.
Originally posted by beorna

The so-called evolutionists you mentioned who are against evolution are a joke.  I didn't red them. But I am going to search for some more informations about them, but especially Simpson and Kirkut are not very recent. I think the science EVOLVED since the early 60th.
beorna, this is quite odd. You did not read the Evolutionists I quoted? Why? Is it, don't confuse you, with the FACTS? The Evolutionists I quoted are not against Evolution! They are honest enough to admit that the representation of HORSE EVOLUTION did not happen! They are Evolutionists, that is clear. Interesting you say the what Simpson and Kerkut was not recent? Are you aware of the 4 theories of Evolution? beorna, 3 of the 4 theories of Evolution were presented in the 60s and 70s. Beorna, have the 3 theories of Punctuated Equilibrium, Quantum Evolution and Punctuated Gradualism been rejected because they TOO OLD? NO! These are major theories of Evolution that are popular and have great support today. In fact these theories of Evolution are called, Neo-Darwinism, and they are considered NEW theories of Evolution because the FOSSIL RECORD did not support the theory of Evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin. In fact Dr. Gaylord Simpson, whose quote you say is old is the one that proposed QUANTUM EVOLUTION! Has Quantum Evolution, been rejected today because it was too OLD? NO! These 4 theories of Evolution were posted earlier in this thread, and when I responded to the post, I clearly showed how these 4 theories of Evolution, contradict each other!
 
Originally posted by beorna

At least you asked, can a computer programmate itself? No of course not, not now (I think so, I am no computer specialist). But life is no computer. Life had so much time to evolve, our solar system is some billion years old, the first life just some hundred millions or around one billion. The universe is much older.
Beorna, you got it right LIFE is no COMPUTER! Life is far more complex then a computer! I agree with you. Its REDICULOUS that a COMPUTER can program its prompts itself! Then you have a LEAP of FAITH, Life which is far more complex then a computer arose because LIFE had HUNDREDS of MILLIONS and a BILLION YEARS? Note how RIDICULOUS that is! So your saying beorna, that a COMPUTER could PROGRAM its PROMPTS if it had HUNDREDS of MILLIONS and a BILLION YEARS? You can see that what your saying FALLS APART! Surely you have a religious type faith in the theory of Evolution.
Originally posted by beorna

We even know where life originated. Is it extraterrestrial or did it evolve on earth?
Are you serious. Hmmmmmm, we KNOW where LIFE originated? First you have to prove that LIFE arose from DEAD INANIMATE MATTER, before you say it originated on a DEAD EARTH or a DEAD UNIVERSE! You can see beorna, you are not making any sense at all.
 
Originally posted by beorna

(How is it said: We're looking for intelligent life in universe but havn't found it yet on earth)
Yes I quite agree with you, it is a waste of money. Money, better spent somewhere else.
Originally posted by beorna

Not God created men, men created God. If God comforts people, if he makes people better men, than it's good.
beorna, men created God? Notice how ILLOGICAL you are being as you have been in your post. Why would Man create a God whose standards Man does not Like or want to OBEY? Why would man invent a God that sets STANDARDS that man does not LIKE? For example, God says SEX outside of MARRIAGE is WRONG! So your saying MAN invented a GOD who made RULES that MAN HATES? Beorna, you see, LOGICALLY, Man DID NOT make up GOD because that is entirely ILLOGICAL. The facts are, GOD created MAN.
Originally posted by beorna

But God gave us a brain, so we should use it. If the belief in God awaits that we have to stay in ignorance and bigottery then believing is not the way I wanna go.
Beorna, you got that right! Yes God gave us a brain (now your saying, there is a GOD?) and free will, and all can exercise it as you have and will, but according to Bible all will give an account to Him. It seems the choice you have made, is a ignorant one, even unwilling to examine the evidence (even to read evolutionists who frankly admit the problems, for example in the horse evolution sequence, isn't that ignorant), and instead, base your BELIEF on Evolution solely on your emotions, beorna. You have to admit you have BLIND FAITH in Evolution and nothing more. Bigotry seems to be the attitude your exemplifying against the theory of Intelligent Design, even unwilling to examine evidence! Thankfully, we all have a choice beorna.


Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 07-Jul-2008 at 10:30
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 11:00
Originally posted by beorna

The four theories of evolution seem to be contadictory. Yes, that's right. But they do not stand side by side since Darwin. They differ in the time of its origin. I don't see them as contradictory as you do. Well, if you look at the parts where they are different you're right. But I think these theories have different points of view.  The punctuated equilibrium says that there is a stasis that is sometimes punctuated by a rapid change. Phyletic gradualism says that there is a slowly change. The Quantum evolution or Neodarwinism is based on Darwin. The punctuated gradualism or macroevolution doen't differ too. It just differs in time and scale.
What can we observe in nature? If we go down to DNA. It is copied day by day. And every copy makes mistakes. The most of it are not important. But some kill, some make sick and some give the owner an advantage. But it is not necessary that this advantage is given to the next generation. Sometimes a change of the system a living subject is connected with, give these advantage a big kick which can lead to a rapid change. But what's rapid. We speak of thousands of years in minimum. You say there is no missing link between species recorded. I can't see this. There are dinosaurs who look like birds concerning to their skeleton. There are dinosaurs with feathers, there are very small dinosaurs as light as birds and very heavy birds. There are birds with fingers and with teeth. Why do some birds cannot fly but have little wings? Why do pinguins have feathers? Why there is no missing link? It's the same with horses. During warmer and humid periods the horses have teeth for the leave-food. When it became drier ther dentition changed. In the open savannah we can see the reduction of the toes. No missing link?
So we can say that Quantum evolution and phyletic gradualism are the base of all evolution. Punctuated Equilibrium and Punctuated gradualism are just different kinds of views. They appear often, because the world is changing often, the sun is running through the space and crosses different regions, the earth is running around the sun but there are great differences during the times, the continents are changing and the climate and even living species can have an influence on the world's face. That leads to rapid changes. So if you try to connect all these four theories you can see that they give evidence for evolution and do not show that the world has been created by an ID.
 
By the way, I have to say something to your Adam and Eve theory. The genetic Adam or Eve doesn't mean that all human beings descent from those girl or boy, that they were the first human beings. There could have been thousands of generations before them. All it says is that genetic Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all living humans today. All other branches extinct. That's why genetic Adam and Eve didn't live at the same time. By the way. I thought ID is scientific and not religion and you are a supporter of it? What's now with the biblical Adam and Eve? So ID is based on the bible? Perhaps you should show first that it was Jahwe who created the world, the ID. Why it was not the cow Audhumbla that licked a giant out of the ice? Why not Ginnungagap and Ymir?
 
I hope I satisfied you with my response. If not I'll answer you the questions I missed.
Isn't that the answer you wanted?
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 12:20
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

You may not realize it beorna, your exhibiting BLIND FAITH in the theory of Evolution. It is the kind of Blind Faith that is associated with a religious person that blindly follows their religious faith. Your position as you stated is no different! Your exhibiting "blind faith" in the theory of Evolution, even though you have no scientific evidence that Life arose from DEAD INANIMATE MATTER.
If you show me a better answer I am with you. But your ID-tales aren't.
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

That was the great mistake of Charles Darwin, he saw Micro-Evolutionary changes and extrapulated and speculated and came up with the theory of Evolution. Thus the theory of Evolution in the first place is a theory of FAITH, without any Empirical Evidence at all! Beorna, Darwin observed Iguanas but they were Iguanas, tortoises are tortoises, finches are finches ect. Darwin only observed MICRO-EVOLUTIONARY changes and nothing more!
So God allows micro-evolution, but all life is from god? I ask again, why Evolution isn't God or God evolution? Why God wasn`t the BIG BANG or the BIG BANG God? You know who God is. It's the God of the bible. And where do you know this? Is God speaking to you? Perhaps he's speaking with me?
 
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."
I can't read a word that states that there was no horse evolution. It just says "far from monophyletic", nothing more.
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

  Beorna, do you want to continue to disagree with Eminent Evolutionists like George G. Simpson?
If I know completely what he thinks about horse evolution I can tell you more. But as far as now I just know what you quoted. I studied History and Geography but I unfortunately don't work in that way. If there's a Eminent Historian who is wrong, you can be sure I would disagree with him. I am more careful in Palaeontology because I am just an non-professional, but if one eminent scientist is wrong I would disagree as well. For example Gorilla, Orang and Pan are put into one family beside men. You can open every book and you can read it like this. I don't agree with this, because pan and homo are the closest relatives. So probably Orang is the asian family and gorilla, pan and homo are ONE african family. But perhaps we have three families, Orang, Gorilla and the family of pan and homo.
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

beorna it is not that God made mistakes. You must not be aware of the reasons, at least from a Biblical perspective, why we age, why we eventually will die, why there are deformities, and why there are extinctions or many other problems we face. The Bible gives an explanation and these things are a result of the "fall." Before the fall of man these problems did not exist. Yes no death ect! Thus your observation was not as the Intelligent Designer created the universe, but were a result of FREE WILL that resulted in disobedience! I am glad has given humanity Free Will. Are you not glad too? That is why you have a choice to accept His existence or not. Thus you can see that a legitimate explanation is given for the "imperfections" that exists in the world and you thought were problems. Most people are aware of the fall that resulted because of Free Will. Would you prefer that the Intelligent Designer would have created robots, beorna? 
Fall? Is that your science? A indian chief once said: We are all living in different countries, in different ways. Why the great spirit can't have given us different religions? How can I fall in the eyes of God? Do I fall if I am not following the Thora, the Koran, the bible, the Edda, if I don't clap my hands in front of Buddha and the Shinto gods? What do you mean with fall? The deluge, Adam and Eve's expulsion from paradsise? IS THIS YOUR NON_BIBLIC, NON-RELIGIOUS SCIENCE?
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

The Law of Causality states that every effect has a cause, what better First Cause then an Intelligent Designer! You can disagree with a scientific law, but that would be your problem beorna. Should we discard this law because beorna does not like it? 
You and your use of scientific laws. You use them if you need them, but otherwise .... Where are your scientific laws at Jericho, at the Red Sea, at the wedding of Kanaan and on, and on, and on?
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

  beorna, this is quite odd. You did not read the Evolutionists I quoted? Why? Is it, don't confuse you, with the FACTS?
I can't read every book on earth. The next library is 50 miles away and it doesn't have all books. It has nothing to do with facts that could confuse me. I love facts. I prove me and my thoughts every moment and I am open for everything new that is better than what I did, knew or believed before.
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

First you have to prove that LIFE arose from DEAD INANIMATE MATTER, before you say it originated on a DEAD EARTH or a DEAD UNIVERSE! You can see beorna, you are not making any sense at all.
 This is nonsense. You're right. I cannot say if and why and how life originated from dead inanimate matter. But evolution theory doesn't stand or fall with this point. You are putting blind belief against science and I am convinced if you had the power you would expell all non-biblical ideas from our life. We are not the ones who have to show how life begun. You have to show us first that God exists! If you have shown me this, than I will think about ID as a different possibility.
 
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Beorna, .....now your saying, there is a GOD? and free will, and all can exercise it as you have and will, but according to Bible all will give an account to Him. It seems the choice you have made, is a ignorant one, even unwilling to examine the evidence (even to read evolutionists who frankly admit the problems, for example in the horse evolution sequence, isn't that ignorant), and instead, base your BELIEF on Evolution solely on your emotions, beorna. You have to admit you have BLIND FAITH in Evolution and nothing more. Bigotry seems to be the attitude your exemplifying against the theory of Intelligent Design, even unwilling to examine evidence! Thankfully, we all have a choice beorna.
I just wanted to say, that if there would be a god, he had given us a brain. So let's use it.
I don't know if there is a god, perhaps, I said it before. But the God of the bible and all the others, for sure, don't exist.
I am a very peaceful and handsome man, believe it or not. I said it above some time ago. All free men are in war with fundamentalist ideas. Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, Creationism and ID and all the others. They are threatening our "FREE" will. You are speaking about free will, about good and wrong. Your free will would end quite soon if we don't follow those self-nominated prophets. Look at your Bush. God is speaking to him and he's telling him what is good and evil and who is good and evil. I do belief he is (a bit) crazy. During the war on our belts there stood "God with us". As you know we didn't win. So God was to weak, perhaps he was on your side, perhaps he stood aside or perhaps he is caring a shit about us or even doesn't exist anywhere else than in our minds. I tell you something. I do not believe in any of those self-nominated prophets, all they want is power and our money. If god exists he can speak with me directly if he wants something from me. But he didn't. If you are talking with him, please tell him he can be my guest. I would be glad to meet him.
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 14:28
Beorna, thank you for attempting to answer the post you said you would answer. I will answer you as soon as I can. At this point, lets allow the readers to read the last post of mine, the last one above your last 2 posts. I had to repost it before you answered it, but I am glad you did. At this point I am satisfied for the moment to let the readers read and see  if you dealt with my points or selectively ignored them. I assure you, my friend beorna, I will answer both of your posts above this one.

Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 07-Jul-2008 at 14:36
Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 17:36
Red clay, this is the second article you posted in our thread, and this is my analysis of the article. I will also point out, as with the last article, the use of the word "may," as this is also prominent in this article as well. I will also point out how the "Cambrian Explosion" is a problem for the theory of Evolution, as this is admitted by the article. I will also point out that the Cambrian Explosion is what would be expected by the theory of Intelligent Design.
Originally posted by red clay

Animal Interaction Behind Cambrian Explosion? 'Missing' Ancestors Of Today's Animals May Not Be Missing After All
Red clay, notice again, the title of this article as with the previous article includes the word MAY. This means what we are talking about as with the previous article, is no more then mere speculation. The conclusions regarding this issue are NOT based on empirical results, that is from observation or experimentation.
Originally posted by red clay

ScienceDaily (May 8, 2008) — An event as simple as the world’s first bite may have sparked an ancient “explosion” of life 500 million years ago that led to the rise of the broad groups of animals that are still alive today.
Red clay as with the previous article, note the word, "may." The word "may" defined; is used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: as an example, It may rain this afternoon. Notice in the quote above, that there are "broad groups of animals that are still alive today" came into being during the Cambrian Explosion. This what is expected by Intelligent Design Scientists.

Originally posted by red clay

The cause of what is known as the “Cambrian Explosion” — which occurred during the Cambrian Period 542 million to 490 million years ago — has puzzled scientists for years. Theories about the event’s cause include an increase in the amount of atmospheric oxygen, a recovery from a global glaciation, and key genetic changes in precursor animals that allowed the development of bilateral symmetry, hard shells and bones, and rapid locomotion.
This article proves too much that is in reality contrary to the theory of Evolution, because complex features have developed so early in geological history. The article admits that the "CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION" has "puzzled" Evolutionists! However, the the Cambrian Explosion is exactly what an Intelligent Design Scientist expects to find, complex structures without transitional forms. Why was this a puzzle to Evolutionists? Because so early in Geological History, complex structures like bilateral symmetry, hard shells and bones, and rapid locomotion as well as all Modern Phyla was in existence in this first stage.

Originally posted by red clay

Harvard Professor of Biology and of Geology Charles Marshall presented his alternate theory Tuesday (April 29), suggesting that it was an increase in interactions between species, such as predation, that drove an escalating evolutionary process that led to the development of teeth and claws and the wide variety of characteristics that we see among Earth’s animals today.
This is a "suggestion" and thus these are not empirical conclusions, that are based on observation or experimentation. This is an alternate theory to others that already exist.

Originally posted by red clay

The Cambrian Explosion was unique, Marshall said, because, though there have been mass extinctions — such as that of the dinosaurs — and recoveries since, there has never been another event as sweeping as that which occurred in the Cambrian seas 500 million years ago. It was during that time when all the modern phyla of animals first arose. Phyla are major classifications of life that include broad groups of creatures. The phylum Chordata, for example, includes all vertebrates, such as mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds.
Notice the Cambrian Explosion was unique! Why? Since that time there has been "mass extinctions!" This is exactly what a Intelligent Design Scientist would expect. Why? Because the theory of Intelligent Design would postulate that there was a "Beginning," and from the beginning there would be an abundance of life, and from that abundance of life, there would be resulting extinctions, and that has been exactly what has happened throughout history. In addition, did you notice that ALL the MODERN PHYLA of ANIMALS arose during this FIRST geological period? This is exactly what the Intelligent Design Scientist would expect to find.

Originally posted by red clay

Marshall, who spoke in the Geological Lecture Hall Tuesday evening as part of the Harvard Museum of Natural History’s annual lecture series, started off his talk by disputing whether the event commonly termed an “explosion” was rapid enough to earn that moniker. The rise of modern animal groups happened over millions of years. Only looking back over 500 million years of history could the expansion of life that occurred be termed an “explosion,” Marshall said.
Many people as you know red clay do not realize this is a "puzzle" for Evolutionists, and apparently students are not informed in their educational classes, even at the University level that the "Cambrian Explosion" is a problem! Red clay, would it not be nice, and right for us to be informed in our Universities that such complex structures existed in the Cambrian period, and are a problem so early in Geological Earth History for the theory of Evolution?  Dr. Marshall is simply disputing other possible ideas or speculations.

Originally posted by red clay

Prior to the Cambrian Explosion, life on land was unknown and life in the sea was made up of soft-bodied multicellular creatures that strained food from the seawater around them or fed on mats of bacteria on the ocean floor. Though these animals virtually disappeared at the beginning of the Cambrian, the ancestors of the new modern phyla that replaced them haven’t been found.
Notice, before the development of all modern phyla, all that existed were SOFT BODIED CREATURES! No Transitional Forms. Thus what we have in the so called Cambrian Explosion are extremely COMPLEX FEATURES in the FIRST GEOLOGICAL STAGE, without any MISSING LINKS in the Fossil Record that appeared ABRUPTLY! All reading this thread, know that is exactly what is expected by the theory of Intelligent Design.
Originally posted by red clay

Marshall reviewed other theories explaining the explosion and said that though each of them has merit — an increase in atmospheric oxygen, for example, would be needed to fuel more active lifestyles — each also falls short in some way.
Notice the other theories that Dr. Marshall's theory is competing with also have merit. His theory is not the absolute answer for the so called development of COMPLEX FEATURES, and all the MODERN PHYLA, that exists in TODAYS world that was in existence in this very FIRST STAGE of GEOLOGICAL HISTORY. Again, this would be expected by an Intelligent Design Scientist, abrupt appearances of these complex structures and continued existence of  created organisms in existence today, that came into existence in the "beginning."

Originally posted by red clay

As Marshall pondered alternatives, he began to think that it was possible that the creatures in the pre-Cambrian seas during the Ediacaran Period didn’t entirely disappear. Though they were very different from what followed, they may have been genetically complex enough to hold the genetic seeds of the explosion.
Red clay again, the word MAY is prominent in this article as it was with the previous article. Note the Pre-Cambrian period was teaming with Life! Where are the transitional forms before this Pre-Cambrian period, and the TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS that led to the Cambrian Explosions? There are NONE, just as the Intelligent Design Scientist would expect. Dr. Marshall is simply pondering alternatives and even uses the phrase explosion to describe this period himself.

Originally posted by red clay


“It’s not new genes that create new morphological innovation, but rather the way they’re wired together,” Marshall said. “[Different-looking creatures] are not apples and oranges.”
Wow, this is amazing! This is exactly what is expected by an Intelligent Design Scientist, the GENETIC CODE does not create NEW GENES, or information! This supports MICRO-EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. New genetic material is not created but simply a reshuffling of DNA that results in different types of for example, the dog "KIND." Genetic studies are confirming what is expected by the theory of Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by red clay

If the precursors to the creatures that arose during the Cambrian Period were swimming in the Ediacaran seas, something had to spark the dramatic change.
It is impossible that there were Transitional Links as the precursors to the extremely complex structures of the CAMBRIAN PERIOD EXPLOSIONS. The reason for that is the precursors were apparently soft bodies creatures, and therefore NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS prior to the extremely complex structures found in the Cambrian period. This is exactly what is expected by the Intelligent Design scientists, that is, no Transitional forms.

Originally posted by red clay

Marshall said that computer modeling of the forms that plants would take under different environmental conditions provided a clue. The models showed that widely divergent plants can result from a simple ancestor whose descendants are subjected to different environmental conditions. The model started with a simple primitive plant form and applied six basic genetic rules. It then added four selective pressures to drive evolutionary change — reproductive success, mechanical stability, light interception, and minimized surface area. The model produced 20 widely different body types. When researchers checked the fossil record, they found all types represented.
Note this is a computer model. This is not empirical evidence based on observation and experimentation.

Originally posted by red clay

Applying that lesson to animals, Marshall began to search for an environmental force that might have driven such dramatic change in the fleshy animals that populated the oceans before the Cambrian began. Marshall realized that those creatures had no organs of interaction — no eyes, no antennae, no jaws or claws — and began to think that the new force on the scene was the ability of animals to interact with each other.
Whatever happened was dramatic, for the complexities of all modern phyla to be present in the CAMBRIAN age. Remember it has to be the SOFT BODIED creatures that are supposedly the "precursor animals," that allowed the development of bilateral symmetry, hard shells and bones, and rapid locomotion" as stated in a previous paragraph above. Dramatic? The Intelligent Designer? Legitimate responses as we can see.

Originally posted by red clay

“Ediacarans were not interacting with each other as animals do today,” Marshall said. “I think what drove the Cambrian Explosion was ecological interactions.”
Very interesting thought, however can anyone be sure the animals did not interact as they do today? After all these are soft bodied creatures we are talking about that did not leave any forms in the fossil record.

Originally posted by red clay

The other factors that have been cited as playing a role in the Cambrian Explosion very well may have had a hand, Marshall said, but they made the conditions ripe for the change driven by interactions among animals. Just what the trigger was that sparked those changing interactions, Marshall didn’t know, but, in a world populated by what he described as fleshy “beefsteaks” lying on the ocean floor, it may have been something as simple as the evolution of jaws with toothlike projections that allowed the world’s first painful bite.
Red clay, note the words as this article concludes its discussion on the Cambrian Explosion, "MAY," so we are only talking about possibilities! Marshall admits, that he does not KNOW, what triggered the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, however he closes the article with more SPECULATION.

Originally posted by red clay

“I believe … the explosion was driven by the onset of adult-adult interactions,” Marshall said. “Maybe the evolution of jaws or a large enough gut, or the evolution of something like chitin so they could bite rather than just giving a nasty suck.”
Notice the phrase "I believe," as this indicates it is a "belief or faith" in what supposedly happened. We need to read everything with a critical eye, and not simply accept what is presented to us. Many have been misled to believe the FOSSIL RECORD supports the the theory of Evolution in our educational systems, but as this thread has shown in discussing the 4 theories of Evolution, this is not the case. In the case of this article, I am glad this information was posted in this thread, in order that we all can see how much speculation is involved with the theory of Evolution.


Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 08-Jul-2008 at 16:48
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2008 at 10:35

Cuauhtemoc, the more you write, the more you show that you don’t know what science is. You cling to your personal interpretations of physics, biology, chemistry and mix them with arguments from the Bible. You are obviously unaware of what science is and you keep on presenting the idea of ID as being a scientific theory.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Let me begin by defining the theory of Intelligent Design. The theory of Intelligent Design is the concept that the order and complexity seen in nature must be the result of a rational design. It is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence.
Up to this point, there’s nothing too bad about ID. What comes next is pathetic.

The existence of the Designer is obvious. Why? Obvious because of what has been created. That which is made, therefore is indicative of a Maker or Builder.
Unless you know nothing about science, you should know that obviousness is not a scientific argument. Let me give you some examples of obvious things that are false:

The Sun obviously moves across the sky.

The Earth is obviously still.

The light is obviously traveling instantaneous.

You bring up creation as an argument for the existence of the Designer. That’s nice, only you didn’t mention creation earlier. You argument is not about complexity and order now, it’s just: if something exists then it must have been created. That’s the point when usually you start the mumbo-jumbo about causality and thermodynamics. But let’s deal with that later.

For example, the house you live in, you don't look at your house and say it just happened! You know it was built by an "intelligent designer." What we have to remember Bernard, is that intelligent design is used in many academic areas. For example, when an archaeologist on a dig finds a rock shaped like a spear or arrow point, he concludes due to the unique shape, the footprints of intelligence and concludes, human intervention. Another example would be an anthropologist entering a cave and due to paintings, or formations that indicate division of tasks would conclude intelligent designers or a designer pointing to humanity lived or used the cave.

The point about your whole intelligent design is that you forget to define intelligence. Nevermind, let’s think about the archaeologist. I have a friend who is one and if you think that when finding an odd shaped piece of flint the first thing she does is to declare it was man made you are very wrong. The first thing and archaeologist does is to rule out the possibility that that piece of stone is the result of a natural process. In looking for ancient artifacts, artificiality is searched, not “intelligence”. There are plenty of natural odd-looking structures that seem to be artificial. Here’s a place I’ve been to recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trovant. If you visit Romania, you might want to go there to see the work of the Intelligent Designer.

As far as WHO is the designer, any names used by humanity are appropriate names for the Designer, therefore some may refer to gods, God, Allah, Yahweh, Wanka Tanka, ect. Intelligent Design is NOT specific to any creation story, whether it be American Indian, Hindu, ect. That is the difference between the theory of Intelligent Design and what is commonly called creationism.
Actually what you just wrote is that TID is the all in one version of creationist tales.

Who is the Designer? As pointed out earlier in this thread, something is Eternal, as something cannot come from nothing (note quotation from Thermodynamics later)! What is Eternal, Matter or Intelligence? Something is postulated to be Eternal. Is Matter Eternal or is an Intelligent Designer Eternal? Which is more logical for being Eternal, Matter or Intelligence? Of course an Intelligent Designer.
That’s just plain moronic. Something is postulated to be eternal!?!?!?! By what or whom? “Of course”, that’s what you call logic? What is “eternal”? Man, that is what you think children should be taught. That something is eternal, because it is postulated by Cuauhtemoc, and that ”off course” the Intelligent Designer is eternal. That’s your scientific argument? I’ve read fairy tales more scientific that this.

Even better then that, which is in conformance with the established Scientific Law, that Life comes from Life? You know the answer to this one. As you can see the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this established law. Thus where did the Intelligent Designer come from? The Intelligent Designer, unlike Matter that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, is Eternal. Matter in violating Thermodynamics cannot be eternal. What Scientific Law excludes the "possibility" of an ETERNAL Intelligent Designer? None!
You seem to be serious when using such reasoning, which is really sad if you are indeed a teacher and you submit such allegations as examples of scientific thought. Let’s see your arguments:

1.      Life comes from life – The Bedrock Law of Biology. Well, biology deals with living organisms. That means it focuses on what is alive. The origin of life is not a problem of biology, all by itself. Chemistry is needed and physics, and geology. So stop bringing this kind of arguments to sustain your claims. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis and that’s about all. There are arguments for and against it. Yours is stupid.

2.      Matter violates Thermodynamics?!?! Unless you give an explanation for the origin of the Designer then you must realize that you theory rapes Thermodynamics. You seem reluctant to answer my post on page 14 so I guess that you really know nothing about thermodynamics. Therefore your argument is ruled out. Go to school and learn some physics, before trying to play smart!

You should realize that evolutionists are responsible people, so are physicists. So, unless you think all the later were plainly stupid then you might realize that if evolutionism would have contradicted physics they would have been the first to alert us. Only creationists and their offspring, IDists, came with this argument.

 
I could go on about your pathetic arguments when you talk about micro-evolution, macro-evolution and the fossil record. It’s the same thing. Your scientific knowledge is superficial, your arguments are based on truncated phrases, out of context, and your conclusions are far fetched. It is embarrassing to see that eventually you quote the Bible to support the so called scientific theory ID. Well, I guess I don’t mind when people are making fools of themselves.

Back to Top
Cuauhtemoc View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 198
  Quote Cuauhtemoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jul-2008 at 16:37
Originally posted by King John

1. I have posted some things I don't agree with like Punctuated Equilibrium, to show that even competing school of Evolutionary thought are supported by fossil evidence.
King John, it seems your confused about the 4 theories of Evolution. One time you say you agree more with Punctuated Equilibrium, another time as above you do not. Or you say I agree with Phyletic Gradualism, the theory as proposed by Darwin, and you say there are some things you don't agree with Punctuated Equilibrium. By saying these things is why you want to have it both ways. Phyletic Gradualism states the FOSSIL RECORD is complete and even one of the sources you posted said this, however we know it is not complete. The fact is, King John, we know that the FOSSIL RECORD is quite the opposite, without ANY TRANSITIONAL FORMS according to the QUANTUM EVOLUTION Theory, as the author stated and here is the quote,
The word "quantum" therefore refers to an "all-or-none reaction," where transitional forms are particularly unstable, and perished rapidly and completely.
As we can see King John, the Transitional Forms are unstable, and perished rapidly and quickly! What is being stated, THERE ARE NO TRASITIONAL FORMS! Why? They "disappeared!" Now again, I know you want to have it both ways, but friend, King John, that is not reality. You seem to think Punctuated Equilibrium helps you with the word" virtually," but obviously it is saying the same thing as Quantum Evolution, here is the quote from that theory,
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
Notice King John, Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because the FOSSIL RECORD does not support the theory of Evolution as proposed by Darwin! This cannot be more clear. Punctuated Equilibrium continues as quoted above that "STASIS dominates the history of fossil species." You cannot have it both ways. You have tried to twist Punctuated Equilibrium and Phyletic Gradualism (Evolution as proposed by Darwin) into agreement but it is admitted that Punctuated Equilibrium is a CONTRAST to Phyletic Evolution. It was for that very reason Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed, NO SUPPORT from the FOSSIL RECORD for Evolution!

Originally posted by King John

2. Where have I said that the fossil record was complete? I have never said that. The fossil record can be incomplete and still have transitional forms. Which it does. For a list of transitional forms please see this website. Again the incompletion of the fossil record does not mean that there are no transitional forms. The original theory of Evolution says that the fossil record is incomplete. Nobody has ever said that it was complete.
King John here is a quote of an "authority" you posted in support of the theory as proposed by Charles Darwin, however, this authority as both you and I and anyone else reading this thread, contradicts the FACTS! This authority contradicts 3 of the theories of Evolution, and thus you cannot have it both ways. I don't think you would quote an authority you don't agree with.
Originally posted by King John

Cuauhtemoc,

In my digging I came across this about the fossil records and what they show. I will provide it in a quote with a link to the full article, which was published in 1999 (I believe).
After your introduction, here is a quote from the article that shows you felt the Fossil Record was complete,
Originally posted by King John

Millions of fossils, found in well-dated sequences of rocks, show evolution of forms through time and show many transitions among species. Charles Darwin began in 1831 to assemble a huge body of evidence that he analyzed and evaluated for more than 25 years before he carefully deduced a new rule of descent of organisms with modification.
As you can know, you quoted this in support of the theory as originally proposed by Darwin of Gradualism or support in the Fossil Record for Evolution (before you posted the 4 theories of Evolution). Subsequent to that it appears you discovered Punctuated Equilibrium, and the FACT is Punctuated Equilibrium enjoys a great deal of support today! Quantum Evolution also enjoys support today as well and both would not be supported at all if the FOSSIL RECORD supported Phyletic Gradualism as proposed by Charles Darwin. However, we know the Fossil Record does not support Evolution, and you have admitted the FOSSIL RECORD is INCOMPLETE. You give a list of 9 Transitional Forms! There have been MILLIONS of FOSSILS! One of your so called Transitional Forms, Horse Evolution, NEVER occurred as represented according to eminent Evolutionists, here is a quote of one of the Evolutionists, G.A. Kerkut who is discussing horses and elephants,
"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the elephant], where ‘in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.’ "—*G.A. Kirkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.
Here is another quotation of the fact that HORSE EVOLUTION did not happen as represented to us, this quote is from G.G. Simpson who also proposed one of the todays accepted theories of Evolution, Quantum Evolution,
"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
King John as we can see, Horse Evolution did NOT happen as represented in your University textbook! We have been deceived. That is pretty sad! Now if one of the sequence of Transitional Forms that you cited in your quote above is questionable, are you sure about the others? The way the site you cited above, represents Horse Evolution is the very way, the eminent Evolutionist, Simpson said NEVER HAPPENED! If we can DISCARD that sequence from the Transitional Form list you cited, how can we have any confidence in any of them! The fact is FOSSILS are INTERPRETIVE! One is only "speculating" when one finds a fossil. No can with any certainty can say this KIND was an ancestor of the Horse! Let me give you an example King John, and visualize this as if we had no background to my example. We do of course have background, but it will make my point. Lets say you and I find the skull of a couple of dogs in different areas. We find the skull of a Pug dog and a skull of a German Shepard. You and I know they are dogs, but if we had never seen a dog and we are paleontologists, we would never guess they were the same KIND! The heads of both dogs are completely DIFFERENT! We would never guess such a thing! That is what you have going on with the fossil record, guessing, interpretations!  

Originally posted by King John

3. When have I said there is no contradiction between Punctuated Equilibrium and Phyletic Gradualism? What I said was that they differ in how the claim evolution to happen, but both have it happen gradually and both support that evolution happened. Both also see Natural Selection as playing a part in the evolutionary process. Therefore it is apparent to all that their similarities outnumber their differences.
King John, reading the theories shows they are contradictory. I quoted both above showing they are in contrast to each other. You seem to want it both ways, but the posts above says that Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because the FOSSIL RECORD was not supporting the theory as proposed by Charles Darwin. You can't clean it up. One theory was proposed because the other was not working. That is why Punctuated Equilibrium is a Neo-Darwinian theory. Darwin's theory was not being supported by the FOSSIL RECORD. 

Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 09-Jul-2008 at 17:28
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1314151617 33>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.652 seconds.