Evolution And I.d. Evidence Arguments

[Vash]

not nessisarily... no cook is needed for a natural process.
hence it is natural.

please define 'fine tuneing' for me... I don't seem to be grasping what fine-tuned laws you are refering to.

Is there any evidence of natural law ever being tuned?
Has any Darwinist/evolutionist ever clamed that the 'primordial soup' was tuned at all?

wa:do

fine tuned universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

anthropic principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

 

[painted wolf]

The universe is not finely tuned explanation questions whether the universe is in fact finely tuned. The fact that a universe with different physical constants might be inhospitable to life as we know it does not necessarily mean that it is inhospitable to any form of life, and there is no known way of actually experimentally verifying whether a universe allows for life or not. Further, the overwhelming majority of this universe, especially the interstellar vacuum, appears to be devoid of life; other physical constants may exist that allow a much greater density of life than in this universe. The apparent rarity of life in our universe is, however, evidence that life does indeed require 'finely tuned' conditions for existence.

A probabilistic discussion by mathematician Michael Ikeda and astronomer Bill Jefferys argues that the traditional reasoning about intelligent design from the presence of fine-tuning does not properly condition on the existence of life, and is also based on a incorrect reversal of conditional probabilities (in an example of the prosecutor's fallacy), which in this form erroneously claims that if fine-tuning is rare in naturalistic universes, then a fine-tuned universe is unlikely to be naturalistic. (In this context, "naturalistic" is taken to be synonymous with "not intelligently designed".)
They offer a proof that indicates one should in fact draw the opposite conclusion: the presence of fine-tuning actually argues against intelligent design. Their main theorem — under the assumptions that
1 our universe exists and contains life (L),
2 our universe is "life friendly" (F), and
3 life can exist in a "naturalistic" (N) universe only if that universe is "life-friendly" (N&L ⇒ F), while life might exist in a "designed" universe even if it is not "life friendly"

states that, given our universe contains life (L), the probability that our universe is naturalistic, P(N|L), is less than the probability that our universe is naturalistic given that it is also fine-tuned, P(N|L&F) = P((N|L) | F). (That is, adding the assumption of fine tuning increases the probability that our universe is naturalistic, given that we know our universe contains life.) Thus, they argue ironically, supporters of intelligent design should try to prove that our universe is not fine-tuned. The philosopher of science Elliott Sober makes a similar argument.

from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

Anthropic prinicple is far from widely accepted.

Again give me some evidece that any natural law was ever tuned.
what natual law has ever changed?
Again there is no requirement for a cook.

wa:do

 

[Fatmop]

Thanks for extrapolating the problems scientists have with currently explaining evolution and the origins of the universe, Vash.
I have one request of you:
In your next post here, I would like you to squeeze from your brain every piece of evidence FOR ID like a sponge. Not, mind you, evidence AGAINST EVOLUTION; every time you post that you get nailed with either a refutation of your own argument or a statement that science has not proven everything yet.
Post Your Evidence For Intelligent Design. Now.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Post Your Evidence For Intelligent Design. Now.

You are a dreamer, Fatmop. Truly, a dreamer.

TVOR

 

[Vash]

Thanks for extrapolating the problems scientists have with currently explaining evolution and the origins of the universe, Vash.

You are most certainly welcome. its nice to be appreciated

Post Your Evidence For Intelligent Design. Now.

it seems to me that evolution and ID use alot of the same evidence. in many ways ID and evolution are compatable. in some areas they are not. in these cases, it seems to boil down to INTERPRETING the evidence.

evolution and ID have no reason to look very different in a historical and fossil perspective. the question is, can either one carry the load required by that historical and fossil record. ID seems to have a much easier time of it. evolution has to account for a lot of stuff, a lot of details and coincidences, all within a biological and genetic framework which really hurts because of its requisite lack of purpose and direction and a guiding intelligence.

but in an attempt to comply with your request i did a quick search for 'proof of ID' and found an interesting link you may want to take a look at. i didnt read it all yet but it looks interesting:

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000428.html

take a look at these as well:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/index.htm

i also encourage you to do your own internet search. many hits will come up. i dont have any secret ID info or anything

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... in a attempt to comply with your request i did a quick search for 'proof of ID' and found an interesting link you may want to take a look at. i didnt read it all yet but it looks interesting: ...

In other words: I have no intention of studying the science, nor of honestly evaluating the question; I did however accidently stumble across an argument which I think I agree with - even though I haven't a clue what it says.

Again: Do you accept descent with modification as the best inference suggested by these specific homologous structures? If not, please explain them using your 'theory' of Intellligent Design.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... I did however accidently stumble across an argument which I think I agree with - even though I haven't a clue what it says.

I especially like one of Vash's earlier posts, that had about 5 or 6 links to Dembski's work. One of them was for the Mathematical proof of the veracity of ID. The article was incomprehensible to anyone that did not hold a Master's or Doctorate in higher mathematics, automatically precluding 98% of the population from following his point. Of course, the fact that other mathemeticians that work at that level have discredited this very piece of work by Dembski goes unreported by our good friend Vash.
Either way, I'm willing to bet that when Vash found the article and posted the link, he had no more idea of what it meant than I did. I did try to read and follow the line of reasoning, but as soon as symbolic math takes over for verbiage, it is a lost cause.

TVOR

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Hey Steve, I must have struck a nerve with you and that Miller-Urey experiment. How does a Christian go about testing the "talking snake" theory in genesis.

I have images in my head of "creation scientists" experimenting with an apple's DNA saying; "Look, we found the genetic sequence for good and evil, genesis was right, we should have never eaten these apples to begin with!"

LOL, If you want to see what the True Biblical™ cosmology looks like, check out my original animation of it based off of MANY verses that suggest FACTUAL, God inspired evidences...such as;
-The earth is flat!
-The sky is solid with windows for rain!
-There is an "underworld" (whatever that is?)
-That the sun orbits the earth
...and many, many more.

Here is a sample;
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Genesis 7:11-12[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."[/font]

WOW, 600 YEARS OLD! I think its safe to say that Noah is just as mythical as the "windows" in the sky / Heaven that were opened to let the rain fall down to flood the Earth....

check them out here at;
http://www.reverendjeremiah.com/cosmology.htm

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

on this page you also get GREAT refutations of the most popular verses creationists spew to couter evolution, such as this one;

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Isaiah 40:22 [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."[/font]

First things first, I will have to disprove the most popular verse that creationists spew. Modern Creationists (especially the Jehovah's Witnesses) are quick to accuse all other religions of not only being wrong, but also incorrectly aserting that the world was flat, or square, or sitting on top off pilars, or turtles, or elephants. Their booklet, "The Watchtower" typically makes mentions of this verse above ([font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Isaiah 40:22 [/font]) as "proof" that the Judaic scriptures were the only religion to "get it right" on the earth shape question thousands of years ago. First let me tell you what the above verse means.[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;" [/font]well, at first glance this verse appears to be correct as long as you dont think about it too much. Yes the Earth is so big that humans can look like grasshopers high enough in the sky, and yes we have all seen the circular shadow of the earth on the moon. But a circle is only a two dimensional object, which is far from an accurate discription of our true 3 dimensional sphere of Earth, which happens to be slightly elongated at its equator. That discription is a very accurate discription, instead of the vague one that Isaiah offers. Lets go a bit further into the verse;[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"that (God) stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."[/font][/font] Now this is more in line with Isaiahs true cosmological beleifs. Throughout all of his writings, Isaiah considers the sky to be solid. Why else would he describe the sky as a tent, or something solid which needs to be spread. And besides, Isaiah must have been more coherent than usual when he wrote that verse, because Isaiah is a hard core flat / square Earther as is evidenced in this verse;[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Isaiah 11:12
"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the Four Corners of the earth." [/font][/font][/font]In this verse, his is supposedly predicting the rise of the demigod Jesus Christ in the same sentence where he directly, and specifically says that the Earth has four corners.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

"That is really what faith is about. It is not about mathematical calculations or scientific studies. The scriptures declare that no man has an excuse for unbelief for even the invisible things of creation attest to the fact of the existence of God."

- Michael John McCrae

 

[Steve]

AnswersInGenesis is indeed in support of ID but that does not mean the evidence they use to support their claims is corrupt.

You are correct - the "evidence" they provide is not accepted because it is a load of horsedung, not because I don't like it, but because the entire scientific community rejects it, on the grounds of it being nothing more than a claim from religious fundamentalists.

Once again how bout instead of just saying the evidence is "horsedung" you actually refute the evidence i provided and explain why your explanation of that evidence is better than mine. I have provided evidence in support of a young earth and global flood etc to back up the model i put forth. How bout you tell me how the points i made are flawed and how i interpreted the evidence wrong.

What do you think everyone has been doing for the last 16 pages of this thread, and the entire breadth of the "Premise of ID" thread? Are you unable to even admit that all of these posts rebutting the garbage known as ID has occurred? We can, and have been, rebutting the argument for ID. We cannot rebut the evidence, as NONE has been forthcoming.

The claims i have made i have supported with evidence in regards to young earth and global flood etc, As for the other claim "if its obvious something took intelligence then its safe to say their was, unless another plausable theory is presented" well maybe we will have to just disagree and leave it at that.
Your claim that no evidence has been forthcoming is just wrong, i have provided much evidence to in support of a young earth and global flood etc, This evidence is all in support of the theory i put forth befor. Likewise you all dont seem to mind that abiogenesis certainly hasnt been proven, yet you still assume it has occured because of what you determine as evidence for your overall theory, just the same i belive that an initial creator best supports the what we see and i have backed my reasoning up with evidence.

How unbiased do you think National Academy of Sciences is?

This may be the single most inane statement I have seen on this site - and that is covering a LOT of ground. If I were Vash, or the rest of the ID squad, I would ask you to refrain from posting again. Your side of the aisle is getting humiliated as it is, and with statements like this one, it's no wonder why.

Ok so you dont think its biased in this issue? id say that is willful ignorance.

You yourself know that evidences in support of ID would not be recieved the same way that evidences against it are in the scientific community. Of course the scientific community would be reluctant to change its stance on issues such as the age of the earth etc Their reasons arnt to do with science though, i think many scientist have ego's to protect, noone likes to admit they have been wrong. Therefor contradictory theorys arnt given the same amount of "credibility" even when evidence is presnent to support them. Just how openminded are you really?

Stunning - absolutely stunning. This goes beyond willful ignorance.

What you disagree with what i have said here? Id say its willful ignorance that lets you pretend that the scientific community is just as keen to examine evidence that supports the YEC's model compared to the evolution model.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Job 26:7-14[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them. He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it. He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end. The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof. He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the proud. By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent. Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?"[/font]

When creationists present this verse, they expect you to think that Job, who was "inspired by God", accurately predicted that the Earth floats in the vacuum of space. There is just one problem with this concept, Job beleives that the Earth is flat and square as is evidenced in this verse; [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Job 28:23-24-"God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof. For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven."[/font] Our Earth is a globe with no "ends" on it Job. This "hangs the Earth on nothing" concept also contradicts other verses from the book of Job, such as Job 38: 1-18 Where God, quite humorously I might add, is made to boast about the "foundations of the Earth" , and that God alone only knows the length and measurements of these foundations;"[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof"[/font] [/font]But that is a good question God asks- [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?" [/font][/font]- I suppose the foundations of the Earth are connected to more foundations. Foundations all the way down into infinity I guess. Or maybe the Foundations of the Earth are sitting on the hand of God, and God is this huge invisible being that holds the world up, because we would have otherwise seen this God with our telescopes. Just be careful using this argument lightly, because the pillars of Heaven (possibly mountains) will tremble and be astonished at the furry of the one who creates the foundations of the Earth.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Not to mention, can any of you Intelligent Design people give me a DEFINITE answer to which designer is the real designer.

Hindus beleive in millions of Intelligent designers..do you agree with them, or are they wrong?
And, if they are wrong, what is the testable data you used to determine this?

Raeleans are atheists who beleive in Intelligent Design. They beleive that we are the product of alien experiments. Where is your data to prove which of your two opposing theories is the correct one?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Im really suprised anyone would genuinley try to use the Miller-Urey experement as proof that "without a doubt that Abiogenesis (life ffrom lifelessness) is, in fact, a very established theory."
Im sure most of the other posters on this thread who support evolution wouldnt even go any where near that far as to make a claim like that.
This particular experiment is regarded even by many evolutionist scientists these days to be far from a success.

Not "far from success", merely a stepping stone. This is how science works--someone proposes a theory and tests it. New evidence is found, which is then taken into context, and things are altered and retested from there, etc. You should really study the Miller-Urey experiment. Although there are some components of it that scientists are tweaking, the bottom line is that organic materials were created from non-living molecules, and that seems like a pretty big leap in the right direction as far as providing evidence for abiogenesis goes.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

I sometimes wonder if this universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn? Can you Intelligent Designers help me out here?

Through logic, I know she is invisible
Through faith, I believe she is pink

How exactly would I be able to verify or falsify this data? And if some one tries to trump my unicorn theory with the "all powerful, invisible lobster creator" theory, how would I go about getting him to substantiate his claim?

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Not "far from success", merely a stepping stone. This is how science works--someone proposes a theory and tests it. New evidence is found, which is then taken into context, and things are altered and retested from there, etc. You should really study the Miller-Urey experiment. Although there are some components of it that scientists are tweaking, the bottom line is that organic materials were created from non-living molecules, and that seems like a pretty big leap in the right direction as far as providing evidence for abiogenesis goes.

...And THAT is what is meant by an established theory of abiogenesis...thankyou Ceridwen018 for going just a bit further with its meaning and clarity.

 

[Albino]

Hindus beleive in millions of Intelligent designers..do you agree with them, or are they wrong?

Thats what im leaning toward. It would explain why there is such variety...and relationships like predator and prey.

 

[Reverend Jeremiah]

Thats what im leaning toward. It would explain why there is such variety...and relationships like predator and prey.

Evolution does a fine job of that on its own, without half animal half human gods and goddesses.

 

[Fatmop]

Vash and Steve seem to be on to new topics now.

 

[hero]

foolishness. all of these arguments. why do christians even argue about creationism. too often you argue how it was done, when all the bible tells us is who did it. we believe god created it. and others theorize that there is no physical proof of god. you people arguing for the gud, or evolution, or big bang fail to examine that which you speak. you downcast their is a god because you dont see him, and that is why he couldnt have created all that is. when does blacksmith weld himself into his creation. indeed he does not. foolishness, and without logic. you attemt to disprove that which is spiritual with that which is physical, vain. when who of you have examined the nucleus of an atom personally, or the dna that is supposed to be so closely related. indeed you study that which you speak but not what makes what you say true. you call faith foolish, yet while we place our faith in god, you place your in men. where is the reason in it. when the "facts" you state are almost entirely from faith(evidense of things unseen) funny how that has become such a common definition among non believer considering it comes from hebrews chapter 11. in this world christians have acknowledged a law. a law that their is a right and wrong. a basis for right and wrong that has been constant from the beginning. that has been present from even the earliest civilizations. and if any of you cares for anything other than self conservation, than you know that there is something that sepertates you from any ordinary animal. love. faith. if any of you would ever seek a wife or husband you are a hypocrite to believe their is nothing more than physics, atoms, and black holes to life. thier is a law that binds us all. a law of nature, moral law if you will. and no one can deny its existance. you may be able to deny christ as supreme with another religion, but with none, you spend your time studying, not to convince others, but to try to convince yourself. please see the futilility that surrounds atheism. and put together the puzzle, only christ fits. Jesus loves you