Creationism / Evolution / Intelligent Design???

Ash wrote:1. The fossil record is actually were Darwinism has failed most. There still has not been one fossil found that shows any inter-species jumps. It does, however, show us evolution within a species.

Come on! How much paleontology have you read? Start with this one. I have it. The burden of proof here is on your side. I have the whole paleontologist community on my side, saying there are thousands of intermediate fossils and you say there are none. The thing you have to remember, though, is that you can't come up with any possible "intermediate" like a duck-monkey or mouse-cockroach since they are completely different classes of biology. No scientist at all would say that there are such intermediates. What you can find though is complete transitions from fish to tetrapod, between reptile and mammal, between reptile and bird, between land-living mammal and whale, just to take some examples. Now, go study paleontology!

Ash wrote:2. The geographical dispersal of animals is great.. but where is the evidence relating to Darwinian evolution?

The geographical dispersal of fossils is the interesting part.

Ash wrote:3. Concerning a "molecular record".. there is no such thing, or maybe you should be more specific. Are you referring to "dating systems", like carbon 14 testing?

Nope. I meant protein and DNA-analysis. It all points towards evolution. Here's an example that's very easy to understand:



Here's some more molecular evidence, which are a bit harder to understand. The molecular evidence for evolution is massive. Completely stunning.

Ash wrote:4. Btw, I did not mean to imply that Quantum physics is pseudo science, but yet. if you study the history of which scientists have come up with that field.. you'll discover that alot of them were expelled from academia as un-scientific, just as ID proponents are today. Eventually, of course, the power of their arguments became un-censorable. Because just as Darwinism has become a religion for it's proponents, Einstienian physics had become a religion for most of academia as well and took decades for the founders of Quantum physics and mechanics to be seen as scientiifc.

The BIG DIFFERENCE is that the proponents for quantum physics DIDN'T FORCE IT INTO THE CURRICULUM BEFORE IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY! Caps-lock means it's very important!

The book you pointed me too is useful if you already believe in Darwinism, but beyond that it is not very useful, being that it is just interpretation based on the same ideas that I hold to be false. It doesn't present fossils that show evidence of macro-evolution, because there are none that have withstood study. if you know of any, let me know.


And Man, oh man. Who ever that scientist is in your video, I've studied enough genetics actually to know that he must not have studied much genetics. Gene's do not fuse together, and then work that way..or become a new gene, that is complete fantasy. They can only remain dead/ corrupted in that state.

The newest discoveries in genetics actually tell us that gene's within the dna of any species do not actually change structure in any manner what-so-ever.. they cause "change" or "adaption" by either being turned off and on like a light bulb is turned off and on. The things that turn them off and on are anything from stress to environmental conditions, chemical, poison exposure.. etc. It is this way, that people grow taller, shorter, disease's last for generations within offspring, etc. But then the gene will AMAZINGLY return to it's prior health inducing state after a certain number of generations.. before it had been affected by whatever toxin altered it into a disease inducing gene.

If that's not evidence of intelligent and amazingly intelligent design, I don't know what is.

For example, in Britain it has been just discovered that a disease caused by gene's that have either been turned on or off will remain that way for at least 3 generations after the exposure that caused it.

Another example of how gene's work.. if you cut your fingers off.. your gene's still contain "your fingers'.. so that if you have offspring .. your children will not be lacking fingers.

In the same manner.. if you are exposed to a toxin that causes disease, by turning off or on some of your gene's .. your dna still remembers what it is "supposed" to be... and after a couple generations.. your dna will return to it's prior state. This has been studied, in depth, over recent years within genetics.

Ash wrote:Alright, time for some literature regarding ID.

Allrighty, let's get our hands dirty. The second part is the interesting one so I'll answer to that part. If there's something in the first part you'd like me to comment on, just tell me.

Ash wrote:Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process
involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

So far, ok. But here's where ID go WRONG. After this you publish your results for peer-review and let other scientists disprove you. If they can't, your hypothesis is one step closer to a theory, but if they can, you have to go back to your lab. What ID-proponents have done is that they have pushed their ideas directly into schools. THIS IS PLAIN WRONG!
Kenneth Miller and Eugene C. Scott explain:

Ash wrote:Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents
produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists
hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high
levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural
objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.
One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be
discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures
to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID
researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that
such structures were designed.

First of all, every structure ID-proponents have told to be irreducibly complex have been proven not to be. The parts that the flagellum consists of have different uses, the blood clotting works fine without all the parts etc. Irreducible complexity does simply not exist.
The information part is a harder nut to crack. One of the problems is that Dembski assumes that information has to be created by an intelligent agent. Here's a page about CSI: http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/specified.complexity.html

Ash wrote:The book you pointed me too is useful if you already believe in Darwinism, but beyond that it is not very useful, being that it is just interpretation based on the same ideas that I hold to be false. It doesn't present fossils that show evidence of macro-evolution, because there are none that have withstood study. if you know of any, let me know.

What are you talking about?? Every single one of the fossils have "withstood study". On what grounds do you say they haven't??

Ash wrote:And Man, oh man. Who ever that scientist is in your video, I've studied enough genetics actually to know that he must not have studied much genetics. Gene's do not fuse together, and then work that way..or become a new gene, that is complete fantasy. They can only remain dead/ corrupted in that state.

He's a professor in molecular biology. If you listen carefully to the video it's chromosomes that fuse together, not genes.

Ash wrote:The newest discoveries in genetics actually tell us that gene's within the dna of any species do not actually change structure in any manner what-so-ever.. they cause "change" or "adaption" by either being turned off and on like a light bulb is turned off and on. The things that turn them off and on are anything from stress to environmental conditions, chemical, poison exposure.. etc. It is this way, that people grow taller, shorter, disease's last for generations within offspring, etc. But then the gene will AMAZINGLY return to it's prior health inducing state after a certain number of generations.. before it had been affected by whatever toxin altered it into a disease inducing gene.

DNA doesn't change!? Gene's doesn't change?! Yes, I know that genes are turned on and off, that's not exactly a new discovery. It's called methylation. It happens. Mutations also happen. Genes change too.

I would argue that things cannot be "proven" to be irreducibly complex, they can only be "concluded" to be so, by evaluation and interpretation.

ID, just like Darwinism, is theoretical, only extremely more mathematical than Darwinism can ever be.

Okie-doke, the discussion went back to being way over my head.

Well, let me calrify, on change and gene's. What I meant was that the dna Genome of a species does not grow or lessen in gene's. The "methylation" is what change occurs.

Unless of course, we're talking about us humans going in and modifying them, like we seem to be enjoying doing.

Ash wrote:I would argue that things cannot be "proven" to be irreducibly complex, they can only be "concluded" to be so, by evaluation and interpretation.

The can be proven not to be, though, which is just what have happened!

Ash wrote:ID, just like Darwinism, is theoretical, only extremely more mathematical than Darwinism can ever be.

That's on the other hand all that there is to it. ID is a negative. "I don't understand how it happened, so an ID did it." ID-proponents don't have a single explanatory theory they could put in the place of evolution. What would you teach!? That every fossil is a proof of the Designer's failure? That every illness is a proof She couln't design?

Can I ask you, is there anything, anything at all that would make you believe that the theory of evolution is correct? Any evidence, anything else than God herself telling you that's the case?

Ash wrote:Well, let me calrify, on change and gene's. What I meant was that the dna Genome of a species does not grow or lessen in gene's. The "methylation" is what change occurs.

This is usually the case, yes. Gene's do not pop up like mushrooms out of the ground. There's a simple reason why life on earth was nothing but bacteria for about 1 billion years.

I believe in MicroEvolution, science is behind it. Macroevolution has no evidence backing it at all.

Another point about geneteics that poses quite a problem for Darwinian theories...

Having an extra chromosome would be a disadvantage because our cells
are programmed to check for 23 pairs, not 24. So, during cell division
the extra chromosome (or one of our normal chromosomes) would be lost
in the cell division. Having extra chromosomes would also cause
sterility, as they cannot fertilize eggs with 23 chromosomes (unmatched
number, see?), and by definition would be another species. In fact,
the only times in which humans have extra chromosomes is in disorders
such as Down syndrome (extra 21) and trisomies (three copies of) 16 and
18: Down S. is the only trisomy that can survive past 2-3 years old
because 21 is the smallest chromosome and therefore the smallest added
genetic effect

Oddly wrote:Okie-doke, the discussion went back to being way over my head.

If there's something I could help you understand, just pm me. I'd be happy to help.

Ash wrote:I believe in MicroEvolution, science is behind it. Macroevolution has no evidence backing it at all.

It's just you who don't want to see it, so you keep on repeating that there are none.

Ash wrote:Another point about geneteics that poses quite a problem for Darwinian theories...

Having an extra chromosome would be a disadvantage because our cells
are programmed to check for 23 pairs, not 24. So, during cell division
the extra chromosome (or one of our normal chromosomes) would be lost
in the cell division. Having extra chromosomes would also cause
sterility, as they cannot fertilize eggs with 23 chromosomes (unmatched
number, see?), and by definition would be another species. In fact,
the only times in which humans have extra chromosomes is in disorders
such as Down syndrome (extra 21) and trisomies (three copies of) 16 and
18: Down S. is the only trisomy that can survive past 2-3 years old
because 21 is the smallest chromosome and therefore the smallest added
genetic effect

Nothing and nobody say that the information in the DNA have to increase all the time. It would be perfectly possible that the number of base pairs in the chromosomes have declined for the last 2 billion years. I'm not saying that's the case, but it could be perfectly possible and not contradict evolution.

Prometheus wrote:

Oddly wrote:Okie-doke, the discussion went back to being way over my head.

If there's something I could help you understand, just pm me. I'd be happy to help.

alright, someone used the tweaking red musical pony..

Like with most things, I prefer to mostly self-educate. That way, slowly, but surely, I begin to see all the pieces of the puzzle and how they fit.

I don't remember anything that used to piss me off more as a kid than when my parents *or others* tried to finish my puzzles for me.

I know that in my case, I don't readily believe things most people say about anything, but once I've gotten all the information I need, I make my opinion. Once I've made my opinion based on the information I can find, my mind is not easily changed no matter how many people believe in or against it. I've got to see, read, hear or experience some kind of radical and concrete proof for that kind of thing to happen. And, believe me, it has happened.

In the meantime...

Admin note- i gotta fix that elf smilie code.. it shows up when you type those letters..

Never mind, answered before I asked. ;D

I fixed it. the code for it was just "elf" so whenever those letters were typed it would show up. So I changed it.

test--

elf elf

Ash wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

Oddly wrote:Okie-doke, the discussion went back to being way over my head.

If there's something I could help you understand, just pm me. I'd be happy to help.

alright, someone used the tweaking red musical pony..

I am chasing the pretty noises, like in real life.

Oddly wrote:Like with most things, I prefer to mostly self-educate. That way, slowly, but surely, I begin to see all the pieces of the puzzle and how they fit.

I don't remember anything that used to piss me off more as a kid than when my parents *or others* tried to finish my puzzles for me.

I know that in my case, I don't readily believe things most people say about anything, but once I've gotten all the information I need, I make my opinion. Once I've made my opinion based on the information I can find, my mind is not easily changed no matter how many people believe in or against it. I've got to see, read, hear or experience some kind of radical and concrete proof for that kind of thing to happen. And, believe me, it has happened.

In the meantime...

Remember to not read only christian/ID litterature. Some books I can recommend:
Finding Darwin's God or Only A Theory by Kenneth Miller
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero
I have all three of them and they are all really good. Kenneth Miller is a believing Christian and the first one of his books is also about how to fit your faith with evolution. Check your library for books on evolution (most schoolbooks suck, though).
There are also numerous videos on youtube on the subject. As I said, I'd be happy to give some links.

Ohhh my...I kind of knew this would happen when I started this thread. But this is exactly what I was hoping for. Not extremism or degrading personal attacks, but honest discussion. There seems to be enough balance here to allow for a genuine discussion rather than pure ideology. I have to wake up in a few hours for work, so I will have to respond to those many comments later.

The Laura needs her sleep for now....

It's hard to remain calm...very hard

Prometheus wrote:It's hard to remain calm...very hard

But very productive and worthwhile.... and it makes the pigeons happy--->

I find it rather disgusting you felt that you needed to remind me not to read only Christian literature...disgusting me with a comment directly about me is not an easy thing to do, especially online. Ugh.

Guten Nacht, Laura! *it is lovely to finally know your name, fellow L-named gal.*

Ok.

Here's the three primary principles used in Intelligent Design, when analyzing data.



Contingency, Complexity and Specification


1 Contingency .. concerns whether or not a product or event was the
automatic result of some unintelligent cause. An event which did not
have to happen, but did, is said to be contingent. In the sky over a
beach, for example, clouds in the sky are not contingent. Due to the
dynamics of air currents, temperature, and moisture, that has to
happen. But seeing a cloud in the shape of a perfect "V" would be
contingent. Nothing about the physics of air or moisture necessitate
the generation of perfectly symetrical cloud shapes of consistent
thickness.

2 Complexity ... concerns the probability of the event in question to
have happened by chance or by some other non-intelligent cause. William
Dembski states, "Complexity and probability therefore vary inversely:
the greater the complexity, the smaller the probability." 102

If we only saw that "V" in the sky, it could have been the result
of two jet trails randomly crossing. But if by now we see a perfect "T"
right next to it (of the same general length and width), it becomes
less likely that random condensation trails are forming what appear to
be nicely spaced alphabetic characters. The more recognizable
characters we start to see, the less likely we are watching accidental
cloud formations or con-trails.

3 Specification.... lastly, refers to any inherent pattern which
might indicate intelligence. Suppose the letter-like clouds in the sky
appear as "VTOE". Initially this might seem to be vacant of
specification. In other words, a sky writer just practicing his craft
could have chosen those letters at random. But now consider how one
might interpret "VTOE" if today also happened to be national election
day.