Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

von Wrangell · May 10, 2005, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I believe life was created by ID and that we evolved. Where one theory does not address origins because it ignores the apparently deliberate nature behind biological machinery, another theory does address origins by admitting that there seems to be deliberation behind what we see.

and

ID does not address the origin of the designer.

In two posts in a row is just about the best comedy I've seen for a long time

The "problem" you see with evolution is the same problem with ID like you yourself admitted.

But again, I'll have to ask. Is it falsifiable?

ebuddy · May 10, 2005, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

See this is where the logic of the ID/Creationist crew breaks down. Why? Because there isn't anyway for anyone to prove or disprove God's existence or non-existance. And that is why God/ID/Creationism doesn't belong in the field of science.

But why does this same scrutiny not apply to those who make suppositions on origins? Before you tell me yet again that Evolution does not address origins, then give me more information from TalkOrigins.com, there is no way to prove or disprove that all life evolved from one common ancestor. Period.

If I'd answered that the Big Bang created the Big Bang you'd be rolling your eyes and continuing to ask questions that would finally lead to the answer "God".

So...you're saying Big Bang has no place in the classroom?

von Wrangell · May 10, 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

But why does this same scrutiny not apply to those who make suppositions on origins? Before you tell me yet again that Evolution does not address origins, then give me more information from TalkOrigins.com, there is no way to prove or disprove that all life evolved from one common ancestor. Period.

Theory of evolution doesn't deal with origin of life. Period.

RonnieoftheRose · 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

there is no way to prove or disprove that all life evolved from one common ancestor. Period.

You can remove that 'Period'. Palaeontology and anthropology are still young sciences, there are many parts of Africa and Asia that still have lots of work left to do there. New discoveries are made all the time that help scientists create a map of our genetic ancestry and heritage. Misinformed people posting on forums like this with opinions like God created the atom, the world is several thousand years old, evolution is a theory, communism and atheism goes hand in hand with science, and other ridiculous ideas and attempts at stifling scientific knowledge won't make a difference to the real long term achievements of science. You are dust in the wind. The wind of change can never be turned by humans and their petty ideas of what God is, does or wants.

How come not one person has mentioned that just last week an intermediary creature was discovered that provided a link between certain species of meat eating dinosaurs and the ancestor of many modern birds?

RonnieoftheRose · May 10, 2005, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Theory of evolution doesn't deal with origin of life. Period.

This is wrong as evolution can be extended backwards towards cosmology and there's no problem with current observations. You mean evolution, cosmology and physics still have to explain the origin of the universe. Current theories are pretty good and getting better all the time. I'll go with the idea that universes are plenty and come and go forever. It makes no sense to have an absolute beginning and end. Absurd even. There can never be such a state as absolute non-existence.

von Wrangell · May 10, 2005, 08:15 AM

The theory of evolution doesn't deal with origin of life. Other theories that mix in with evolution might, but the theory of evolution doesn't. Why is this so hard to understand?

ebuddy · May 10, 2005, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

and

In two posts in a row is just about the best comedy I've seen for a long time

The "problem" you see with evolution is the same problem with ID like you yourself admitted.

But again, I'll have to ask. Is it falsifiable?

You believe there's no designer right? Are you saying you have no information to attempt to falsify the claim? I doubt it.

Darwin tested Paley's account of design and refuted it.

Generally, Karl Popper suggests falsifiability for the viability of whether or not something is testable. I guess we'd want to look at falsifiability for all theories then.

Intelligent agency is comprised of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Using this idea as a template; ID is falsifiable. If one can establish a Darwinian graduation for bacterial flagellum for example; illustrating no need for ID, then ID will have been falsified. Yet, is Darwinian theory falsifiable? Can one reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway using the Darwinian model? Can we determine, using any scientific principle, the difference between random and deliberate? While I might be in favor of scrapping the SETI project, I highly doubt you'd want us to stop looking for signs of intelligence among random transmissions of cacophony.

RonnieoftheRose · May 10, 2005, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The theory of evolution doesn't deal with origin of life. Other theories that mix in with evolution might, but the theory of evolution doesn't. Why is this so hard to understand?

Erm, so what are all those books and documentaries about that describe the Big Bang, the formation of the galaxies and solar systems, then the cooling down of our planet, the process by which water vapour and land formed to allow the eventual formation of life on Earth and the evolution of species?

How could anybody miss that unless they live in the sticks with Osama?

von Wrangell · May 10, 2005, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Erm, so what are all those books and documentaries about that describe the Big Bang, the formation of the galaxies and solar systems, then the cooling down of our planet, the process by which water vapour and land formed to allow the eventual formation of life on Earth and the evolution of species?

How could anybody miss that unless they live in the sticks with Osama?

Pop-sci.

Next.

RonnieoftheRose · May 10, 2005, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Pop-sci.

Next.

Good answer. Says a lot. I'll stick to reading expert opinions. Ta.

von Wrangell · May 10, 2005, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You believe there's no designer right?

My personal philosophical and theological views are irrelevant when we are talking about science. The two have nothing in common.

von Wrangell · May 10, 2005, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Good answer. Says a lot. I'll stick to reading expert opinions. Ta.

It's pop-sci to mix several theories together to be able to get it out in a 50min format of series or book. They are different theories that deal with different things.

ebuddy · May 10, 2005, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

You can remove that 'Period'. Palaeontology and anthropology are still young sciences, there are many parts of Africa and Asia that still have lots of work left to do there. New discoveries are made all the time that help scientists create a map of our genetic ancestry and heritage. Misinformed people posting on forums like this with opinions like God created the atom, the world is several thousand years old, evolution is a theory, communism and atheism goes hand in hand with science, and other ridiculous ideas and attempts at stifling scientific knowledge won't make a difference to the real long term achievements of science. You are dust in the wind. The wind of change can never be turned by humans and their petty ideas of what God is, does or wants.

In the future, with all due respect; I'd appreciate it when you are replying to me that you reply to things I've specifically said. I've said none of the above regarding God, atoms, communism, atheism, etc...You are painting with a broad brush in order to place me in some kind of box I've not given you, so you can throw the box away. While this might make your view more palatable to you, it is unfair, inaccurate, and frankly shows your lack of an ability to present your case.

How come not one person has mentioned that just last week an intermediary creature was discovered

Last week? Try 1994 my friend. I might add that no feathers were found and it's about 75 million years younger than the true bird Archaeopteryx, its alleged descendant.

that provided a link between certain species of meat eating dinosaurs and the ancestor of many modern birds?

Not too many are willing to jump on this as evidence of anything other than a new cool dinosaur find because they're still wiping the egg of the debunked Archeoraptor from their face.

ebuddy · May 10, 2005, 09:15 AM

SVass; Archeoraptor was debunked?!? IT'S GEORGE W. BUSH'S FAULT!!!

teehee,

Weyland-Yutani · May 10, 2005, 09:52 AM

Evolution of life is (not surprisingly) a fact. It is difficult to comprehend for sure because we tend to think on our own terms and labeling nature with our own criteria. Well asit turns out nature will not be labeled so easily.

There are no species as we have imagined them. There is just life.

Evolution does not have to do anything with an individual lifeform.

Evolution is life's ultimate gift to survive in a changing environment.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. If you wish to pin that to some science I'm going to suggest biochemistry.

LeftWingLock · May 10, 2005, 09:58 AM

What is evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

A response from the Botanical Society of America ...

http://www.botany.org/newsite/announ.../evolution.php

Both are very clearly written and easy to understand for the less scientifically inclined among us

Wiskedjak · May 10, 2005, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I believe life was created by ID and that we evolved. Where one theory does not address origins because it ignores the apparently deliberate nature behind biological machinery, another theory does address origins by admitting that there seems to be deliberation behind what we see.

Precisely. ID and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

budster101 · May 10, 2005, 10:55 AM

Teach them both then. What's the problem? If they have nothing to do with one another....

I'd like someone to explain this, so even a Caveman could understand it. Wait, that wasn't condescending on my part was it?

Wiskedjak · May 10, 2005, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

Erm, so what are all those books and documentaries about that describe the Big Bang, the formation of the galaxies and solar systems, then the cooling down of our planet, the process by which water vapour and land formed to allow the eventual formation of life on Earth and the evolution of species?

How could anybody miss that unless they live in the sticks with Osama?

"the Big Bang ...
the formation of the galaxies and solar systems ...
the cooling down of our planet ...
the process by which water vapour and land formed to allow the eventual formation of life on Earth ...
the evolution of species ..."

Even in your own description, evolution is separate from the origin of life

SVass · May 10, 2005, 10:59 AM

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...u-rc092904.php

New Haven, Conn. -- In this week's issue of Nature, a Yale mathematician presents models showing that the most recent person who was a direct ancestor of all humans currently alive may have lived just a few thousand years ago.Citation: Nature 431: (September 30, 2004)

Please tell me why a child should learn about the origin of the universe in a public school. Please tell me why a child should not learn about the prevention of the spread of AIDS in a public school.

Wiskedjak · May 10, 2005, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by budster101

Teach them both then. What's the problem? If they have nothing to do with one another....

I'd like someone to explain this, so even a Caveman could understand it. Wait, that wasn't condescending on my part was it?

If you'll read my posts, I'm not arguing against both being taught

von Wrangell · May 10, 2005, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by budster101

Teach them both then. What's the problem? If they have nothing to do with one another....

I'd like someone to explain this, so even a Caveman could understand it. Wait, that wasn't condescending on my part was it?

I'll dumb it down for you.

ID and creationism could/should be taught in philosophy and theology classes.
Evolution should be taught in science classes.

Keep them separate as they have nothing to do with each other.

Got it?

budster101 · May 10, 2005, 11:03 AM

Sex is the domain of PARENT.
The origin or thought provoking hypothesis of the origination of the universe would spark them to THINK of other possibilities. What are you all affraid of?

wiskedjak:

I didn't mean to imply you were against them both. I think that was more of a broad message for all who are railing against the idea.

budster101 · May 10, 2005, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I'll dumb it down for you.

ID and creationism could/should be taught in philosophy and theology classes.
Evolution should be taught in science classes.

Keep them separate as they have nothing to do with each other.

Got it?

No.

Wiskedjak · May 10, 2005, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by budster101

wiskedjak:

I didn't mean to imply you were against them both. I think that was more of a broad message for all who are railing against the idea.

Fair enough

von Wrangell · May 10, 2005, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by budster101

No.

So, care to explain what it is that you don't understand?

OreoCookie · May 10, 2005, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by budster101

Teach them both then. What's the problem? If they have nothing to do with one another....

I'd like someone to explain this, so even a Caveman could understand it. Wait, that wasn't condescending on my part was it?

They are not equivalent theories, so no.

budster101 · May 10, 2005, 11:23 AM

Define theory.

and then you admit that Creationism is a theory? hmmm.

Weyland-Yutani · May 10, 2005, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

They are not equivalent theories, so no.

theories OreoCookie?

Be careful what you write. I have chided you before on this. Read. Comprehend. Post.

budster101 · May 10, 2005, 11:38 AM

I had no idea that theories had to be of equal value to be taught in schools... who decides that?

ironknee · May 10, 2005, 12:41 PM

so...id actually teaches that god created man from a drawing in the sand? and as an afterthought made eve from adam's rib?

are you serious? sounds as dead as the guy in budster's sig

dcmacdaddy · May 10, 2005, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

ok.. next then.. who else is opposed to teaching students different viewpoints of how the world was created?

I have no problem teaching students different viewpoints on how the world was created.

But evolution is NOT about how the world was created. Really, what you should be arguing for is the teaching of creationism in earth science class when it discusses large-scale cosmis issues like how the earth and planets were formed. THAT is where a discussion of creationism or Intelligent Design belongs. Evolution is about biological processes not cosmoloigcal processes.

Creationism/Cosmology = Where life came from
Evolution = How life has changed over time

Shaddim · May 10, 2005, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Who created God?

We did. But, I thought that was obvious.

"Did you make mankind
after we made you?
And the devil too?"

We didn't make the Creator, but we definitely created "God".

Shaddim · May 10, 2005, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I have no problem teaching students different viewpoints on how the world was created.

But evolution is NOT about how the world was created. Really, what you should be arguing for is the teaching of creationism in earth science class when it discusses large-scale cosmis issues like how the earth and planets were formed. THAT is where a discussion of creationism or Intelligent Design belongs. Evolution is about biological processes not cosmoloigcal processes.

Creationism/Cosmology = Where life came from
Evolution = How life has changed over time

I have to agree here. Well said.

IMO, there is no controversy between evolution and ID, just lots of hair-splittling. Evolution is simply an extension and process of ID. Why is that so hard to come to grips with?

Wiskedjak · May 10, 2005, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

so...id actually teaches that god created man from a drawing in the sand? and as an afterthought made eve from adam's rib?

are you serious? sounds as dead as the guy in budster's sig

Actually, my understanding is that ID avoids (in theory) relying on any one particular religion and instead focusses on actual evidence that is considered to imply the existence of an intelligent designer.

dcmacdaddy · May 10, 2005, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I have to agree here. Well said.

IMO, there is no controversy between evolution and ID, just lots of hair-splittling. Evolution is simply an extension and process of ID. Why is that so hard to come to grips with?

It is hard to come to grips with because some people believe that "Evolution is simply an extension and process of ID".

My problem with this whole issue is that when someone says that evolution is a result of ID there is no way to test that assertion. What good is a logical assertion--about a scientific process or any other topic--if it is to be taken only on face value? That undercuts the whole premise of logic and reasoning to say the answer to something is "just because".

You say "Evolution is simply an extension and process of ID" when what you really should be saying is "I believe evolution is simply an extension and process of ID". Your categorical statement as fact cannot be logically proven true or false, as such it should not be stated as fact. It should be qualified as provisional in some way.

bstone · May 10, 2005, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Theory of evolution doesn't deal with origin of life. Period.

WRONG.

Urey-Miller experiment. Basic evolutionary biology. Evolution of biological substances from non-biological ingredients.

Google it.

von Wrangell · May 10, 2005, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by bstone

WRONG.

Urey-Miller experiment. Basic evolutionary biology. Evolution of biological substances from non-biological ingredients.

Google it.

Sorry but that's wrong. The Urey-Miller experiment was testing a hypothesis about the origin of life. The theory of the origin of life is not a part of the theory of evolution. They are two separate theories that are very important to our understanding of life.

It's also worth nothing that the Urey-Miller experiment only showed that organic substances arise from non-organic substances. Organic substances are not life.

Wiskedjak · May 10, 2005, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by bstone

WRONG.

Urey-Miller experiment. Basic evolutionary biology. Evolution of biological substances from non-biological ingredients.

Google it.

One can use the theory of evolution as a means to speculate about the origin of life, but the theory itself does not deal with it.

ebuddy · May 10, 2005, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

so...id actually teaches that god created man from a drawing in the sand? and as an afterthought made eve from adam's rib?

are you serious? sounds as dead as the guy in budster's sig

Please copy-paste where someone said this. Otherwise, you're just a troll and a moron. Thanx for your contribution to both sides of the argument, noteably mine.

ebuddy · May 10, 2005, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I have no problem teaching students different viewpoints on how the world was created.
But evolution is NOT about how the world was created. Really, what you should be arguing for is the teaching of creationism in earth science class when it discusses large-scale cosmis issues like how the earth and planets were formed. THAT is where a discussion of creationism or Intelligent Design belongs. Evolution is about biological processes not cosmoloigcal processes.
Creationism/Cosmology = Where life came from
Evolution = How life has changed over time

Why go all the way back to cosmos and the origination of matter formation? Why not start at the Cambrian explosion?

ebuddy · May 10, 2005, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Actually, my understanding is that ID avoids (in theory) relying on any one particular religion and instead focusses on actual evidence that is considered to imply the existence of an intelligent designer.

This is absolutely correct.

ebuddy · May 10, 2005, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

It is hard to come to grips with because some people believe that "Evolution is simply an extension and process of ID".

My problem with this whole issue is that when someone says that evolution is a result of ID there is no way to test that assertion. What good is a logical assertion--about a scientific process or any other topic--if it is to be taken only on face value? That undercuts the whole premise of logic and reasoning to say the answer to something is "just because".

You say "Evolution is simply an extension and process of ID" when what you really should be saying is "I believe evolution is simply an extension and process of ID". Your categorical statement as fact cannot be logically proven true or false, as such it should not be stated as fact. It should be qualified as provisional in some way.

See my prior posts regarding the testibility and falsifiability of both theories. They are equally testable when it comes to the processes of creating wholly new species. ID uses principles of science we use every day from the SETI project to forensics. It's simply the differentiation of deliberation and accident. Intelligent agents have a trace, complex specified information and irreducible complexity. They can be as evident as any theory presented thus far. You have to have a bias and a presupposition to deny it. I can't help it if you're thinking Yahweh, I'm simply thinking ID. Folks are just going to have to get over this obvious "anti-religion" hangup in order to understand what I'm saying.

bstone · May 10, 2005, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Sorry but that's wrong. The Urey-Miller experiment was testing a hypothesis about the origin of life. The theory of the origin of life is not a part of the theory of evolution. They are two separate theories that are very important to our understanding of life.

It's also worth nothing that the Urey-Miller experiment only showed that organic substances arise from non-organic substances. Organic substances are not life.

Certainly it is.

Urey-Miller proved that organic material (amino acids, the basic building blocks of life) can arise from non-organic materials, randomly. When these monomers were created, it is not hard to take the logical steps of formation of polymers via hydrolysis (which forms peptides), then polypeptides, proteins and VALLAH what we have today- a multisystem organism which has self -maintnance of an electrochemical gradient.

Now, the fossil record being so complete is, to me, one of the biggest proofs against evolution. Instead of gradual evolution is shows leaps and bounds.

dcmacdaddy · May 10, 2005, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Why go all the way back to cosmos and the origination of matter formation? Why not start at the Cambrian explosion?

The point I was trying to make is to advance an argument that has its premise that creationism/ID and evolution are two different, un-related concepts. That one concept deals with the question of where we came from (creationism/ID) whereas the other concept deals with change over time. The point I am arguing is that one concept deals with a fairly limited time-frame (creationism/ID) whereas the other concept deals with a much longer time-frame.

Whether you believe some deity made us in six days, or an as-yet-unknown designer made us in some unkown period of time, once that initial act of creation takes place, the concept has been completed. Creation occurs once, for every possible type of creature--not that they are created all at the same time. Evolution is what happens once that creation takes place.

bstone · May 11, 2005, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Theory of evolution doesn't deal with origin of life. Period.

WRONG.

Urey-Miller experiment. Basic evolutionary biology. Evolution of biological substances from non-biological ingredients.

Google it.

budster101 · May 11, 2005, 01:19 PM

Didn't we all come from some cosmic ooze that struck the earth after the Big Bang?

What are the odds? If this is true, I'm playing the LOTTERY.... every day.

ryaxnb · May 11, 2005, 03:44 PM

I think schools should teach evolution but explain that creation is preferred by some and that it is perfectly OK to believe differently.

ryaxnb · May 11, 2005, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Although I believe in the theory, evolution is quite incomplete. That's a fact. It's not as advanced or as sound as other scientific principles.

Newton's laws, and Einstien -incomplete, as atoms pay no attention to them

ryaxnb · May 11, 2005, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

More faith than those who -Writeout-blindly-Writeout- suppose, based on a certain modest amount of evidence, we really did emerge from a primordial soup, -NEW-instead of blindly following the easy route -- that any new problem, solution, or anything out of the oridinary, not to mention how we start and end, is all Mr. God's doing?-NEW-
.

Yes.