[Stradlater]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Just curious, what response are you waiting on ebuddy for? I looked back but couldn't find a pertinent question that you asked? Sorry if I missed it.

Mostly interested here, and -- less immediately -- here.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
From reading Stephen Hawking's works, you'd be hard-pressed in not believing there's a God. They won't say so implicitly because it is not in their field to say. Countless scientists discussing their fascination with what can only be described as immensely intricate design.

If you actually read Hawking's, you would know he has said "These laws may have originally been decreed by a God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it"
Sounds pretty implicit to me. AFAIK he is actually a dietist, with respect to an all-powerful God.

So you can use the fact that Hawkings thinks a creator started the universe for some ad hominem argument, but the fact he believes in evolution and common descent, that doesn't fit with your argument so you don't mention this.

Actually what Hawking's thinks (or used to think) and what I think may not be far off, I just think this isn't the first cycle of this things we call the universe.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
If you actually read Hawking's, you would know he has said "These laws may have originally been decreed by a God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it"
Sounds pretty implicit to me. AFAIK he is actually a dietist, with respect to an all-powerful God. So you can use the fact that Hawkings thinks a creator started the universe for some ad hominem argument, but the fact he believes in evolution and common descent, that doesn't fit with your argument so you don't mention this.
Actually what Hawking's thinks (or used to think) and what I think may not be far off, I just think this isn't the first cycle of this things we call the universe.

I merely presented Hawkings' work in response to someone inquiring evidence of design. There is evidence of design, but many would not like to include it.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I merely presented Hawkings' work in response to someone inquiring evidence of design. There is evidence of design, but many would not like to include it.

I don't think he was talking of evidence of design, I will pull direct quotes from the book when I get home if you like. He was talking of a God (refered to sometimes as 'singular' as in the "big bang" someone who started it all going. If that is what you refer to as design, in so far as Hawking's views, that is still a highly debatable concept.

He even goes on to explain order from disorder and how that is natural, he says the laws may have been put in to effect by a singular but that the singular is not evident today.

Funny how you will pull this to validate your point, after all he is highly educated on the subject and a highly esteemed professor, but you fail to mention how he sees no involvement by a 'creator', he sees evolution from common decent in action and he sees order developing from chaos just to name a few things...

[ebuddy]

I generally try to avoid disingenuous requests for links and or answers to questions. I find Stradlater's request disingenuous for good reason. He first admits that he lacks knowledge of the bible;

I'm not a Bible scholar and I don't know if these prophecies you mention could be fulfilled in such a manner (or were really fulfilled at all). A link to the OT prophecy-fulfillments would be nice if you can point me in that direction.

When I explained to him that the Bible speaks of people like him he says; "abstractly I'm sure." What he has done here is presuppose that the Bible only speaks in the abstract. What will he learn from my posting Biblical answers to his questions? Why would I think for one second that his request for information was genuine given that any information 'input' will be filtered based on a presupposed and expected 'output'? Oh well, I'm gluttoned for punishment. In seeing the link, scroll down approximately half-way as you will likely view the first half to be easily fakeable. The second half however, are not. Also keep in mind that there are some 300+ OT prophecies fulfilled in Jesus' lifetime and this link provides only a few of them;
OT prophecy fulfillment

Regardless, how does this equate with "extreme design?"

Jesus' birth and death occurred during very specific feasts. Feasts that would illustrate the Messiah years before His birth. This is not all however, there are compelling numerical sequences involved throughout the Old Testament and New Testament, that marry the two quite succinctly. I won't go into details on this just yet as you will likely find the link I've given you to be sufficiently dry enough to keep you busy for some time. I urge you to challenge and study these occurrances on your own and determine whether or not there are archeological facts to back it up and whether or not there are discrepancies. There's one thing I've learned about the Bible and it's that it cannot be spoon-fed to you. You absolutely have to challenge it's precepts on your own terms, but I urge you to do so. Exhaustively.

Luke 8:5; A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it was withered away, because it lacked moisture.
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing, they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

2 Timothy 4:3; For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I merely presented Hawkings' work in response to someone inquiring evidence of design. There is evidence of design, but many would not like to include it.

Hey ebuddy, I love you man. You're a righteous dude.

I've got a question for you, about your skepticism of evolution. Are you also skeptical of religious phenomena or stories - say, the existence of Jesus? Oh sure, there's some evidence, but there are some gaps in the record, shall we say, and we wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about such a thing.

One might also see evidence of design in the stories about Jesus - evidence that an intelligence, like human intelligence, created some of the stories, rather than the events just naturally occurring.

You must be the bane of those who push that religious stuff without evidence.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I generally try to avoid disingenuous requests for links and or answers to questions. I find Stradlater's request disingenuous for good reason. He first admits that he lacks knowledge of the bible; [/i]

You're still avoiding the one post I'd like you to answer. Please approach my questions about I.D.

You seem so adamant about I.D., so why can't you at least refute what I wrote; that is, unless you're conceding those points. I explained my reasoning for finding I.D. unconvincing, but if it's faulty reasoning, I implore you to tear away.

As far as the Bible stuff goes; I'll look into those links of yours. And "disingenuous"? Not really, I am interested in looking at some things your way (even if, in the end, I still disagree).

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You'll notice, when we debate aspects of science, or politics, or humanity in general; I deliberately avoid interjecting my personal religious philosophies. I believe in debating material on it's own merits w/o saying things like; "the Bible says so". I will of course, when asked-satisfy with an answer or mention these things when it's relevant to do so. In general I avoid those issues because they generally flame into needless bickering.

The problem is that anyone who's been around here knows where you stand on things Biblical, and that it informs your opinions on evolution. You've also been known to quote at length, verbatim and unattributed, from anti-evolution websites with credentials that are more religious than scientific. Add the fact that you're not a scientist, don't speak the language of science, and don't seem to be familiar with scientific method, and no one is fooled.

This is the problem with the ID and Creationism movements in general: they start with the Bible and go from there, which is contrary to scientific principles. They insist, as you do, that they're just independent thinkers challenging scientific dogma, and that their religion has nothing to do with it, but no one is fooled.

This doesn't mean you aren't entitled to your opinion or aren't entitled to express it - it's just a partial explanation as to why it's not very persuasive on this subject.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The problem is that anyone who's been around here knows where you stand on things Biblical, and that it informs your opinions on evolution.

How is this connected??? There have been many that tell me I'm on the fringe. They've told me that the Bible, Bible scholars, and most theologians from the most influential religions have stated clearly that they have no problems with science and evolution. You, in disagreement with them suppose that my oppostion to evolution is for purely theological reasons. Why can't I remain silent like most other Bible-centric religions? The truth of the matter is that you Zig, know I'm a Christian. You weigh every statement I make as representative of that platform with blatent disregard to what it is I'm saying. This is clearly your problem, not mine. I see this time and again, "you're Christian aren't you?" and "you're getting this from anti-evolution sites aren't you?" Why I'm not allowed to use popular media and everyone in opposition to me is, is beyond me. To summarize, a Christian does not have a right to critically examine science, regardless of whether or not I'm arguing the same aspects of it that it's participants argue. Regardless of whether or not many scientists have a problem with how popular media has formed their own conclusions on the scientists' life's work.

You've also been known to quote at length, verbatim and unattributed, from anti-evolution websites with credentials that are more religious than scientific.

I've also quoted from Talk Origins like many others, and medical papers, and National Geographic articles, Reader's Digest, etc...again, you will focus on 'christianity' and can't get beyond that. I can't help your use of filters in reading comprehension and retention.

Add the fact that you're not a scientist, don't speak the language of science, and don't seem to be familiar with scientific method, and no one is fooled.

What then, makes you qualified to challenge me? I'd like a copy of your resume' and some collegiate credentials please. Thank you. You might know, many read these threads. The words I use and the manner in which I present my evidence is also motivated toward simplicity not only for the one in which I'm discussing, but for others. The really dry threads alienate most readers and quickly die out. I enjoy my time spent here. That said; many in "the community" made the exact same statements about Darwin himself. Many of the supposedly "greatest" pioneers of science were hobbyists with little to offer in collegiate experience and official credentials relevant to their field of interest. I'm no expert and never claimed to be. Neither are the ones that claim; "Evolution is fact! Get over it." These people perhaps best illustrate their lack of knowledge regarding scientific principles, methods, and conclusions.

This is the problem with the ID and Creationism movements in general: they start with the Bible and go from there, which is contrary to scientific principles.

You might know, many of the authors of the 'principles of science' were motivated to learn more of their designer. Much of their knowledge came from the Bible, much of it from science. There is nothing wrong with this. This is the problem with the atheist, they immediately become adversarial of Christians w/o hearing a word they say.

They insist, as you do, that they're just independent thinkers challenging scientific dogma, and that their religion has nothing to do with it, but no one is fooled.

You grossly misunderstand me. I'm not trying to fool anyone first of all. Second of all, you've had dauntingly little to bring to this table. Why it is you are moved to speak now remains a mystery to me.

This doesn't mean you aren't entitled to your opinion or aren't entitled to express it - it's just a partial explanation as to why it's not very persuasive on this subject.

Well I sure appreciate that Zig. You, likewise have the right to continue contributing absolutely nothing productive to the conversation. The emails, IMs, and others backing my points show some inaccuracy in your statement of my inability to 'persuade'. I'm not trying to change minds, I'm trying to open them. I don't see why this is viewed as destructive, but it does give me a glimpse into others' philosophies and an idea of why they immediately degrade to mockery, strawmen, and defensive mentalities.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Hey ebuddy, I love you man. You're a righteous dude.

I sincerely appreciate that BRussell.

I've got a question for you, about your skepticism of evolution. Are you also skeptical of religious phenomena or stories - say, the existence of Jesus? Oh sure, there's some evidence, but there are some gaps in the record, shall we say, and we wouldn't want to jump to conclusions about such a thing.

Excellent question BRussell and good points. The answer is; my faith wavers based on these things. Absolutely. This is precisely what has motivated me to learn aspects of all of it. I challenge my pastor, I've challenged priests, I've challenged the Bible, I've challenged God. I find that often times Christians irritate me to the enth degree. You may or may not know the Bible speaks of doubt and the merits of it. It also makes the bold claim that it has been put in writing for just this reason. To prove it and/or disprove it. Thomas was not hung from the stake for not believing Jesus' resurrection. Jesus entertained his request for proof. Again, I do not blindly believe in the entire Bible. Much of it I have yet to even comprehend. I'm learning more about it, as well as it's history, it's composition, and the composition of other doctrines, and am personally weighing aspects of it from what I can glean of the natural. At some point however, much like adherents to all principles of evolution; you make a decision to take it or leave it. Me? I'm still learning.

One might also see evidence of design in the stories about Jesus - evidence that an intelligence, like human intelligence, created some of the stories, rather than the events just naturally occurring.

Correct however, you can take what you read in the Bible and weigh it with what you find in the natural and decide it's simply; extra-coincidental or you can consider, with open mind that what it says of itself may actually be correct. I guess maybe this is the burden of freewill, self-awareness, doubt, curiosity, and an intellect.

You must be the bane of those who push that religious stuff without evidence.

Indeed, I may have been viewed as such at times.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
You're still avoiding the one post I'd like you to answer. Please approach my questions about I.D.

I'm not really avoiding the question you posed, rather I'm still trying to determine what the question is. I will quote your "question" and see if I can adequately address it in it's vagueness and ambiguity.

Stradlater's original question; Because of the laws of physics and the certain "constants" that run our universe, planets came to be where they are, and we came to be where we are...so what?

I'm glad "came to be where they are" suffices for you. It is not sufficient nor plausible to me, nor was it enough for Hawking.

So does this mean that some creator perfectly constructed the laws of physics?

Yes. Quite possibly with a beginning, a time, and a pre-determined end. I believe evidence of "where our planets are", how they are in proximity to one another, what they are currently doing, and the mere fact that "we came to be" as evidence of design over randomness generally leading to complete chaos and disorder.

Does this mean that a designer figured out what exact nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms in his universe?

I find it more reasonable to conclude that the precisions we find in nature, and the very words used by the community of science like; directed, pointed, specified, ratio, laws, rules, governors, template, sequential, information, storage, edited, corrected, repaired, encoding, control, plans, etc... are more plausibly the result of design over randomness and purely natural phenomena, absolutely.

Did a creator make sure that gravity was much less powerful a force than electromagnetism, knowing that otherwise our universe wouldn't work?

In many respects our universe is on it's way to "not working", but to answer your question; at it's inception, yes.

Please. How can you infer B. from A.?

Already have now for the third time at least. I would urge BRussell, Zig, Stradlater, and Mikellanes to actually read what I've said. This futile excersize of repeating myself is getting tiring and I find that my enjoyment of this discussion is waning.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
How is this connected??? There have been many that tell me I'm on the fringe. They've told me that the Bible, Bible scholars, and most theologians from the most influential religions have stated clearly that they have no problems with science and evolution. You, in disagreement with them suppose that my oppostion to evolution is for purely theological reasons. Why can't I remain silent like most other Bible-centric religions? The truth of the matter is that you Zig, know I'm a Christian. You weigh every statement I make as representative of that platform with blatent disregard to what it is I'm saying. This is clearly your problem, not mine. I see this time and again, "you're Christian aren't you?" and "you're getting this from anti-evolution sites aren't you?" Why I'm not allowed to use popular media and everyone in opposition to me is, is beyond me. To summarize, a Christian does not have a right to critically examine science, regardless of whether or not I'm arguing the same aspects of it that it's participants argue. Regardless of whether or not many scientists have a problem with how popular media has formed their own conclusions on the scientists' life's work.

I've also quoted from Talk Origins like many others, and medical papers, and National Geographic articles, Reader's Digest, etc...again, you will focus on 'christianity' and can't get beyond that. I can't help your use of filters in reading comprehension and retention.

I consider the totality of the circumstances, and I think it's reasonable to conclude from reading hundreds of your posts that you're coming at the question with a Biblical perspective that is not wholly scientific. You can deny it, but citing fringe scientists with mail-order diplomas like this one puts a rather large dent in one's credibility: http://www.creationism.org/cem/ .

What then, makes you qualified to challenge me? I'd like a copy of your resume' and some collegiate credentials please. Thank you. You might know, many read these threads. The words I use and the manner in which I present my evidence is also motivated toward simplicity not only for the one in which I'm discussing, but for others. The really dry threads alienate most readers and quickly die out. I enjoy my time spent here. That said; many in "the community" made the exact same statements about Darwin himself. Many of the supposedly "greatest" pioneers of science were hobbyists with little to offer in collegiate experience and official credentials relevant to their field of interest. I'm no expert and never claimed to be. Neither are the ones that claim; "Evolution is fact! Get over it." These people perhaps best illustrate their lack of knowledge regarding scientific principles, methods, and conclusions.

The difference between us is that I don't consider myself qualified to challenge real scientists - people with direct knowledge and experience in the field - on questions of pure science. I have the right to pose questions, as you do, and I never suspend judgment altogether, but on matters that don't affect me personally, I'm inclined to defer to them, much as I would defer to an electrician to wire my home. You, on the other hand, seem to think you're in a position to challenge real scientists based not on direct experience, but on stuff you've read on the Web and elsewhere, much of it by people with mail-order diplomas and religious agendas. It's like listening to a Russian immigrant recite Shakespeare: it's fairly clear that you don't really speak the language. This is why it shouldn't surprise you that you're not taken more seriously.

You might know, many of the authors of the 'principles of science' were motivated to learn more of their designer. Much of their knowledge came from the Bible, much of it from science. There is nothing wrong with this. This is the problem with the atheist, they immediately become adversarial of Christians w/o hearing a word they say.

You grossly misunderstand me. I'm not trying to fool anyone first of all. Second of all, you've had dauntingly little to bring to this table. Why it is you are moved to speak now remains a mystery to me.

Well I sure appreciate that Zig. You, likewise have the right to continue contributing absolutely nothing productive to the conversation. The emails, IMs, and others backing my points show some inaccuracy in your statement of my inability to 'persuade'. I'm not trying to change minds, I'm trying to open them. I don't see why this is viewed as destructive, but it does give me a glimpse into others' philosophies and an idea of why they immediately degrade to mockery, strawmen, and defensive mentalities.

Sorry, I don't buy the "I'm just misunderstood/persecuted" argument. The fact that you've read about some alternate theories does not automatically legitimize them - you still have to make cogent arguments based on actual evidence; you still have to compete in the marketplace of ideas. As I've said all along: the way to challenge bad science is with better science.

As for my own contributions, or lack thereof, I find this an interesting topic, but like I said, on matters of pure science, I defer to the actual scientists. I don't pretend to speak their language or to know more about their own disciplines than they do. But you've repeatedly wondered why you haven't been taken more seriously, and my contribution, such as it is, is to offer an explanation. It doesn't mean you don't have the right to express your opinions, it's just my offer of an explanation, and you're free to take it or leave it, and I suspect you'll do the latter, which is fine.

An added thought that pretty well sums up my feelings on the matter: Asking questions and challenging the status quo is always useful, but I think it's also important to acknowledge when one is in over one's head.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm not really avoiding the question you posed, rather I'm still trying to determine what the question is. I will quote your "question" and see if I can adequately address it in it's vagueness and ambiguity.

Since you left unquoted and unanswered the most important parts of my post, I'll repeat myself. But first...

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm glad "came to be where they are" suffices for you. It is not sufficient nor plausible to me, nor was it enough for Hawking.

Appealling to authority is fallacious enough on its own right, but in this case you're twisting his stance. You said, "I merely presented Hawkings' work in response to someone inquiring evidence of design. There is evidence of design, but many would not like to include it." Still waiting for an explanation of how any of the things you mention are "evidence" of design.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Yes. Quite possibly with a beginning, a time, and a pre-determined end. I believe evidence of "where our planets are", how they are in proximity to one another, what they are currently doing, and the mere fact that "we came to be" as evidence of design over randomness generally leading to complete chaos and disorder.

"Yes"? So A. without a doubt and with much "evidence" implies B.? Because a tree sits in front of you, Johnny Appleseed must have planted it? You say because the laws of physics work in our universe, we can assume (or know, really) that there is an intelligent creator? What about the possibility of other universes that could be governed by completely different laws of physics; perhaps a universe devoid of a 4th dimension, perhaps a universe composed of unfathomable things... And as far as "chaos and disorder" go, your argument weakens. The universe is far from perfect and devoid of disorder. Our quantum universe is completely and utterly chaotic, many laws of physics break down at the nanoscopic level.

The planets are where they are. That's it. How can the placement of the planets pose as evidence for design?

A volcano erupts and an island is born...was it designed because it's now there? If it hadn't formed, the plants and animals that lived on it -- thousands of years later -- could not have lived, so I guess that's evidence that a creator made the island?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I find it more reasonable to conclude that the precisions we find in nature, and the very words used by the community of science like; directed, pointed, specified, ratio, laws, rules, governors, template, sequential, information, storage, edited, corrected, repaired, encoding, control, plans, etc... are more plausibly the result of design over randomness and purely natural phenomena, absolutely.

Explain your reasoning here; how do words -- linguistic, partial representations of what a human can perceive -- show evidence of I.D.? And once again (because you keep avoiding the question): just how are these precisions in nature evidence of intelligent design?

Let us assume, for a moment, that there was a "big bang" at the beginning of our universe, and space-time-heavy mass is flung from the explosion. The planets end up where they end up, moving where they are moving. Where is the design? Was God a pyrotechnician?

Say the wind gusts and a pebble falls from the top of the mountain to the bottom of the mountain. The pebble is just there; its placement is not evidence showing that an intelligent designer threw the pebble from the top of the mountain, even in that pebble -- "randomly" -- lands on and crushes a tiny animal. "I can't believe that pebble snuffed out a life -- someone must have thrown it."

These analogies are far from "perfect", sure, but are close enough that they hopefully get some explanations out of you.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
In many respects our universe is on it's way to "not working", but to answer your question; at it's inception, yes.

What do you mean "on it's [sic] way"? You mean entropy? OK...and?

As far as "at it's [sic] inception" goes, your absolute "yes" seems unfounded. Leading us to the final part of your post...

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Already have now for the third time at least. I would urge BRussell, Zig, Stradlater, and Mikellanes to actually read what I've said. This futile excersize of repeating myself is getting tiring and I find that my enjoyment of this discussion is waning.

Please don't dodge the question. If you are lazy and don't want to reiterate, then at least point me to where you explain how you could possibly infer B. from A., because I can't find anything like that for the life of me.

Again, consider the possibility of other universes ruled by completely different sets of laws. The laws balance the universe and allow it to work as much as it works. Does this mean that someone wrote the laws, that someone designed the universe? No. Could some designer have created the universe? Possibly, but there is no evidence.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I sincerely appreciate that BRussell.

No reason to be wary, ebuddy. I mean it. And I'm glad to hear you're just as skeptical about religion and religious stories as you are about scientific theories. Credulity is a Bad Thing.�

[Agent69]

To answer the original post, just because many people believe something doesn't make it right or true. Also, I suspect that many people won't voice their true opinion for fear of retribution.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I consider the totality of the circumstances, and I think it's reasonable to conclude from reading hundreds of your posts that you're coming at the question with a Biblical perspective that is not wholly scientific. You can deny it, but citing fringe scientists with mail-order diplomas like this one puts a rather large dent in one's credibility: http://www.creationism.org/cem/ .

First of all; Paluxy is a highly debateable site. Some of the findings there have been interesting at best and definitely not conclusive. The examples they show of dinosaur and human prints are fuzzy at best and one must make some leaps to make the conclusion this man is making. Occasionally, I will throw an example of this out there to get knocked down or propped up. I find it interesting how my statements of these questionable things being fact was an irritant to you. This is how I feel everytime I see some blind evo-philosopher say "evolution's a fact dude, get over it." I've told you repeatedly, I enjoy my time here and has been more educational to me than doing research on my own.

That said; Zig, you come so close to a point and just can't close the argument and I'll tell you why. There are atheists and those who admittedly know little of the Bible, but ironically you're not willing to defer to the one with Biblical knowledge in any of those such debates. For some reason, one who shares your particular ideals-they have credibility, but anyone who does not pass your "hmm, is this a Christian?" filter will not. You too, have an agenda. You'd be willing to quote plenty of those with no credentials on theology, regarding the plausibility and accuracy of the doctrine in debate. In short, you have a chip on your shoulder and all arguments for and against a thing are weighed using that chip as a template. Oh, and one more thing; there are plenty of those with more knowledge than you regarding evolution who disagree with it's premise. Who then do you default to? You act as if the entire community of science is in agreement and those who are not in lock-step with them are somehow either Christian Creationist whackos or have some religious agenda with dime-store internet, correspondence level diplomas. Not too long ago, a series was airing on Public Television called simply; Evolution. This series offered no challenge for the theory, but supposedly covered all aspects of it. There were several scientists, not Creationists or Evangelists Zig, but real Scientists that had major problems with how this series was presented. These are scientists [over 100 of them] that were moved to sign a statement saying they are in disagreement with Darwinian Theory and feel it lacks serious challenge in popular media and in the community of science. In short, they disagree with the theory based on 'real science'. Some perspective for you because for whatever reason (though I have my ideas) you remain blind to some very important pieces of my argument;

Signers of the statement questioning Darwinism came from throughout the US and from several other countries, representing biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, anthropology and other scientific fields. Professors and researchers at such universities as Princeton, MIT, U Penn, and Yale, as well as smaller colleges and the National Laboratories at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos, N.M., are included. A number of the signers have authored or contributed to books on issues related to evolution, or have books underway. These are scientists Zig-may you default to them?

"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination." Hmm. Suppressing legitimate dissent, threatening tenure, ad hominem attacks, attempting to stigmatize all critics, including scientists, as religious 'creationists' equates to viewpoint discrimination. What to do when a Cambridge Science Professor illustrates a problem with how legitimate questions of Evolution Theory are treated? Who can we default to now??? I thought only Creationist whackos and evangelistic zealots belived in the "community conspiracy"???

Chemist and five time Nobel nominee, (in Zigs opinion an idiot with no credentials) Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, commented on the need to encourage debate on Darwin's theory of evolution. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer or "people on MacNN" says ebuddy, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Schaefer was on the roster of signers of the statement, termed "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism."

Jed Macosko, a young research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley,[i.e. another idiot according to Zig] and a statement signer, said, "it is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics. Science can't grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."

The difference between us is that I don't consider myself qualified to challenge real scientists

I've just illustrated how you now are.

- people with direct knowledge and experience in the field

Yes, and on what credential should you rely to refute the above gentlemen?

on questions of pure science. I have the right to pose questions, as you do, and I never suspend judgment altogether, but on matters that don't affect me personally, I'm inclined to defer to them, much as I would defer to an electrician to wire my home.

Correct, just as you'd likely defer to your insurance agent and lawyer if that electrician botched the wiring and your home and personal belongings melted into your LaZboy. Or you'd likely defer again to your lawyer for the doctor having over-prescribed meds to your child. You underestimate the importance of having information at your own disposal and empowering yourself with it Zig. All I have done throughout this thread is illustrate the fact that there is significant difference between what the scientists conclude, and what is written about them and their life's work in popular media and in science journals and how there are credible scientists who have real problems with Evolution. All you have offered thus far is; "only creationist whackos like ebuddy have problems with evolution." (failing to realise of course, that I've illustrated the difference between Young Earth creationism and I.D. and how I sway closer to the ideal of I.D.)

You, on the other hand, seem to think you're in a position to challenge real scientists based not on direct experience, but on stuff you've read on the Web and elsewhere, much of it by people with mail-order diplomas and religious agendas.

You are arguing that somehow your ignorance has more credibility than mine??? What of those with incredible collegiate experience and credentials who offer challenges??? I dare say you'd be less willing to swallow information and "default to them" if they're work challenges your philosophy. All of a sudden, we're not looking for expertise anymore. I hope I've illustrated to you how your argument fails using your points to do it. I'm hoping I've established some rapport with you. You seem (other than this particular subject) to be a reasonable person.

Sorry, I don't buy the "I'm just misunderstood/persecuted" argument. The fact that you've read about some alternate theories does not automatically legitimize them - you still have to make cogent arguments based on actual evidence; you still have to compete in the marketplace of ideas. As I've said all along: the way to challenge bad science is with better science.

Conversely; in matters regarding faith this particular theory has put itself at odds with competing philosophies and theologies and as such, must establish the credibility of it's god, time.

As for my own contributions, or lack thereof, I find this an interesting topic, but like I said, on matters of pure science, I defer to the actual scientists.

No, you don't.

I don't pretend to speak their language or to know more about their own disciplines than they do.

Yes, you do.

But you've repeatedly wondered why you haven't been taken more seriously, and my contribution, such as it is, is to offer an explanation.

When did I say I wasn't being taken seriously. This is an insult to those who've engaged 4 pages of debate with me in this thread as well as the various other doctors and scientists who've embraced pages of threads regarding this issue in other threads.

It doesn't mean you don't have the right to express your opinions, it's just my offer of an explanation, and you're free to take it or leave it, and I suspect you'll do the latter, which is fine.

Not necessarily. Some points I will take, others I will leave.

An added thought that pretty well sums up my feelings on the matter: Asking questions and challenging the status quo is always useful, but I think it's also important to acknowledge when one is in over one's head.

At least this explains your general silence on the matter, but I thank you for your time.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I don't have much time, but ill take a stab at some of this...

I don't know how I missed this entire post. We must've moved on to another page. I'll have to address this later as well as Stradlater's stuff.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Me personally? I was raised to believe.

I believe that sums up all reasons for people's belief in God or Atheism. Everything else we bring is more rationalization for something we are powerless to counter or deny, emphasizing further that we all are the product of social conditioning/propaganda. But our belief makes us meme media, because we tend to propagate that same knowledge and dodge any self-criticism over our belief system.

A belief has nothing to do with the potential reality of the existence of a God.

God cannot be proven directly or indirectly; we can only suppose a Creation process if we believe in Causality.

If we go along the path of the Theory of Relativity, and follow the reasoning, timeflow is an artefact of Consciousness, meaning it is man-made, or awareness-dependant. A Creator would therefore be a product of our own brain working, if we consider it as a cause.

If we assume the universe is complete and definite (even accounting for a potential infinity of it's volume), a Creator would have to be static, and exterior to it's creation, making a necessity of redefining the Universe � la Transfinite Number Theory because it is the only reasoning that is valid, one akin to Cantor's Transfinite numbers, whereas for any number, or transfinite numbers, there will always be a set of a larger magnitude.

A God, in such a setting has to therefor be the product of a Creation, rather than it's cause. That makes more sense than the reverse. Again, we fall in the trap of what created all this...

Probably, the only way to reconcile the whole thing is to simply admit that it is beyond our comprehending capabilities. Which makes us all equals in front of the Unknown/Unknowable.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
I believe that sums up all reasons for people's belief in God or Atheism.

No, it doesn't. Though most atheists would like to think so.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
That said; Zig, you come so close to a point and just can't close the argument and I'll tell you why. There are atheists and those who admittedly know little of the Bible, but ironically you're not willing to defer to the one with Biblical knowledge in any of those such debates. For some reason, one who shares your particular ideals-they have credibility, but anyone who does not pass your "hmm, is this a Christian?" filter will not. You too, have an agenda.

1. I don't claim to be unbiased on the subject of religion - I've even referred to myself as a poster-child for atheism. Can you honestly say that between scripture and evolutionary theory, you have no biases whatsoever? That's really what we're trying to get at here.

2. I would never claim to know more about scripture than you do. Similarly, I would never claim to know more about the history of mysticism than MacNStein does. I don't believe I've ever engaged in debates about the specifics - I generally leave those things to the experts. My opinions concern the general underlying nature of such belief systems and their role in politics and culture, not their history or internal logic. I would never presume to tell a priest that he's getting Mass all wrong.

Again, my point is not that you aren't entitled to biases, or aren't entitled to your opinions, or aren't entitled to express them here. I was trying to address the persistent complaint that you aren't being taken seriously, e.g. "Already have now for the third time at least. I would urge BRussell, Zig, Stradlater, and Mikellanes to actually read what I've said. This futile excersize of repeating myself is getting tiring and I find that my enjoyment of this discussion is waning."

Oh, and one more thing; there are plenty of those with more knowledge than you regarding evolution who disagree with it's premise. Who then do you default to? You act as if the entire community of science is in agreement and those who are not in lock-step with them are somehow either Christian Creationist whackos or have some religious agenda with dime-store internet, correspondence level diplomas. Not too long ago, a series was airing on Public Television called simply; Evolution. This series offered no challenge for the theory, but supposedly covered all aspects of it. There were several scientists, not Creationists or Evangelists Zig, but real Scientists that had major problems with how this series was presented. These are scientists [over 100 of them] that were moved to sign a statement saying they are in disagreement with Darwinian Theory and feel it lacks serious challenge in popular media and in the community of science. In short, they disagree with the theory based on 'real science'. Some perspective for you because for whatever reason (though I have my ideas) you remain blind to some very important pieces of my argument

I'm well aware that there are bona fide scientists who have raised questions about Darwinism (and that electricians make mistakes, etc. etc.). That's good - that's what science is ultimately about, and what largely distinguishes it from religious doctrine. The question I have is whether your own skepticism of evolutionary theory derives from an interest in pure science, or an interest in religious doctrine and the veracity of the Bible in particular. There's a difference.

When did I say I wasn't being taken seriously.

See above.

To reiterate: I'm not questioning your right to participate, I'm only trying to offer an explanation for the skepticism. I could be mistaken; everyone will have to come to their own conclusions.

[Stradlater]

Pleasantly waiting

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, it doesn't. Though most atheists would like to think so.

If you do not believe the belief in God is learned, then it has to be hereditary.

Unless you know of another way?

Seriously curious.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Since you left unquoted and unanswered the most important parts of my post, I'll repeat myself. But first...

I'm beginning to wonder if you're more interested in answers, or asking more questions.

Appealling to authority is fallacious enough on its own right, but in this case you're twisting his stance.

Ironically, you've not called to the carpet anyone in agreement with you who has suggested that my views are fringe, Bible-centric, and 'unscientific' using the life's work of Darwin, Gould, Eldredge, etc...I'm constantly reminded that my view flies in the face of 'real scientists' using the 'authority of the community of science'. I'm glad you see that as fallacious, afterall that's all I've been trying to illustrate.

You said, "I merely presented Hawkings' work in response to someone inquiring evidence of design. There is evidence of design, but many would not like to include it." Still waiting for an explanation of how any of the things you mention are "evidence" of design.

For life, (as we know it) to exist, we know of parameters that must be met. This is why we aren't finding life elsewhere. It's debateable yes, but generally known that we have not found life elsewhere. Parameters such as;
decay rates of different exotic mass particles
density of quasars
galaxy cluster size
galaxy cluster density
cluster location
galaxy mass distribution
frequency of gamma ray bursts in galaxy
star distance from corotation ircle of galaxy
proximity of solar nebula to a normal type I supernova eruption
star distance from closest spiral arm
timing of solar nebula formation relative to type II supernova eruption
number of hypernovae eruptions
flux of cosmic ray protons
variability of cosmic ray proton flux
gas dispersal rate by companion stars, shockwaves, and moecular cloud expansion in the Sun's birthing star cluster
number and timing of close encounters by nearby stars
star magnetic field, magnetic field variability, stellar wind strength and variability
H3 production
structure of comet cloud surrounding planetary system
planetary distance from star
inclination of planetary orbit
axis tilt of planet
rate of change of axial tilt, period and size of axial tilt variation
planet rotation period
number of moons
mass and distance from moon
surface gravity
tidal force from sun and moon
planet reflectivity
thickness of crust
oceans to continents ratio
global distribution of continents
asteroidal and cometary collision rate
major planet orbital instabilities
rainfall precipitation, variation and timing of average rainfall precipitation
atmospheric pressure, viscosity, electric discharge rate, temperature gradient, carbon dioxide levels
distribution and amount of various elements; cobalt in crust, arsenic, copper, boron, cadmium, calcium, flourine, iodine, magnesium, manganese, nickel, phosphorus, potassium, tin, zinc, molybdenum, vanadium,

In short, there are hundreds of these parameters of life to consider all with anywhere from .1 probability to .001 probability for allowing and sustaining life, but with an important factor to consider-their proximately and correlation to one another. It has been estimated that the above 'hundreds of parameters' needed for the existence of life to successfully correlate to be 10 to the 300th. On your point, this does allow for the possibility of 10 to the 22nd for life to exist elsewhere, but let's turn that around. This means the probability of these occurrances having simply "arrived where they are" to be 1 in 10 followed by approximately 280+0's. Actuaries conclude that 1 in 10 to the 22nd to be statistically improbable and 1 in 10 to the 32nd to be statistically impossible. I have two things to consider; either it's possible these things happened only "because they did" or "they were placed there deliberately by a designer with a beginning and an end." The timetable is dependant upon entropy-the clock.

"Yes"? So A. without a doubt and with much "evidence" implies B.?

I distinctly remembered saying; "I'm no expert, I'm still learning." Please avoid the inclusion of emotions here. Science does not make these statements either. Is this to be considered for gauging credibility?

Because a tree sits in front of you, Johnny Appleseed must have planted it?

Ironically, you may or may not know I sit here in Nebraska, Home of Arbor Day. We often tout the fictional Johnny Appleseed for his heavy influence in our desire to propogate tree-life here. So yes, as a matter of fact it's possible that the tree I see before me is in fact the result of Johnny Appleseed.

You say because the laws of physics work in our universe, we can assume (or know, really) that there is an intelligent creator? What about the possibility of other universes that could be governed by completely different laws of physics; perhaps a universe devoid of a 4th dimension, perhaps a universe composed of unfathomable things...

Rather than considering that which we have no clue yet, how about the possibility that you are wrong???

And as far as "chaos and disorder" go, your argument weakens. The universe is far from perfect and devoid of disorder. Our quantum universe is completely and utterly chaotic, many laws of physics break down at the nanoscopic level.

This statement tells me you're not paying attention. BTW Zig; this does not mean I'm not being taken seriously, it means Stradlater is not paying attention. I clearly stated "at it's inception" and that it is still subjected to the laws of entropy. A car, left outside will rust and decay and become generally disorderly. However, this does not mean the vehicle was not designed.

The planets are where they are.

I disagree, I hope that's okay with you. Many others do as well.

That's it. How can the placement of the planets pose as evidence for design?

Conversely, how can they not be evidence for design???

A volcano erupts and an island is born...was it designed because it's now there? If it hadn't formed, the plants and animals that lived on it -- thousands of years later -- could not have lived, so I guess that's evidence that a creator made the island?

Possibly, sure. At it's inception. The earth reacts in accordance with the laws of nature that it has been designed to illustrate.

Explain your reasoning here; how do words -- linguistic, partial representations of what a human can perceive -- show evidence of I.D.? And once again (because you keep avoiding the question): just how are these precisions in nature evidence of intelligent design?

Start flipping a quarter Stradlater and please let me know when you've gotten 330 'heads' in a row. Thanx.

Let us assume, for a moment, that there was a "big bang" at the beginning of our universe, and space-time-heavy mass is flung from the explosion. The planets end up where they end up, moving where they are moving. Where is the design? Was God a pyrotechnician?

That's funny. Knowing that the sustainance of life is more than simply "where the planets are", I'd say their general placement is the result of I.D., yes.

Say the wind gusts and a pebble falls from the top of the mountain to the bottom of the mountain. The pebble is just there; its placement is not evidence showing that an intelligent designer threw the pebble from the top of the mountain, even in that pebble -- "randomly" -- lands on and crushes a tiny animal. "I can't believe that pebble snuffed out a life -- someone must have thrown it."

This is just silly Stradlater. Okay. If you had placed the pebble in front of a barn-hay fan set to 'high' simulating gale force velocity and the pebble did not move, and if you could successfully establish that villagers living on top of that mountain frequently used the throwing of pebbles for hunting...yes. You could say that the pebble lying where it is must be deliberate.

These analogies are far from "perfect", sure, but are close enough that they hopefully get some explanations out of you.

None that will satisfy you no doubt.

What do you mean "on it's [sic] way"? You mean entropy? OK...and?

A mechanism for determining and carrying out finality.

Please don't dodge the question. If you are lazy and don't want to reiterate, then at least point me to where you explain how you could possibly infer B. from A., because I can't find anything like that for the life of me.

The question is disingenuous, ambiguous, and vague. You are not looking for answers. None of my numerous responses to your questions can be answered in your view because they don't make sense to you. Look, the fact that things happened by chance or by accident is no more productive than supposing these things happened by design. I use laws of probability to support my argument and you use; "because scientists theorize" as yours. Regardless of whether or not a sufficient mechanism exists to allow for such statistical improbabilities. Tell me, why are you so opposed to the supposition that these things happened by design. What evidence do you have that suggests they didn't? Tell me how A. random chance and happenstance; equals B. They are where they are. Can you know this for fact? How?

Again, consider the possibility of other universes ruled by completely different sets of laws.

What laws my sci-faithful friend? Anything, but I.D. right?

The laws balance the universe and allow it to work as much as it works. Does this mean that someone wrote the laws, that someone designed the universe? No.

How then, are they as they are? Chance? Randomness? What gauge do you use to determine deliberation and cause-effect? Forensics and archeology are useful in determining deliberation. They employ scientific methods up to and including probablilities. These are not new Creationist whacko methods. They are reasonable and conclusive.

Could some designer have created the universe? Possibly, but there is no evidence.

We disagree on what constitutes evidence. Again, consider the possibility that you are wrong.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Eldredge and Gould provided examples of speciation events where paleontologists have been lucky enough to find the small area in which the speciation actually occurred and the required intermediates were found, even though over the wider range the new species seems to appear suddenly in the fossil record when the new species subsequently colonized that wider range.

Link please Mik? What area was this? What 'required' intermediates were found?

Many say EVERY fossil is transitional between one form and another, but technically speaking it's not quite true.

Actually, what you had said before you edited your post to say you go into greater detail below was; "All fossiles are transitional ebuddy, you should know this." I'm glad to see you've edited that statement out and have clarified it here.

We don't actually know, for a given fossil, whether it represented a member of a species that was an actual intermediate (in the sense that it spawned species of its own) or whether it was a divergent line that went extinct without species-progeny.

You forgot one; or whether or not it's simply a different species of animal. We're discovering new species of animals every year. Not a variant of a common ancestor, but a species, all it's own- illustrating common need. Like your mudskipper.

It strikes me that there is also a frame of reference issue here. If you regard everything alive now (or at any given time) as a snapshot, then nothing is "transitional" because the snapshot is static. Every organism alive at the time is complete, functional, and distinct from every other.

True. I believe the lacking in fossil record of what could truly be considered intermediates, considering what other factors must be concerned for a true intermediate. Generally, three factors such as;
1)expected fossil transitions should be found
2) the amount of biological change must be mathematically possible given the size, reproduction rate, and mutation rate of the evolving population, the supposed time allowed for the change in the fossil record, and the rules of population genetics, (many of these characteristics may be dependent upon one another, but the point is that in the end, the numbers must add up), and
3) all stages of intermediate morphology of the transitional organisms must be conceivably functional and advantageous to survival.

While the evidence for evolution is still in the process of being gathered, there is a *lot* of it and it all fits into one general, systematic pattern. There are still many questions to be answered, and more refinements to be added, just as Newton's laws of motion were enhanced by the additions of knowledge concerning quantum phenomena and relativity, but there have been no great questions as to the underlying validity of evolution, other than in the minds of those who are terrified that it might be so, at all.

You started off very well in this point Mik, then exposed some bias. Bias, I might add that is simply not true. In short I guess I'll have to leave this point with; "we'll see." For the time being; you've at least illustrated and exemplified the statement made by the 'real scientists' I quoted above in your attempt to filter using "viewpoint discrimination." I'd have to ask conversely what it is you might be afraid of?

What of the penguin with its retarded wing? Natural selection most assuredly would've seen the demise of this species.

Have you seen one swim? Turns out it's "retarded wings" make the penguin quite the adept little swimmer and I'd have to say without those fins it would be more difficult for this species to survive.

As would anyone who understands how it works. A few questions, why would the rat become extinct? Where does evolution say that? Why would wings *poof* out of no where?

I apologize, but this was to grossly generalize what it is we find in the fossile record.

I see that your problem is with the creative ability of natural selection and mutation... accounting for all we know to exist.

How about every known organisim? You know.. just to name one

I disagree. This doesn't mean I'm right, it means I disagree.

Why do they not appear to be? What are you expecting to see? Also, Define for us transitional? Every single organism and fossil on this planet meets the definition in regards to evolution.

In regards to evolution yes, which does not necessarily mean it makes logical sense.

Sure as heck looks to me like a fish evolving into something else--something amphibious, actually.

Of course it does Mik. It looks an awful lot like a species that shares the needs of both, illustrating common need, not common ancestory to me.

How about something halfway between dogs and dolphins? Ever heard of Ambulocetus? Its limbs allowed it to swim and could also support it on land. It had long, powerful jaws with shark-like teeth, a small brain, and a pelvis fused to its backbone (like land-dwelling mammals but unlike whales). It may have been an ancestor of the whales - it may have evolved from animals like Mesonychid. Ambulocetus was found (in 1993) and named (in 1994) by Hans Thewissen in Pakistan.

Interesting to be sure. It provides a very convincing picture of a what one evolutionist calls, a �walking whale�. This organism was a supposedly swimming legged ancestor to the whale, but the necessary bones to confirm this characteristic of its lifestyle were never found: "To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones ... belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. The pelvic girdle is missing."

Don Batten notes that since only one tail vertebrate was found, it is impossible to infer a swimming habit similar to that of a whale (for the whale uses its tail and fluke extensively to swim) and that the presence of a robust femur and hoof indicate it was a �land-dwelling creature�. Finally, Batten concludes that �there are too many crucial parts missing to be sure what Ambulocetus is. Whatever it is, it is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of the whales."

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
For life, (as we know it) to exist, we know of parameters that must be met. This is why we aren't finding life elsewhere. It's debateable yes, but generally known that we have not found life elsewhere. Parameters such as;
decay rates of different exotic mass particles
density of quasars
galaxy cluster size
galaxy cluster density
cluster location
galaxy mass distribution
frequency of gamma ray bursts in galaxy
star distance from corotation ircle of galaxy
proximity of solar nebula to a normal type I supernova eruption
star distance from closest spiral arm
timing of solar nebula formation relative to type II supernova eruption
number of hypernovae eruptions
flux of cosmic ray protons
variability of cosmic ray proton flux
gas dispersal rate by companion stars, shockwaves, and moecular cloud expansion in the Sun's birthing star cluster
number and timing of close encounters by nearby stars
star magnetic field, magnetic field variability, stellar wind strength and variability
H3 production
structure of comet cloud surrounding planetary system
planetary distance from star
inclination of planetary orbit
axis tilt of planet
rate of change of axial tilt, period and size of axial tilt variation
planet rotation period
number of moons
mass and distance from moon
surface gravity
tidal force from sun and moon
planet reflectivity
thickness of crust
oceans to continents ratio
global distribution of continents
asteroidal and cometary collision rate
major planet orbital instabilities
rainfall precipitation, variation and timing of average rainfall precipitation
atmospheric pressure, viscosity, electric discharge rate, temperature gradient, carbon dioxide levels
distribution and amount of various elements; cobalt in crust, arsenic, copper, boron, cadmium, calcium, flourine, iodine, magnesium, manganese, nickel, phosphorus, potassium, tin, zinc, molybdenum, vanadium,

In short, there are hundreds of these parameters of life to consider all with anywhere (...)

You are mixing a lot of stuff that can actually be reduced to a limited number of Laws. Listing parameters is moot. It is not so much the parameters that count but how basic elements are related to one another.

As for your ID theory, it denies any process; you start with the assumption that things were placed "here" or "there" denying any dynamics.

Also, the existence of Life is understandable by simpler terms than the existence of the Universe; as a logical consequence to the existence of the Universe, rather than it's opposite. The Universe did not come to be at the same time as what we know to be "Life".

If you are to prove the existence of a God, you have to get out of the anthropocentric point of view.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Ironically, you've not called to the carpet anyone in agreement with you who has suggested that my views are fringe, Bible-centric, and 'unscientific' using the life's work of Darwin, Gould, Eldredge, etc...I'm constantly reminded that my view flies in the face of 'real scientists' using the 'authority of the community of science'. I'm glad you see that as fallacious, afterall that's all I've been trying to illustrate.

I've never suggested that your views are fringe, or Bible-centric (though they probably are influenced by your Bible-reading upbringing), but I.D. is not scientific so much as pseudoscientific. Again: "appeal to authority" is a fallacy. Misinterpretation also can complicate using those opinions you've used for support.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
For life, (as we know it) to exist, we know of parameters that must be met. This is why we aren't finding life elsewhere. It's debateable yes, but generally known that we have not found life elsewhere.

So did this intelligent designer of yours design the entire universe? Or did it design the earth among the universe? If it designed the entire universe, why design it in such a way that -- if your predictions are held to be true -- only one small planet would host life.

And true, we have little evidence that there is life anywhere else in the universe (even the evidence of bacteria on Mars is still up for some debate). But we have no evidence that designer exists, not even...

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Parameters such as;
...
In short, there are hundreds of these parameters of life to consider all with anywhere from .1 probability to .001 probability for allowing and sustaining life, but with an important factor to consider-their proximately and correlation to one another. It has been estimated that the above 'hundreds of parameters' needed for the existence of life to successfully correlate to be 10 to the 300th. On your point, this does allow for the possibility of 10 to the 22nd for life to exist elsewhere, but let's turn that around. This means the probability of these occurrances having simply "arrived where they are" to be 1 in 10 followed by approximately 280+0's. Actuaries conclude that 1 in 10 to the 22nd to be statistically improbable and 1 in 10 to the 32nd to be statistically impossible.

Tell me, do these probabilities take into account the laws of physics which govern our universe having an influence on bettering odds?

From the previous post: "You are mixing a lot of stuff that can actually be reduced to a limited number of Laws. Listing parameters is moot. It is not so much the parameters that count but how basic elements are related to one another."

He's right. Now consider again how I've approached the laws of physics.

Also, tell me, how is rarity evidence of anything? The odds of being dealt a specific hand of cards in bridge is somewhere above the hundreds of billions...the odds of being dealt a specific hand of cards in war is even higher. The rules by which the cards are played by make an outcome -- winner -- more or less subject to that initial random deal.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I have two things to consider; either it's possible these things happened only "because they did" or "they were placed there deliberately by a designer with a beginning and an end." The timetable is dependant upon entropy-the clock.

Yup, and both are possibilities...

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I distinctly remembered saying; "I'm no expert, I'm still learning." Please avoid the inclusion of emotions here. Science does not make these statements either. Is this to be considered for gauging credibility?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Firstly, what emotions am I encluding there? Secondly, science does tend to be more credible when A. is connected to B...a pretermission of the pseudoscientific I.D. that makes me less apt to take it seriously.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Ironically, you may or may not know I sit here in Nebraska, Home of Arbor Day. We often tout the fictional Johnny Appleseed for his heavy influence in our desire to propogate tree-life here. So yes, as a matter of fact it's possible that the tree I see before me is in fact the result of Johnny Appleseed.

But seriously. There is a middleground that is not being approached.

We have...

A. Everything works and might not work if things were different.
B. There must be an intelligent designer.

How do you bridge them?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Rather than considering that which we have no clue yet, how about the possibility that you are wrong???

What does right and wrong have to do with this line of enquiry? Considering alternate universes and alternate laws of physics is no less worthy of discussion than considering a divine creator.

And what is it that I should consider being wrong about, specifically? I'm wrong that there's a possibility that an intelligent designer did not create the universe?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
This statement tells me you're not paying attention. BTW Zig; this does not mean I'm not being taken seriously, it means Stradlater is not paying attention. I clearly stated "at it's inception" and that it is still subjected to the laws of entropy. A car, left outside will rust and decay and become generally disorderly. However, this does not mean the vehicle was not designed.

Metals oxidize...whether it's metal used in human design or not. I also question your knowledge of entropy and how you connect it to order/disorder.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I disagree, I hope that's okay with you. Many others do as well.

Then the planets aren't where they are? I guess if you consider the way light travels to our eyes, slightly refracted by gravity, then you're correct, but for all purposes, they are where they are.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Conversely, how can they not be evidence for design???

See final comments for notes on "evidence."

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Possibly, sure. At it's inception. The earth reacts in accordance with the laws of nature that it has been designed to illustrate.

But this is not "evidence."

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Start flipping a quarter Stradlater and please let me know when you've gotten 330 'heads' in a row. Thanx.

Eventually it'll happen. Maybe the first time -- however unlikely. If I did get 330 in a row, would you say that some deity allowed this to happen?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
That's funny. Knowing that the sustainance of life is more than simply "where the planets are", I'd say their general placement is the result of I.D., yes.

Again: how and why?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
This is just silly Stradlater. Okay. If you had placed the pebble in front of a barn-hay fan set to 'high' simulating gale force velocity and the pebble did not move, and if you could successfully establish that villagers living on top of that mountain frequently used the throwing of pebbles for hunting...yes. You could say that the pebble lying where it is must be deliberate.

And you avoid the point.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
A mechanism for determining and carrying out finality.

A human has a hard enough time realizing the possible end to his own life; how can you even approach the end of the universe as a definitive future?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The question is disingenuous, ambiguous, and vague. You are not looking for answers. None of my numerous responses to your questions can be answered in your view because they don't make sense to you. Look, the fact that things happened by chance or by accident is no more productive than supposing these things happened by design. I use laws of probability to support my argument and you use; "because scientists theorize" as yours. Regardless of whether or not a sufficient mechanism exists to allow for such statistical improbabilities. Tell me, why are you so opposed to the supposition that these things happened by design. What evidence do you have that suggests they didn't? Tell me how A. random chance and happenstance; equals B. They are where they are. Can you know this for fact? How?

The laws of probability don't support your argument, though. I'm not convinced, either way, that everything was chance or that everything was design; I realize that we cannot know at this time. However, there is no evidence for design. All we have, at this time, is the fact that we exist and things are the way they are.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
What laws my sci-faithful friend? Anything, but I.D. right?

I'm not sure how you're working I.D. into this, but by "laws" I meant "laws of physics." So are you saying that if other universes exist, they are also definitely the result of intelligent design?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
How then, are they as they are? Chance? Randomness? What gauge do you use to determine deliberation and cause-effect? Forensics and archeology are useful in determining deliberation. They employ scientific methods up to and including probablilities. These are not new Creationist whacko methods. They are reasonable and conclusive.

Chance with the laws of physics equals something-less-than-chance. Whose "deliberation"?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
We disagree on what constitutes evidence. Again, consider the possibility that you are wrong.

"Evidence" is usually "something serving as a proof" (OED). Rarity and probability in itself, however, does not prove anything. That's why there's not evidence.

Another definition in OED that you might be using is: "An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace."

However, you fail to adequately explain why these appearances imply a deity.

Again: how does rarity or probability prove a miracle? Has it ever, definitively, in the past?

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
You are mixing a lot of stuff that can actually be reduced to a limited number of Laws. Listing parameters is moot. It is not so much the parameters that count but how basic elements are related to one another.[

Correct. The factors I listed are generally (only a few of the several hundred that correlate in a very specific manner) to sustain life as we know it.

As for your ID theory, it denies any process; you start with the assumption that things were placed "here" or "there" denying any dynamics.

I'm not denying dynamics. I'm saying I feel the process was influenced by intelligence at it's inception. We might learn more of dynamics, but we might also learn more of increased dimensionality, and more about how the designer may have done what we observe to be exceedingly unique and complex. I can't see why I.D is any more destructive a theory than the supposition that purely natural phenomena is responsible for it all.

Also, the existence of Life is understandable by simpler terms than the existence of the Universe; as a logical consequence to the existence of the Universe, rather than it's opposite. The Universe did not come to be at the same time as what we know to be "Life".

Did you get this from the Bible or something or are you saying that science has gained leaps in territory on origins all of a sudden?

If you are to prove the existence of a God, you have to get out of the anthropocentric point of view.

I know. Humanity is not the central element in the Universe. I shouldn't interpret reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience. Shall I then assume there is life elsewhere? Should we not use what we know of the natural? SETI is looking for aliens, they're not finding any. We should probably let them avoid being too anthropocentric, the rest of us however would do well to know what it is we have observed. We are unique. We are alone.

[ebuddy]

Universe is interestingly; single word. More later...

[bubblewrap]

Alone? Unique? I beg to differ.
There's plenty of documented evidence the Earth has been visited by ETs. Even the Bible documents such events.
Nephylum=ETs.

India has the Vimanas.

The Myans were ruled by Pakal.


Even the Europeans documented visiting spacecraft in paintings.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Universe is interestingly; single word. More later...

Incorrect. "Parallel universes" has been used, time and again. There's also the multiverse; "god" isn't limited to the singular, either.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm saying I feel the process was influenced by intelligence at it's inception.

Well, feeling is nice, but is barely a tool for knowledge; it brings you a reward for what you believe, and that is pretty much all there is to it.

The problem is that all the examples you are using come from way after any inception. Such a contradiction renders your point a useless one. Or were you going to make a rectifying point?

If we are to give credit to a so-called "Intelligent Design", we need to look at causality. But Causality has been in danger since 1905. This is in accord with Relativity, the best explanation we got so far about the nature of the universe, because it also agrees with facts.

Since Causality may not be acceptable in our Universe, we can always suppose it is acceptable outside of it... but that leaves us unsatisfied again...

We might learn more of dynamics, but we might also learn more of increased dimensionality, and more about how the designer may have done what we observe to be exceedingly unique and complex.

What is unique? How do you know it is "exceedingly unique and complex"? Being in awe regarding our existence does not mean it is unique. As for complexity, we are doing a good job at understanding more and more of this Universe.

I can't see why I.D is any more destructive a theory than the supposition that purely natural phenomena is responsible for it all.

Who said I.D. is destructive? As to the comparison, here are my thoughts:

1) I.D. is an anthropomorphism, therefore inappropriate to judge the nature of a potential Creator
2) Theory: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"" ([url=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+theory&btnG=Google+Search &meta=Google[/url]). So far, your expos� of I.D. fails to prove there is an intelligence behind our existence.

Did you get this from the Bible or something or are you saying that science has gained leaps in territory on origins all of a sudden?

No.

Also, the existence of Life is understandable by simpler terms than the existence of the Universe; as a logical consequence to the existence of the Universe, rather than it's opposite. The Universe did not come to be at the same time as what we know to be "Life".

The bolded and italicized part may have eluded you somehow.

I know. Humanity is not the central element in the Universe. I shouldn't interpret reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience. Shall I then assume there is life elsewhere? Should we not use what we know of the natural? SETI is looking for aliens, they're not finding any. We should probably let them avoid being too anthropocentric, the rest of us however would do well to know what it is we have observed.

If there are other planetary systems, as it has been proved for sometime already, the odds are serious enough that other planetary systems may contain life. It is not a certainty; it is a plausible hypotheses.

I am quite surprised that with all your prose on "scietific stuff" you haven't grasped issues related to Energy expense and distance and light speed as factors in delayed communication between interstellar species.

We are unique. We are alone.

Says you. It may be your belief, and that is another debate for another thread.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Universe is interestingly; single word. More later...

What does that have to do with the topic?

Are you trying to anthropomorphize Creation through English syntax and grammar?

[Stradlater]

More press you probably didn't want, ebuddy:

NYTimes on "unintelligent design."

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
More press you probably didn't want, ebuddy:
NYTimes on "unintelligent design."

I'm not going to become a member of the NY Times site. They are supposing that what is witnessed "where we are today" to mean that it began that way and was designed as such. Ironically, they're doing what you claim I've done in the past when honestly; there's no way of knowing for certain.

All I said was 'Universe', broken down to mean 'single word' is interesting. More interesting than that however was how some reacted to nothing more than a tidbit; YOU'RE WRONG, PARALLEL UNIVERSE AND MULTIVERSE ARE SOMETIMES USED!! That's funny. UNI does not mean parallel or multi, it means simply single. Verse is word. Jackalopes are sometimes talked about, it doesn't mean they exist.

Some things I'm beginning to see here. We're willing to suppose there's other life out there though we haven't observed any. People can enter into this peice with all the "fringe" data they want to use claiming it as "documentation". We're willing to jump to any speculation of any kind regardless of it's value to science. I bring up I.D. as a plausible explanation for what it is we witness as exceedingly complex, irreducibly complex not only found in the cosmos, but among living organisms on earth and every facet of what I say is questioned, onward to page 5.

I.D. is simply something that serves as an argument against random/chance. My God cannot be proved or disproved any more than saying random/chance can be. Many will latch onto evidence of "sloppiness" to say there is no Creator. I believe there's sufficient evidence of design over purely natural phenomena. The only reason this poses a problem for what many are calling "science" is because they've allowed themselves to become adversarial to the plausibility of a Creator. Those involved in research and discovery, are not necessarily as quick to claim there's no god, but then it's not in their field to do so. Religion and science do not need to be at odds, but minds absolutely need to remain open. I see a willingness to embrace any concept, but this and that is unfortunate.

I am quite surprised that with all your prose on "scietific stuff" you haven't grasped issues related to Energy expense and distance and light speed as factors in delayed communication between interstellar species.

Gee, there's well-documented evidence that they've not only somehow broken the barrier of time allotment for successful communication between interstellar species SimpleLife, but they've vistited us. I know, they only visit those with low-quality video gear. Apparently, fibro-myalgia and chronic fatique disorder wasn't getting them the attention they needed.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm not going to become a member of the NY Times site. They are supposing that what is witnessed "where we are today" to mean that it began that way and was designed as such. Ironically, they're doing what you claim I've done in the past when honestly; there's no way of knowing for certain.

You're not going to become a member (free registration w/ uncomfirmed email), but you claim to know what the article is about?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
All I said was 'Universe', broken down to mean 'single word' is interesting.

That would be interesting if it were true. I'm pretty sure that "universe" stems from the Latin "universus." "Versus" means "to turn," where "universus" could literally mean "turned into one," or, more generally, "all together." And a few dictionary etymologies confirm this.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
More interesting than that however was how some reacted to nothing more than a tidbit; YOU'RE WRONG, PARALLEL UNIVERSE AND MULTIVERSE ARE SOMETIMES USED!! That's funny. UNI does not mean parallel or multi, it means simply single. Verse is word. Jackalopes are sometimes talked about, it doesn't mean they exist.

And people still say "sunrise" and "sunset," which we know now to be wrong. The existence of jackalopes hasn't been approached by mathematics and physics -- the existence of parallel universes and the overall multiverse, however, has. The latter ideas have become increasingly supported by scientists today. And again, your tidbit is irrelevant, especially after one realizes that you misinterpreted the root words. "YOU'RE [still] WRONG"

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Some things I'm beginning to see here. We're willing to suppose there's other life out there though we haven't observed any. People can enter into this peice with all the "fringe" data they want to use claiming it as "documentation". We're willing to jump to any speculation of any kind regardless of it's value to science. I bring up I.D. as a plausible explanation for what it is we witness as exceedingly complex, irreducibly complex not only found in the cosmos, but among living organisms on earth and every facet of what I say is questioned, onward to page 5.

If we're willing to suppose that a god is out there (though we haven't observed any), I think the possibility of extraterrestrial life (in lieu of I.D. discussion) deserves just as much attention by I.D. enthusiasts. As far as these complexities go, take a stance: do you believe an intelligent designer designed the first bit of life and let it evolve from there? Or do you believe an intelligent designer continually influences the complexity of life on this planet?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I.D. is simply something that serves as an argument against random/chance. My God cannot be proved or disproved any more than saying random/chance can be. Many will latch onto evidence of "sloppiness" to say there is no Creator. I believe there's sufficient evidence of design over purely natural phenomena. The only reason this poses a problem for what many are calling "science" is because they've allowed themselves to become adversarial to the plausibility of a Creator. Those involved in research and discovery, are not necessarily as quick to claim there's no god, but then it's not in their field to do so. Religion and science do not need to be at odds, but minds absolutely need to remain open. I see a willingness to embrace any concept, but this and that is unfortunate.

Again: I don't think anyone is saying that everything works by randomness/chance. The laws of physics provide a huge grounding point for chance to more likely go a certain way.

I also don't think becoming "adversarial to the plausibility of a Creator" has anything to do with it. Many scientists are willing to entertain the idea of a creator, but there is no evidence for it in the pseudoscientific I.D.

Are you keeping an open mind that there may not be a creator at all? Are you keeping an open that a creator could be an alien?

[zerostar]

This Article?

Unintelligent Design
By JIM HOLT

Published: February 20, 2005



Recently a school district in rural Pennsylvania officially recognized a supposed alternative to Darwinism. In a one-minute statement read by an administrator, ninth-grade biology students were told that evolution was not a fact and were encouraged to explore a different explanation of life called intelligent design. What is intelligent design? Its proponents maintain that living creatures are just too intricate to have arisen by evolution. Throughout the natural world, they say, there is evidence of deliberate design. Is it not reasonable, then, to infer the existence of an intelligent designer? To evade the charge that intelligent design is a religious theory -- creationism dressed up as science -- its advocates make no explicit claims about who or what this designer might be. But students will presumably get the desired point. As one Pennsylvania teacher observed: ''The first question they will ask is: 'Well, who's the designer? Do you mean God?'''


From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test. Old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims -- that the earth was created before the sun, for example. Intelligent design, by contrast, leaves the purposes of the designer wholly mysterious. Presumably any pattern of data in the natural world is consistent with his/her/its existence.

But if we can't infer anything about the design from the designer, maybe we can go the other way. What can we tell about the designer from the design? While there is much that is marvelous in nature, there is also much that is flawed, sloppy and downright bizarre. Some nonfunctional oddities, like the peacock's tail or the human male's nipples, might be attributed to a sense of whimsy on the part of the designer. Others just seem grossly inefficient. In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety.

Such disregard for economy can be found throughout the natural order. Perhaps 99 percent of the species that have existed have died out. Darwinism has no problem with this, because random variation will inevitably produce both fit and unfit individuals. But what sort of designer would have fashioned creatures so out of sync with their environments that they were doomed to extinction?

The gravest imperfections in nature, though, are moral ones. Consider how humans and other animals are intermittently tortured by pain throughout their lives, especially near the end. Our pain mechanism may have been designed to serve as a warning signal to protect our bodies from damage, but in the majority of diseases -- cancer, for instance, or coronary thrombosis -- the signal comes too late to do much good, and the horrible suffering that ensues is completely useless.

And why should the human reproductive system be so shoddily designed? Fewer than one-third of conceptions culminate in live births. The rest end prematurely, either in early gestation or by miscarriage. Nature appears to be an avid abortionist, which ought to trouble Christians who believe in both original sin and the doctrine that a human being equipped with a soul comes into existence at conception. Souls bearing the stain of original sin, we are told, do not merit salvation. That is why, according to traditional theology, unbaptized babies have to languish in limbo for all eternity. Owing to faulty reproductive design, it would seem that the population of limbo must be at least twice that of heaven and hell combined.

It is hard to avoid the inference that a designer responsible for such imperfections must have been lacking some divine trait -- benevolence or omnipotence or omniscience, or perhaps all three. But what if the designer did not style each species individually? What if he/she/it merely fashioned the primal cell and then let evolution produce the rest, kinks and all? That is what the biologist and intelligent-design proponent Michael J. Behe has suggested. Behe says that the little protein machines in the cell are too sophisticated to have arisen by mutation -- an opinion that his scientific peers overwhelmingly do not share. Whether or not he is correct, his version of intelligent design implies a curious sort of designer, one who seeded the earth with elaborately contrived protein structures and then absconded, leaving the rest to blind chance.

One beauty of Darwinism is the intellectual freedom it allows. As the arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins has observed, ''Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'' But Darwinism permits you to be an intellectually fulfilled theist, too. That is why Pope John Paul II was comfortable declaring that evolution has been ''proven true'' and that ''truth cannot contradict truth.'' If God created the universe wholesale rather than retail -- endowing it from the start with an evolutionary algorithm that progressively teased complexity out of chaos -- then imperfections in nature would be a necessary part of a beautiful process.

Of course proponents of intelligent design are careful not to use the G-word, because, as they claim, theirs is not a religiously based theory. So biology students can be forgiven for wondering whether the mysterious designer they're told about might not be the biblical God after all, but rather some very advanced yet mischievous or blundering intelligence -- extraterrestrial scientists, say. The important thing, as the Pennsylvania school administrator reminded them, is ''to keep an open mind.''

Jim Holt is a frequent contributor to the magazine.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Link please Mik? What area was this? What 'required' intermediates were found?

Sorry, all the times I asked for links and NEVER once revived ANY, now you ask and seriously expect one? C'mon

The required intermediates were functional fossils on intermediate organisms. You can search for it yourself. I have the journals here, so I don't know where they are online.

Actually, what you had said before you edited your post to say you go into greater detail below was; "All fossiles are transitional ebuddy, you should know this." I'm glad to see you've edited that statement out and have clarified it here.

Clarified, not changes my position, they are still transitional, perhaps not in the definitive sense of the word if they are the 'end of the line' this should be obvious. Perhaps you can call those specific ones 'potential transitionals'

You forgot one; or whether or not it's simply a different species of animal.

No, I didn't forget, talking evolution, this would still be a transitional, some scientist felt the need to call it a new species, that doesn't mean it is not transitional, in evolution we do not have a time machine, who knows what the organism might evolve in to in the future?

I am not arguing evolution with you here (right here) just trying to clarify how it works in the realm of it. If you want to argue points and throw in 'what you believe' that is fine, but saying 'they are all different species, none are transitional' is only serving yourself for typing it out. I have asked over and over and over again for several clarifications in order to take our discussion further, I have received no answers from you. If that is how it is going to be we should end this discussion now. I will finish the rest of the post but perhaps this should be all for the sake of both of us.

We're discovering new species of animals every year. Not a variant of a common ancestor, but a species, all it's own- illustrating common need. Like your mudskipper.

Define species, tell me what separates a species? Why do you keep using this as an arguing point if you won't define it?

These are still variants of common ancestors, some are not apparent because the common ancestor is extinct, such as homo-sapien.

On the topic of common need, evolution should be readily apparent here, we can see the evolution of the eye (for one example) has branched several times and evolved several ways and now there are many variants that function completely different but serve the same purpose. Of course you can come up with a hundred excuses why a designer might use a different design for certain animals, in some cases where an already existing design would have sufficed even better that what was given.

In short I guess I'll have to leave this point with; "we'll see."

I doubt it. Not in my lifetime anyway.

Have you seen one swim? Turns out it's "retarded wings" make the penguin quite the adept little swimmer and I'd have to say without those fins it would be more difficult for this species to survive.

You just helped me with my point. And the bat with retarded wings would die out why? Because you say so? Because YOU can not see a need or function of a bat with retarded wings? There is NO reason why that bat should not survive, just your speculation of why not.

I disagree. This doesn't mean I'm right, it means I disagree.

No problem, but when you won't answer basic questions, you just look like you are pushing your agenda.

In regards to evolution yes, which does not necessarily mean it makes logical sense.

I regards to evolution it make perfect sense and is the only logical concolusion. You have not once since we have been discussing ever showed me a reason that evolution is illogical. There are definitely some questions yet to be answered, but illogical? not in the least.

Of course it does Mik. It looks an awful lot like a species that shares the needs of both, illustrating common need, not common ancestory to me.

Not to the qualified biologists among us.

Don Batten notes that since only one tail vertebrate was found, it is impossible to infer a swimming habit similar to that of a whale (for the whale uses its tail and fluke extensively to swim) and that the presence of a robust femur and hoof indicate it was a �land-dwelling creature�.

Don Batten is a poor representation of any biological discussion, he is not qualified to pick a splinter out of my foot and his debate skills are repulsive. On top of which the paper you quoted has been refuted time and time again, as an argument it doesn't even make biological sense. I would post a thorough rebuttal but you know, those links... pesky things they are...

[bubblewrap]

All things living, past and present, are transitional species.
There is no *BAM* instant new species. It's gradual and very slow.
All birds are similar because they had a common ancestor.
Just as humans and apes are alike.
And all vertibrates have a common ancestor. Tetrapods.
Everything contains a copy of the very first code of DNA.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by zerostar:
This Article?

Unintelligent Design
By JIM HOLT

So JIM HOLT, a journalist; is quotable why? What is his field of expertise? Has he contributed anything to science? What are his credentials? Does he know what he's talking about? We know he happens to be pushing a personal view here that seems to agree with many here, but by this virtue alone is he to be taken seriously? Is he qualified? Let's take a look...

Recently a school district in rural Pennsylvania officially recognized a supposed alternative to Darwinism. In a one-minute statement read by an administrator, ninth-grade biology students were told that evolution was not a fact and were encouraged to explore a different explanation of life called intelligent design. What is intelligent design? Its proponents maintain that living creatures are just too intricate to have arisen by evolution. Throughout the natural world, they say, there is evidence of deliberate design. Is it not reasonable, then, to infer the existence of an intelligent designer? To evade the charge that intelligent design is a religious theory -- creationism dressed up as science --

Here we have a journalist who is refuting a theory he obviously knows little about, likens it to Creationism which is patently false, in trying to evade "the charge". First of all, why are questions about this theory "charges"? What about the 'charges' against evolution in it being nothing more than naturalism in disguise??? The argument goes both ways.

its advocates make no explicit claims about who or what this designer might be. But students will presumably get the desired point.

What is the desired point? An evangelist is easier to see. They're desired point is Jesus, and their faith. I.D. cannot illustrate the name Yahweh in evidence of design. This is what I'm talking about here. For many, they simply will not rest easy until they've tagged an adversary when the field is not to be construed as adversarial. It's as reasonable a hypotheses and no more dangerous to the field of science to say it was designed than to say it happened by purely natural phenomena. He makes an indictment, then carries an argument against his own indictment. This is not only painfully obvious to see out of the gate, but really kind of exposes this guy for the quack he is. Let me guess, he's an atheist. Anyone want to put money on it??? Why do I say? Because he's got an incredibly large chip on his shoulder regarding anything that might fly in the face of what he's using as evidence against a Creator. This isn't what science is doing, this is what JIM HOLT and too many others are doing as evidenced in his very writing.

As one Pennsylvania teacher observed: ''The first question they will ask is: 'Well, who's the designer? Do you mean God?''

They might also ask; "is it an alien?" Let the children ask questions. What's the damage here??? They might also ask, shouldn't we be littered with transitionals in the fossil record?

From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test.

First of all, he's not coming from any scientific perspective any more than y'all would be willing to admit I am. Second of all, proving all we know to exist having happened by purely random and natural phenomena is no more provable.

Old-fashioned biblical creationism at least risked making some hard factual claims -- that the earth was created before the sun, for example.

This is not generally accepted by scholars. More books have been written on the Genesis account than any other book in studying specific verbiage. Per Genesis; God created the heavens and the earth, heavens mentioned first for good reason. God said. let there be light. This simply means the light was not able to be caste onto the earth, the heavens (plural) existed prior. This comes generally from Hebrew translation of what we see as "heaven[s] and earth". Job further clarifies this point by mentioning a garment of clouds and a "swaddling band of darkness". Take it or leave it.

Intelligent design, by contrast, leaves the purposes of the designer wholly mysterious. Presumably any pattern of data in the natural world is consistent with his/her/its existence.

The purposes of the designer are not necessarily mysterious. I've mentioned before it seems the purposes of the designer were to create an exceedingly unique environment for living creation to dwell.

But if we can't infer anything about the design from the designer, maybe we can go the other way. What can we tell about the designer from the design? While there is much that is marvelous in nature, there is also much that is flawed, sloppy and downright bizarre. Some nonfunctional oddities, like the peacock's tail

Useful for attracting it's mate. Also, in nature many animals have multiple "eyes" used for detracting or confusing/confounding a predator. Generally useful for making the prey appear larger and more fearsome.

or the human male's nipples

Do offspring not carry traits from their mother and father, both male and female? I suppose if a male could be born, inheriting only a copy of every gene of the father in nature, not inheriting any of the mother's genes-we'd expect to find nippless males.

might be attributed to a sense of whimsy on the part of the designer.

I kind of think it's beautiful myself, not 'whimsical'.

Others just seem grossly inefficient. In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety.

I've not necessarily heard an expert in biology claim 1 foot of "pipe" would've done. An immense amount of signal processing occurs in the laryngeal nerves, both RLN and SLN. As an aside, RG-59 was an efficient center conductor for coax until the inception of digital signal both forward and reverse. Now we use RG-6. Why? More capacity needed to carry the bandwidth. Little is known about the RLN and SLN other than complicating thyroid surgery.

Such disregard for economy can be found throughout the natural order. Perhaps 99 percent of the species that have existed have died out. Darwinism has no problem with this, because random variation will inevitably produce both fit and unfit individuals. But what sort of designer would have fashioned creatures so out of sync with their environments that they were doomed to extinction?

There's a limit to adaptibility. Matter has a beginning and an end. This is so in nature, this is so in the Universe. There are also a great many species having overcome immense environmental adversity, but ultimitely we all will succumb to mutation. Mutations generally degrade, decrease, and destroy.

The gravest imperfections in nature, though, are moral ones. Consider how humans and other animals are intermittently tortured by pain throughout their lives, especially near the end. Our pain mechanism may have been designed to serve as a warning signal to protect our bodies from damage, but in the majority of diseases -- cancer, for instance, or coronary thrombosis -- the signal comes too late to do much good, and the horrible suffering that ensues is completely useless.

Disease, generally the result of mutation. This is kind of a "glass half-full" approach here though. I believe a great good can come from man being reminded of mortality. How many ex-smokers quite after having watched a loved-one endure the suffering of lung cancer? Whether or not the suffering is useless is debatable.

And why should the human reproductive system be so shoddily designed?

What of the brain. The eye? Why focus on reproductibility. Afterall, evidence against one view does not constitute evidence for another right? I mean, that's what I'm being told throughout this thread. Ahh, that is unless you can establish evidence against design. I got it.

Fewer than one-third of conceptions culminate in live births. The rest end prematurely, either in early gestation or by miscarriage.

None of this has to do with how the pregnant woman is treating her body? None of this has to do with the health and the healthy practice of the pregnant woman???

Nature appears to be an avid abortionist,

I don't believe for one minute that this bothers our journalist. Suffice it to say he's attempting to banter about ideas of which he has no clue. Someone put this in better perspective than I; this is no different than indicting a prison warden's character because punishment is occuring in his prison. In short, our journalist is only preaching to his own choir and anyone with the least bit of theology understands this.

which ought to trouble Christians who believe in both original sin and the doctrine that a human being equipped with a soul comes into existence at conception.

I don't see how and I doubt he could clarify his point. First of all, "original sin" is a doctrine primarily held by the Catholic Church and as many of you have pointed out-they've claimed no problem with evolution.

Souls bearing the stain of original sin, we are told, do not merit salvation. That is why, according to traditional theology, unbaptized babies have to languish in limbo for all eternity.

According to Catholicism, whose leadership; the papacy has admittedly no problem with Evolution.

Owing to faulty reproductive design, it would seem that the population of limbo must be at least twice that of heaven and hell combined.

Wow, that's a big chip he's got there. Good thing he's making absolutely no sense at all otherwise, he might've been dangerous.

It is hard to avoid the inference that a designer responsible for such imperfections must have been lacking some divine trait -- benevolence or omnipotence or omniscience, or perhaps all three. But what if the designer did not style each species individually? What if he/she/it merely fashioned the primal cell and then let evolution produce the rest, kinks and all? That is what the biologist and intelligent-design proponent Michael J. Behe has suggested. Behe says that the little protein machines in the cell are too sophisticated to have arisen by mutation -- an opinion that his scientific peers overwhelmingly do not share. Whether or not he is correct, his version of intelligent design implies a curious sort of designer, one who seeded the earth with elaborately contrived protein structures and then absconded, leaving the rest to blind chance.

Show me evidence of blind chance???

One beauty of Darwinism is the intellectual freedom it allows. As the arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins has observed, ''Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'' But Darwinism permits you to be an intellectually fulfilled theist, too. That is why Pope John Paul II

One who has, in the least, failed to acknowledge the rite of the fallen. It's entirely possible that matter was designed with a beginning and a predetermined ending.

was comfortable declaring that evolution has been ''proven true''

Interestingly, our journalist is not quick to call this man to the carpet for his lack of scientific and intellectual prowess, but does not specify his problem with Catholic doctrine-calling it only traditional theology. This guy's all over the place. Could it be that it's simply because he happens to agree? Yep.

and that ''truth cannot contradict truth.'' If God created the universe wholesale rather than retail -- endowing it from the start with an evolutionary algorithm that progressively teased complexity out of chaos -- then imperfections in nature would be a necessary part of a beautiful process.

There's nothing to suggest complexity came from chaos. What we generally observe is that complexity ends up chaotic over time.

Of course proponents of intelligent design are careful not to use the G-word, because, as they claim, theirs is not a religiously based theory.

There is no imprinted name on design, only that it appears to have been. Until such name is found, it is not productive to speculate what the designer's name is.

So biology students can be forgiven for wondering whether the mysterious designer they're told about might not be the biblical God after all, but rather some very advanced yet mischievous or blundering intelligence -- extraterrestrial scientists, say. The important thing, as the Pennsylvania school administrator reminded them, is ''to keep an open mind.''

Yes, humility is important. Keep your mind open. I agree. There's little to suggest our journalist fits this mentality.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
All things living, past and present, are transitional species.
There is no *BAM* instant new species. It's gradual and very slow.
All birds are similar because they had a common ancestor.
Just as humans and apes are alike.
And all vertibrates have a common ancestor. Tetrapods.
Everything contains a copy of the very first code of DNA.

Sweet!!! Hey, what does your signature mean???

[bubblewrap]

It's from Delicious Demon by the Sugar Cubes.
Apparently from a Norse myth.
Kinda like the story of Adam and Eve.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
What about the 'charges' against evolution in it being nothing more than naturalism in disguise???

LOL! I will have to agree with you, he dosen't seem to be 'even handed' at all.

This isn't what science is doing, this is what JIM HOLT and too many others are doing as evidenced in his very writing.

Im glad you can see a difference.

They might also ask, shouldn't we be littered with transitionals in the fossil record?

They can ask if pigs can fly too. Hopefully with a properly educated science teacher both answers would be NO. What 'transitional' are you looking for? Better yet look a few posts up and answer my other questions first.

proving all we know to exist having happened by purely random and natural phenomena is no more provable.

Where, precisely, does evolution say this? Why do you going on with your tainting of the TOE? The TOE does not speculate ORIGINS OF LIFE, I don't think I can be any more clear on this. The first DNA could have been dropped off by a comet for all the TOE cares, evolution took care of what we see from there.

Take it or leave it.

With the origins and factuality of the Bible being highly debatable, even among thrological scholars. Perhaps take it or leave it is a viable option.

Do offspring not carry traits from their mother and father, both male and female? I suppose if a male could be born, inheriting only a copy of every gene of the father in nature, not inheriting any of the mother's genes-we'd expect to find nippless males.

When I design a gene replicating mechanism I can control what gets place where and what 'extra' useless parts are left off.

I've not necessarily heard an expert in biology claim 1 foot of "pipe" would've done.

Then you haven't been listening, I have said exactly this, I believe on 2 occasions.

An immense amount of signal processing occurs in the laryngeal nerves, both RLN and SLN.

The nerves have been proven to be efficient in less then 6" for an animal of that size.
Why don't you pull your entropy card? Seems to be the new 'God' of the ID world.

There's a limit to adaptibility.

What is the limit?

Matter has a beginning and an end.

How does matter end? Where does new matter come from when the old matter ends?

Mutations generally degrade, decrease, and destroy.

But you have to admit beneficial mutations do not.

Ahh, that is unless you can establish evidence against design. I got it.

You can't, it is not falsifiable, this is why is does not belong in science, teach it in church it is based on faith not science.

Show me evidence of blind chance???

Look around? I dunno.

There's nothing to suggest complexity came from chaos. What we generally observe is that complexity ends up chaotic over time.

We generally observe sub-par composers as well, it does not negate the fact that once in a while a spectacular composer is born.

We observe order from chaos all the time. Fill a jar with different size rocks and shake it up and down, it will organize in to an orderly fashion (larger pebbles on the bottom, smaller at top)

only that it appears to have been.

Only if that is what you are looking for.

There's little to suggest our journalist fits this mentality.

His argument was obviously one sided.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by zerostar:
[B]LOL! I will have to agree with you, he dosen't seem to be 'even handed' at all.
Im glad you can see a difference.
They can ask if pigs can fly too. Hopefully with a properly educated science teacher both answers would be NO. What 'transitional' are you looking for? Better yet look a few posts up and answer my other questions first.

I've looked and it seems your questions have been answered. Whether or not it's to your liking I guess we'll both have to be disappointed with the answers we've gotten. You'll know what a transitional is by what many try to suppose is, only to be later debunked. National Geographic touts the legged sea-cow as a transitional while the community debates whether or not it can be and various journals report differing characteristics for this mammal up to and including the implausibility of this creature's migration back to sea and the possibility that this "new find" would be no more submersed in water than the grizzly bear. I suppose the question of whether or not pigs can fly might be a good one in light of a pig's tooth being used by a paleontologist to illustrate the evolution of a pithecus to the bi-pedal. Another joke for those with less than evolved humor genes.

Where, precisely, does evolution say this? Why do you going on with your tainting of the TOE? The TOE does not speculate ORIGINS OF LIFE, I don't think I can be any more clear on this. The first DNA could have been dropped off by a comet for all the TOE cares, evolution took care of what we see from there.

It's a good thing the TOE doesn't touch on this. There are many who claim I.D. was responsible and some "non-theologians" consider the probability of such a "naturalistic/chance" supposition;
Dr. I. Prigogine, recipient of two Nobel prizes in chemistry, spells out the bottom line:
"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident is zero."
I'll take his word that I.D. was responsible whether he's willing to say it or not.

With the origins and factuality of the Bible being highly debatable, even among thrological scholars. Perhaps take it or leave it is a viable option.

No one is suggesting that you are ignorant, uneducted, or naive to not "take it". However, this is not the case with those of whom I've come in contact regarding the TOE.

When I design a gene replicating mechanism I can control what gets place where and what 'extra' useless parts are left off.

I believe nature shows a beautiful marriage between man and woman as designed. Can you create a woman w/ nipples borne from the genes of a man with none?

The nerves have been proven to be efficient in less then 6" for an animal of that size.

Where? By whom? I couldn't find this information.

Why don't you pull your entropy card? Seems to be the new 'God' of the ID world.

Huh??? Entropy is a known scientific prospect of observed general decay.

What is the limit?

We generally notice an irreducible complexity. While a beneficial mutation has been shown to exist, can it account for all that we know exists? Mutations 'almost always' affect matter negatively, resulting in dysfunction, disease, destruction, extinction, and decay.

How does matter end? Where does new matter come from when the old matter ends?

new matter can only come from life before it. Where there is nothing, something can not come. According to Behe (Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University); "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." This means generally what we witness is compromised reproductive systems, dysfuntion, disease, destruction, extinction, and decay.

But you have to admit beneficial mutations do not...

adequately account for all that we know exists. Yes, I admit this.

You can't, it is not falsifiable, this is why is does not belong in science, teach it in church it is based on faith not science.

It has been said better than I could present, there are several reasons why the TOE steps on theology;

1. The variations that lead to differentiation of species are purely random, thus suggesting that the workings of nature are "accidental" and irrational. Today the source of these variations has been identified as genetic mutations. Most biologists today follow Darwin in attributing them to "chance."

2. The fact that individuals have to struggle for survival, and that most of them suffer and lose out in this contest, points to the basic cruelty of the universe, particularly toward the weak.

3. The mindless process of natural selection by which only the better adapted organisms survive suggests that the universe is essentially blind and indifferent to life and humanity.

These three ingredients--randomness, struggle, and blind natural selection--seem to confirm the strong impression of many scientific skeptics today that the universe is impersonal, utterly unrelated to any "interested" God. Darwin himself, reflecting on the "cruelty," randomness, and impersonality in evolution, could never again return to the benign theism of his ancestral Anglicanism. Though he did not casually forsake his religious faith, many of his scientific heirs have been much less hesitant to equate evolution with atheism.

From the middle of the last century up until today prominent thinkers have welcomed Darwinian ideas as the final victory of skepticism over religion. T. H. Huxley, Darwin's "bulldog" as he was known, thought evolution was antithetical to traditional theism. Ernst Haeckel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud all found Darwin's thought congenial to their atheism. And numerous others in our own time closely associate evolution with unbelief. Given this coalition of evolution and hostility to theism it is hardly surprising that the idea has encountered so much resistance from some religious groups.

Many things are based on faith. Faith in a deity is not any more destructive than faith in nature. We're still learning. When science enters the realm of philosophy and attempts to remove a God, a god must then be scientifically falsifiable. In other words, the fight had been brought to theology, not the other way around. I find the mechanisms of mutations and survival of the fittest, to be woefully inadequate to account for all of what we know exists. This leaves only one proposition in my mind. I.D.

Look around? I dunno.

When I asked you for evidence of blind chance, you said; "look around? I dunno." This is what you see. I hope you understand how you've illustrated my point. When you suggest that all we know to exist can be explained by purely natural phenomena, you cross the paths of philosophy and theology and as such, place yourself at odds with it, or in the least in competition with it. Are you saying you believe that I.D. was involved???

We observe order from chaos all the time. Fill a jar with different size rocks and shake it up and down, it will organize in to an orderly fashion (larger pebbles on the bottom, smaller at top)

The structure explained above is significantly less complex than even the simplest of cells, but you don't need me to tell you this. This is simply an example of inert uniformity and does not support the TOE in any way, shape, or form. It has no function to be displayed and does not account for life.

Only if that is what you are looking for.

Agreed. As evidenced above.

His argument was obviously one sided.

I'm glad you agree here. Hopefully, we can take it to the next step and say that his attitude is similar, if not exemplary of populist thought on the matter. Illustrated succinctly by most of those of whom I find myself debating these concepts, "scientific publications", judges, school systems, and popular media in general.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
<recent snip>

You've ignored two responses of mine. I'm becoming less and less convinced that you can argue against my points. And your faiths (both the pseudoscience and the religion) remain dubious while science -- generally -- has evidence.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
When you suggest that all we know to exist can be explained by purely natural phenomena, you cross the paths of philosophy and theology and as such, place yourself at odds with it, or in the least in competition with it. Are you saying you believe that I.D. was involved?

As the rest of your post is more of the same, I will only comment on this.
I, personally, believe in life coming from another part of the universe and being deposited here. Whether it was many strains of animal and plant life or just a singular organism (unlikely in my scenario) evolution took care of all we see today. That is what I meant by blind chance, not the origins of life. Just all that we can observe today. To me the life being deposited here is by chance.

Further I believe in a big-bang scenario for the start of the universe, except time and space did exist before (much as we know it) and the expansion of the universe will reverse and implode/explode again in my view. (Some call this a cylindrical universe)

Where the original life came from... that does not concern me too much, It is not a question I feel we will have an answer to in many lifetimes.

That evolution has had a part in all we see today, that is apparent to me in my studies and my day-in day-out work. We are so similar in traits and personality to many other animals whose genes we share there is apparent history there, you can chalk this up to ID, for me, working with them, I don't see it that way. Even if the origin of life was a designer, I still see an evolutionary process at work.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
You're not going to become a member (free registration w/ uncomfirmed email), but you claim to know what the article is about?

Yeah, I pegged the guy pretty much out of the gate man. He's motivated, but not by interest in science as is usually the case.

That would be interesting if it were true. I'm pretty sure that "universe" stems from the Latin "universus." "Versus" means "to turn," where "universus" could literally mean "turned into one," or, more generally, "all together." And a few dictionary etymologies confirm this.

Yeah, UNI could also mean 'one'? I think we're splitting hairs here. Dictionaries also confirm UNI as meaning one, generally. Not parallel. I know you're wanting to argue in the worst way. Let me ask you since you've ignored my questions. Are scientists human? Do humans appreciate wealth, success, and affluence?

And people still say "sunrise" and "sunset," which we know now to be wrong. The existence of jackalopes hasn't been approached by mathematics and physics -- the existence of parallel universes and the overall multiverse, however, has. The latter ideas have become increasingly supported by scientists today. And again, your tidbit is irrelevant, especially after one realizes that you misinterpreted the root words. "YOU'RE [still] WRONG"

If I thought you were somehow qualified to tell me I was wrong, I'd be more apt to see your view.

If we're willing to suppose that a god is out there (though we haven't observed any)

There are many things we haven't observed. We've not observed one species morphing into another though we believe it. There's no evidence whatsoever of gradual morphing in the fossil record, only different species, but you'll still see what National Geographic wants you to see.

I think the possibility of extraterrestrial life (in lieu of I.D. discussion) deserves just as much attention by I.D. enthusiasts.

Why do you claim it doesn't get attention? We've not found life elsewhere. Until an alien decides to visit someone with decent video gear I guess we'll have to continue on assuming there's no other life out there while maintaining the search. I see a willingness to embrace anything, but the possibility that there's a god.

As far as these complexities go, take a stance: do you believe an intelligent designer designed the first bit of life and let it evolve from there? Or do you believe an intelligent designer continually influences the complexity of life on this planet?

I believe the intelligent designer would've created life for more than to simply watch it. I believe any intelligent designer would be involved in that which he designed. To what degree and in what capacity is debated. In short, yes. I believe the intelligent designer continually influences the complexity of life on this planet, but has designed all with a beginning and a predetermined ending.

I also don't think becoming "adversarial to the plausibility of a Creator" has anything to do with it. Many scientists are willing to entertain the idea of a creator, but there is no evidence for it in the pseudoscientific I.D.

What popular media has done with science has put it squarely in the way of theology and philosophy. Sometimes the scientists themselves are motivated to that end, other times it's just those trying to use the sciences of man to establish a place where there is no god, no creator, and no I.D. supposing that all happened by purely natural phenomena. Tell me, are you denying the fact that most involved in evolution are atheist? Does it not follow, bec ause most are atheist, they'd have to adhere to a strict interpretation of what they see as having ocurred by purely natural phenomena? Do you argue against their closed-mindedness? Are you sometimes upset with what popular media does with science?

Are you keeping an open mind that there may not be a creator at all? Are you keeping an open that a creator could be an alien?

This is what fluctuating faith and varying degrees of faith is all about my brother. This I already have addressed more than once. I.D. does not name the designer. Could it be the God we're talking about is an "alien"? Well, could this be the same "alien" Jesus talked about? Could it be the same "alien" Moses talked about?

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
You've ignored two responses of mine. I'm becoming less and less convinced that you can argue against my points. And your faiths (both the pseudoscience and the religion) remain dubious while science -- generally -- has evidence.

Science has evidence of what? Evolution??? Not really. It has evidence of adaptation, not one species evolving to another. i.e. fish to reptile to bird to wolf to whale to bat to bear to monkey to man. There's no evidence of all matter coming from one common ancestor. none. You're willing to embrace this concept no doubt, but not because there's any sound scientific evidence of it.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by zerostar:
As the rest of your post is more of the same, I will only comment on this.
I, personally, believe in life coming from another part of the universe and being deposited here. Whether it was many strains of animal and plant life or just a singular organism (unlikely in my scenario) evolution took care of all we see today. That is what I meant by blind chance, not the origins of life. Just all that we can observe today. To me the life being deposited here is by chance.

links to evidence of this because no doubt, no one else will question you.
[quote}Further I believe in a big-bang scenario for the start of the universe, except time and space did exist before (much as we know it) and the expansion of the universe will reverse and implode/explode again in my view. (Some call this a cylindrical universe)[/quote]
The universe may expand forever, because the gravitational force is not strong enough to halt the expansion. This is called an open universe and is judged the most likely possibility by observational evidence.

Where the original life came from... that does not concern me too much, It is not a question I feel we will have an answer to in many lifetimes.

good points.

That evolution has had a part in all we see today, that is apparent to me in my studies and my day-in day-out work. We are so similar in traits and personality to many other animals whose genes we share there is apparent history there, you can chalk this up to ID, for me, working with them, I don't see it that way. Even if the origin of life was a designer, I still see an evolutionary process at work.

Of course evolution has had a part in all we see today, but this doesn't mean matter could've all stemmed from one common ancestor. Does your field of study involve the plausibility of organisms having come from one common ancestor or is it more or less the study of how organisms have adapted? In what way???

Are you atheist, agnostic, or do you believe in a god?

[SimpleLife]

The case of the existence of God is a matter of philosophy. Not Science.

Science is nt the appropriate tool to determine the existence of God.

The issue might be argued that as follow:

"... one cannot consider God to be an accidental being-one that merely happen to exist-but rather a necessary one that, if it exists at all, exists in every possible world. It follows that if Godis somuch as possible, He is actual. This means that one cannot be an atheist unless one is a "superatheist", i.e., someone who denies not just that God exists but that He is possible." (Yourgrau, P., A World without Time; The Legacy of G�del and Einstein 2005).

When I read this paragraph, it reminded me of this thread. One of the mistakes, imho, is when Science is used unilaterally to explain everything without being criticized for its limitations. Science cannot explain everything, and philosophy provides a completing realm of rationales which can sustain scientific principles; in other words, Science's tools, mainly mathematics, are incomplete, and therefore, Human knowledge requires tools drawn from other thought processes to seek understanding.

Of course, that still does not resolve the issues (1- assuming God is non-existent, then why do people believe and 2- how can one prove "1" to be true), but I thought it could bring a differnt perspective.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Yeah, I pegged the guy pretty much out of the gate man. He's motivated, but not by interest in science as is usually the case.

I never said he was making a good argument. I was just teasing you over another article in the media that's doing what you hate.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Yeah, UNI could also mean 'one'? I think we're splitting hairs here. Dictionaries also confirm UNI as meaning one, generally. Not parallel. I know you're wanting to argue in the worst way. Let me ask you since you've ignored my questions. Are scientists human? Do humans appreciate wealth, success, and affluence?

Are you being ignorant on purpose here? The LATIN, Universus means, in English, "turned into one." "Turned into" is from the second half, "-versus," while the "one" is from "uni." So yes, I recognized that "uni-" not only "could also mean 'one'" but it did mean "one" in my example. Just not in the way you semantically wish I did.

So "not parallel?" In this case, "parallel universes" means "parallel things turned into one." Or, to modernize it, "parallel things that are all together."

"I want to argue in the worst way?" You are arguing, at this moment (and many others) in quite a poor way, something I don't want to do. (Yes, I know, that's not what you meant; but it's further proof that you should think before you type in English.)

So again: look up the etymology of "universe," like I recommended before coming back with anymore fabulously witty retorts.

This time: realize that "parallel universes" does not even semantically contradict itself.

Yes. Scientists are human.
Yes. Many people (though not all) appreciate wealth, success, and affluence.
Yet...neither of these theories will get you from A) to the B) you'd like to connect them to.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
If I thought you were somehow qualified to tell me I was wrong, I'd be more apt to see your view.

You just continue to avoid answering things that tear apart any past analogical argument of yours. Again, without the "you're wrong," which was quoted because it was something you originally said, and projected, upon me -- again:

And people still say "sunrise" and "sunset," which we know now to be wrong. The existence of jackalopes hasn't been approached by mathematics and physics -- the existence of parallel universes and the overall multiverse, however, has. The latter ideas have become increasingly supported by scientists today. And again, your tidbit is irrelevant, especially after one realizes that you misinterpreted the root words.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
There are many things we haven't observed. We've not observed one species morphing into another though we believe it. There's no evidence whatsoever of gradual morphing in the fossil record, only different species, but you'll still see what National Geographic wants you to see.

Actually, we have observed speciation, both with human tampering and without human tampering. I'll start with "without," since you'll argue that humans are playing God or some nonsense and that speciation would not occur on its own. Here are just two examples I've come across:

1. The first example is with the goatsbeards that were brought to the U.S. from Europe. A couple decades later, the flower coverage expanded over American soil and reached each other, where they started to commingle. This first round of species produced infertile offspring, but were new species nonetheless. The interesting part, though, is when two more species popped up in the 40s. These new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids; however, these new species had no problem producing offspring. No goatsbeard wildflowers existed in the U.S. before they were brought here. These new species did not exist until decades after the older, identifiable flowers were able to interbreed.

2. Fruitfly speciation has been observed in the wild with forking preferences for food. Speculators of speciation went out but were shown, to their dismay and yours, that the fruitflies had indeed split into separate species.

If you argue against these, then you don't understand evolution or science. It already seems that you don't understand the way evolution has been studied in any recent years. The fossil record, while providing some insight, is not what most evolutionary biologists spend their time studying. However, when people did actively look into fossil evidence, there was still that insight. Remember, most things do NOT fossilize, so -- I guess -- surprise-surprise if you don't want to look at any fossil evidence because it doesn't contain all evidence.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Why do you claim it doesn't get attention? We've not found life elsewhere. Until an alien decides to visit someone with decent video gear I guess we'll have to continue on assuming there's no other life out there while maintaining the search. I see a willingness to embrace anything, but the possibility that there's a god.

If we have to "continue on assuming there's no other life out there while maintaining the search," then you must agree with this:

We have to continue on assuming there's no God out there, but we should continue searching.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I believe the intelligent designer would've created life for more than to simply watch it. I believe any intelligent designer would be involved in that which he designed. To what degree and in what capacity is debated. In short, yes. I believe the intelligent designer continually influences the complexity of life on this planet, but has designed all with a beginning and a predetermined ending.

Well, I guess that's your faith. Why would a designer continue to influence something, though, if the ending is predetermined? Why not predetermine everything?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
What popular media has done with science has put it squarely in the way of theology and philosophy. Sometimes the scientists themselves are motivated to that end, other times it's just those trying to use the sciences of man to establish a place where there is no god, no creator, and no I.D. supposing that all happened by purely natural phenomena. Tell me, are you denying the fact that most involved in evolution are atheist? Does it not follow, bec ause most are atheist, they'd have to adhere to a strict interpretation of what they see as having ocurred by purely natural phenomena? Do you argue against their closed-mindedness? Are you sometimes upset with what popular media does with science?

Am I "denying that most involved in evolution are atheist?" No. I couldn't claim to know that. How do you know this to be true? Source? I think it's possible that there are many agnostics in the field, too. And I bet you could even find a few evo biologists that believe in God.

And yes, I've always argued against the closed-mindedness of atheism.
Likewise for the religious zealots.

And you can argue against pop media. Go right ahead. I disagree with a lot in journalistic writing. However, scientific writing is where you and I can return to for solace.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
This is what fluctuating faith and varying degrees of faith is all about my brother. This I already have addressed more than once. I.D. does not name the designer. Could it be the God we're talking about is an "alien"? Well, could this be the same "alien" Jesus talked about? Could it be the same "alien" Moses talked about?

Could it be the same "alien" Joe Bob in on his farm talked about? I realize that I.D. does not name a designer; I.D. claims to be more scientific this way. However, while you assume that most evolutionary biologists are atheist, I'll ask you this question instead:

Are most I.D. people religious, despite the distance they keep from actually identifying the designer?