TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Design vs. Arbitrary
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Well at the moment there isn�t much evidence at all. The design argument heavily relies on complex mathematics and very very limited observable data. Of course, given time I�m sure our young bright scientists will find the evidence they�re looking for.

im not sure you know what your talking about. philosophically or scientifically. first, u try to take god out of the ID theory when for ID to be true, there has to be the "Designer" god. its like taking Darwin out of Darwinist evolution.

second, there is a huge huge amount of evidence pointing to an intelligent creator. one thing is for certain, chaos cannot create order. if u dont believe there is order in this universe, you are mistaken, because even the most chaotic explosion follows different laws of physics and we can use these laws and mathematics which is the measure of order to estimate or calculate different things, such as the chemistry that made the explosion, and the greatest extent it will go, etc. for there to be order, there has to be an "Orderer" or something to have set this order in place.

one thing also, is the complexity of our world. ever notice how everything, from a blade of grass to the cloud in the sky to an ocean to a volcano all work together in a systematic cycle of the so-called eco-system. every cell in our body has a purpose. u go from a single cell to an extremely complex and organized life form consisting of over a trillion cells all working together and each with a job to do, that work out the life processes of your body. it goes further than that. one cell seems simple, but when u go deeper into it, u find out that it, in itself is extremely complex. with the nucleus of DNA and the production of all the RNA to make different proteins and amino acids, with the golgi bodies, the mitochondria, and cell wall to hold it all together and the cell tags to tell the body its a friendly cell and not a harmful bacteria.

with such organization and complexity, how could such a creation happen to just come about by chance. and this is a just a small example of an incomprehensible creation we live in.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: with such organization and complexity, how could such a creation happen to just come about by chance. and this is a just a small example of an incomprehensible creation we live in.

Just because something is complex doesn't mean it had to be designed though. An interaction obaying simple laws can be unbeliveably complex. For example the weather system, it just follows its inputs, yet it if you observe it at the highest resolution (single particles even?) the complexity is beyond staggering.

Would say more but no time

On a side note Darwin went to one of the unis I'm going to just now (just found out ).

Dear god not another creationist/ID thread. After reading this sentence in the first post i knew we were in for a long ride:

"The idea of 'chance' playing a role in the subsistence and balance of life is quite frankly, repugnant."

I found the idea that George Bush would win re-election for a second term repugnant but I didn't rule the possibility because it was unappealing to my beliefs. Like every creationist who has come before you, you only want to believe things that support your religious beliefs. You're not interested in debating facts; you just want express your beliefs that are based on "common sense" and religion, not science. What's there to debate? Btw, the church found Copernicus's idea of a sun-centered solar system 'repugnant' too, you're following a well travel path.

I know it's not fair, science can build and modify its theories based on facts, experiments, logic, and reality, while you guys are stuck with a 2,000 year old document, that you can only reinterpret in reaction to science.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Well at the moment there isn�t much evidence at all. The design argument heavily relies on complex mathematics and very very limited observable data.

The only complex math I've seen utilized by IDers derives from 1 or both of the following ideas:

1. Flawed probability arguments attempting to refute the evolutionary mechanism

2. Flawed probability argument from Dembski�s so-called �Explanatory Filter�

And #2 really is just a more complicated though erroneous flavor of #1.

Aside of the basic fact that the arguments on probability are flawed, which I�ve discussed earlier, both ideas above rely on the 2 basic logical fallacies:

1. Argument from incredulity

2. Argument from false dichotomy

Neither support the argument for design, i.e. give POSITIVE, verifiable, testable, and falsifiable evidence for the argument of design in any manner.

Hence my complete and utter skepticism.

quote:

Of course, given time I�m sure our young bright scientists will find the evidence they�re looking for.

So they start with the conclusion of design with absolutely no evidence to support it, hoping to find that evidence to support their a priori conclusion?

Interesting �science� you have there. And they say this is separate from creationism. Silly me.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Interesting �science� you have there. And they say this is separate from creationism. Silly me.

Not as interesting as yours. The day evolution segregates itself from an arbitrary mechanism, is the day I will consider evolution as a plausible theory. Until then, evolution simply constitues sanguinity at desperate levels.

By the way, when did evolution as a process begin ? The moment the cell was created, or at some random point in life ?

quote:

That is essentially correct, but you have missed one rather important detail. You see, there is not a single way in which a dna molecule required for a functional organism can be made. In other words, there is not a single target, there is a great amount of multiple targets, and we've hit on one of them.

The process applies to 'all' targets.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Not as interesting as yours. The day evolution segregates itself from an arbitrary mechanism, is the day I will consider evolution as a plausible theory. Until then, evolution simply constitues sanguinity at desperate levels.

So when evolution ceases to be an arbitrary mechanism and has a "design" is when you'll consider it believable? Ummm isn't that pretty much intelligent design? Why would you formulate your beliefs based upon the conclusion of the theory as opposed to the evidence that supports the conclusion?

quote:

By the way, when did evolution as a process begin ? The moment the cell was created, or at some random point in life ?

I would say evolutionary process began long before it became a biological process ... stellar evolution for example.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Not as interesting as yours. The day evolution segregates itself from an arbitrary mechanism, is the day I will consider evolution as a plausible theory. Until then, evolution simply constitues sanguinity at desperate levels.

That�s the usual sentiment of fundie creationists and IDers who are too intellectually lazy to examine the research themselves. And I�m sorry if you continue to misunderstand evolution, and continue to fail to realize that the mechanism of evolution is anything but arbitrary, but I really don�t know what else to tell you other than try to do a little more reading in the research on the subject from actual scientists. Try to understand what natural selection combined with mutation and isolation really means, and perhaps you�ll one day come to the revelation that chance alone does not constitute evolution in any way, shape, or form. It�s obvious that you�re going to continue to ignore the research and valid points I lay right in your lap. Hopefully one day you�ll find some answers on your own.

quote:

By the way, when did evolution as a process begin ? The moment the cell was created, or at some random point in life ?

The short answer is scientists don�t really know. I think it would first come down to the question of what exactly is �life� and how one defines it biologically. I suppose we could use the layman�s definition of �life� more or less as the ability to metabolize, reproduce, and respond to some kind of stimuli. So whenever the first organism was able to demonstrate these properties, we have life. Great. Now in regards to evolution, that organism, or more correctly that population of organisms would have to demonstrate the ability to mutate and naturally select once isolated somehow. Only then would evolution really be considered.

The reason why scientists don�t really know is the same reason why scientists don�t have a very firm account of abiogenesis � we�re talkin� billions of years here with very small squishy critters that have no fossilization at all. This makes it extremely difficult to surmise any working hypothesis on it, though there are some interesting ideas out there. I think the ones involving symbiotic relationships have the greatest plausibility, but it�s pretty uncertain at this point. In all reality, it may forever be pretty uncertain.

And let�s also keep in mind that the first primitive cells resemble nothing like the cells we see today.

Btw, related to this issue, here is an interesting simulation of evolution:http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/

I've read about the program in Discover magazine, and there were some interesting situations that arose from the simulation. For example, the "organisms" were given an assignment to evolve into a program that could add two different numbers. Ultimately, those organisms developed more than 20 different ways to do addition. Also, when they were later put through a filter that was supposed to kill organisms who added numbers correctly, some developed a system that recognized the numbers being fed to them by the filter and ignored them, while they were still capable of adding up other numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So when evolution ceases to be an arbitrary mechanism and has a "design" is when you'll consider it believable? Ummm isn't that pretty much intelligent design? Why would you formulate your beliefs based upon the conclusion of the theory as opposed to the evidence that supports the conclusion?

Kit I'm in trouble! get me out of this thread.

I think my head just exploded.
I haven't even read 5% of the thread but I gotta ask this question right away: We dicuss chance vs. design when we haven't even solved the problem of determinsm. Is there such a thing as chance/coincidence at all? If we assume that our existence is just the temporary product of an infinitely long chain of causilty, there's no room for the evolution vs. creationsm debate anymore. The only mystery to remain would be: Who activated the domino effect?

Btw: Isn't there a parallity between creationism and the "free choice" notion?

Why can't the evolution that we observe be somehow the product of a much more powerful being's design?

quote:

That�s the usual sentiment of fundie creationists and IDers who are too intellectually lazy to examine the research themselves. And I�m sorry if you continue to misunderstand evolution, and continue to fail to realize that the mechanism of evolution is anything but arbitrary, but I really don�t know what else to tell you other than try to do a little more reading in the research on the subject from actual scientists.

Random mutation; bottom line.

Have you read chapter six of "Origin of species" ? Coupled with studies of "Probability" may explain my point of arbitrary a little better. As for creationism, well, studies of the Big Bang seem to provide evidence of singularity creationism. But hey, evolutionists have an answer for everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Random mutation; bottom line.

Uhh, no Mr. Rider, that's not the bottom line - because there's selection involved in the process as well, which logically entails the opposite of "random".

quote:

Have you read chapter six of "Origin of species" ? Coupled with studies of "Probability" may explain my point of arbitrary a little better.

Yes, I have read that chapter along with the rest of the book a number of times over. Why don't you point towards a quote or two that you seem to think demonstrates your point?

And BTW, you do realize that Darwin was a bit unaware of genetics, especially modern day genetics at that time, right?

quote:

As for creationism, well, studies of the Big Bang seem to provide evidence of singularity creationism. But hey, evolutionists have an answer for everything.

Since when has evolutionists ever been concerned with the Big Bang? Can you point me to one instance in which an evolutionist has ever been concerned with astronomical creation?

quote:

Since when has evolutionists ever been concerned with the Big Bang? Can you point me to one instance in which an evolutionist has ever been concerned with astronomical creation?

Evolution and creation have no concern with each other. I was responding to your slip comments of creationism.

I think we should call it a day since this thread is repeating itself.

By the way, are you pro/anti Iraq War ?

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Why can't the evolution that we observe be somehow the product of a much more powerful being's design?

That could be possible but you would first need scientific evidence to back up your hypothosis, otherwise it's just pure speculation. Your just expressing a natural human desire to give meaning to the world around us. In a Rorschach Test how we interpret an inkblot tells us more about our feelings than what we are looking at. ID believers are likewise imposing their religious preconceptions on the universe to give it meaning and order.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Evolution and creation have no concern with each other. I was responding to your slip comments of creationism. I think we should call it a day since this thread is repeating itself.

Suit yourself.

quote:

By the way, are you pro/anti Iraq War ?

Well I actually started out as pro-war because I had believed that our original intentions of ridding Saddam of WMD was a worthy and somewhat justifiable pretense. I did have reservations, however, because I did feel that the real war should have continued against Al Qaeda, not Iraq. I had also further stipulated my belief that those pretenses should be valid and supported with evidence. Once it became apparent that the pretenses were false, my support for Bush's war was lost.

Of course now that we're there, I do support a stable government before any thought of us pulling out would occur. Unfortunately, I'm pretty pessimistic that such a situation will occur. Or what's worse, we replace one dictatorial government with a religious totalitarian one with possible ties to it's Iranian neighbor, which also now harbors a great deal of extra terrorism thanks all in part to our actions.

So there's my stance in a nutshell.

quote:

Suit yourself.

Absolutely. Your understanding of probability and its principles seem to be limited (correct me if I am wrong) and that makes it incredibility difficult for me to explain how chance and design cannot integrate (thus resulting in absolute conditioning). We're conversing at alternate wave lengths. It's clear that you support evolution with passion, where as I'm ignorant. It�s a one way algorithm MisterOpus1, you�re right, and I'm wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Absolutely. Your understanding of probability and its principles seem to be limited (correct me if I am wrong) and that makes it incredibility difficult for me to explain how chance and design cannot integrate (thus resulting in absolute conditioning). We're conversing at alternate wave lengths. It's clear that you support evolution with passion, where as I'm ignorant. It�s a one way algorithm MisterOpus1, you�re right, and I'm wrong.

Well, I see you're a bit full of yourself, but if anyone misunderstood any of the concepts here it is you. Frankly it seems to me that you don't really have as good a grasp of statistics and probability theory as you think. First of all, if you say that chance and intelligent design can not integrate, that only makes it worse for the ID theory because chance and random mutations have been observed in cell divisions. However, there's a difference between pure randomness and influenced randomness, and if you can't understand that concept, then I'm afraid you're not really the sharpest knife in the drawer. Hypothetically, that randomness could be influenced by a divine being and forced to move in a certain way, but it is also most certainly influenced with more earthly forces, mainly the environment and the natural selection. Now, since environment and natural selection themselves provide pretty much everything that is needed for the creatures to evolve in a way they evolved and since we haven't so far observed any unexplainable influence that makes one sort of mutation more probable than the other for no known reason, I really can't see why the need to introduce a divine entity at all.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, I see you're a bit full of yourself, but if anyone misunderstood any of the concepts here it is you. Frankly it seems to me that you don't really have as good a grasp of statistics and probability theory as you think. First of all, if you say that chance and intelligent design can not integrate, that only makes it worse for the ID theory because chance and random mutations have been observed in cell divisions. However, there's a difference between pure randomness and influenced randomness, and if you can't understand that concept, then I'm afraid you're not really the sharpest knife in the drawer. Hypothetically, that randomness could be influenced by a divine being and forced to move in a certain way, but it is also most certainly influenced with more earthly forces, mainly the environment and the natural selection. Now, since environment and natural selection themselves provide pretty much everything that is needed for the creatures to evolve in a way they evolved and since we haven't so far observed any unexplainable influence that makes one sort of mutation more probable than the other for no known reason, I really can't see why the need to introduce a divine entity at all.

Like I said, you're right and I'm wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Absolutely. Your understanding of probability and its principles seem to be limited (correct me if I am wrong) and that makes it incredibility difficult for me to explain how chance and design cannot integrate (thus resulting in absolute conditioning).

The problem, KR, is that you haven�t explained your stance AT ALL. ZILCH. NADA. So how is it difficult for you to explain anything when you�ve explained absolutely nothing? You�ve cited chapter 6 in Darwin�s Origin, but then you completely backed away from any explanation whatsoever. That�s just one example of many in which you�ve utterly failed to explain or defend your stance with ID. Instead, you�ve done nothing but attempt to attack evolution with the same old ID distortion on probability, the same old damn arguments I have defended against with many IDers and creationists over the past 8 years since I�ve been involved with the evolution debate here in my state of Kansas and elsewhere.

Added in Edit When I first read this following statement, I thought you were being a bit facetious:

quote:

We're conversing at alternate wave lengths. It's clear that you support evolution with passion, where as I'm ignorant. It�s a one way algorithm MisterOpus1, you�re right, and I'm wrong.

It appears I may have misjudged you. As a result, I've edited my harsh response a bit above. I do appreciate and respect your admittance here, but I also do wish that if you ever do decide to enter into this debate that you'd present your argument a little better with more coherency and understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Like I said, you're right and I'm wrong.

Kudos! It takes a lot to amit you're wrong. Welcome to the wonderful world of logic! I was wrong too... I never believed it was possible to convince an ID/creationist the error of his ways.

quote:

The problem, KR, is that you haven�t explained your stance AT ALL. ZILCH. NADA. So how is it difficult for you to explain anything when you�ve explained absolutely nothing?

You have a valid point and I was being selfish.

quote:

. . but I also do wish that if you ever do decide to enter into this debate that you'd present your argument a little better with more coherency and understanding.?

I�m not sure how to address your comment. I wasn�t trying to be smart, just careful (given my experience). I subscribed to this forum so as to discuss (not convince) subjects which are close at heart; creation, theology, and ID. My only worry is that if I enter this debate with all guns blaring, I�ll never leave the forum.

quote:

Kudos! It takes a lot to amit you're wrong. Welcome to the wonderful world of logic! I was wrong too... I never believed it was possible to convince an ID/creationist the error of his ways.

I haven�t changed my belief; I continue to support creation and ID.

Eh, well, if you just believe in something without knowing why you believe in it regardless of whether that belief makes sense or not, then I guess there is no point in perpetuating this discussion...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.