OT: Evolution vs intelligent design

[SPJ]

Origins of life. The ultimate Q.

Life must come from life.

The first life must be created by a creator or random chance.

Evolution is meant to say change or adaptation over time. We have better car, telecom, computer TV, cell phone etc. Evolution did not say anything about the original creation or the start point.

Are the better products and services indicating the evolution selected or driven by the market place and consumers?

Are they better intelligent designs to adapt?

I do not think evolution and creation contradict each other

what is your comment?

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science...elligentdesign

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050530fa_fact

[viper]

I would be willing to pherhaps put in my 2 cents into this thread but when it comes to this debate noway simple we are here now lets move forward.

[Mr Punch]

Evolution by rear naked choke end of round one.

Intelligent design had a chance towards the beginning of the fight with a double leg and ground and pound, but let's face it, evolution was just a more developed all-round fighter

[Mr Punch]

Precisely.

It is a perfect example of evolution when the least-evolved people try to argue something in court! Survival of the fittest: case dismissed.


ID - for people who don't know who (or what) they are!



















































And I was trying to get with the Solstice spirit and not insult anyone... sigh

[lkfmdc]

I can't tell you how much easier breathing became the day I fully afirmed my atheism

Can't help myself though.....

"God is dead"
- Nitze

"Nitze is dead"
- God

[Chief Fox]

We are in the midst of a hiccup between ice ages.

[Ben Gash]

This is an issue that is very difficult to discuss rationally. For example, cjurakpt believes that he is speaking rationally in terms of the rational. However, he is in fact discussing his beliefs. As he himself says, he doesn't know what happens after death, therefore he is not acting on solid information. He chooses to believe what he does because it makes him feel better about himself. Therefore he should probably refrain from sneering at others who believe differently.
As for evolution, again, you have to think about it in terms of belief. Evolutionary theory is just that. Macro evolution cannot be directly observed, cannot be proven experimentally and cannot be repeated or reversed. It is therefore at it's most fundamental level unscientific. This is then compounded by the fact that the bulk of post Darwinian work (and the majority of postwar work) has worked on the assumption that macro evolution is fact, with no nul hypothesis stating that evolution doesn't happen. This again is fundamentally unscientific. The methods used to date things (because the world has to be older than the Bible says to accomodate macro evolution, another unscientific assumption) are theoretical, and have been repeatedly called into question. No-one has directly observed the degredation of isotopes over thousands of years, therefore it is only assumption that it is uniform.
It even breaks it's own rules, as in terms of survival, reproduction and DNA perpetuation, it's very hard to beat a simple single celled organsim.
Attempts to map interspecies human evolution are much less solid than claimed, the "missing link" being more a case of a missing 6 foot length of chain. A jaw fragment and a piece of thighbone are hardly a sound basis for how you view the universe.
Viewed this way, macro evolution is a belief system. It cannot be proved or disproved, therefore it is a matter of belief. It is a faith where man is god, due to his "advanced " evolution, and biologists are it's priests.
Viewed this way, the manner it is taught in schools becomes more serious. Why do most of us believe in macro evolution? In most cases not because we have seriously studied the issue and weighed up the evidence before making our own judgements. It's because we were taught it as fact in school, and encouraged not to question it.
Therefore maybe it's a good thing to offer alternatives to it in education, or alter the emphasis with which it is taught.
As with many such things, it doesn't make a great deal of difference to our daily lives in and of itself, so why is it such a "holy cow" in educational terms?

[FuXnDajenariht]

i dont see a conflict neitha'

[Ben Gash]

Hey, all I'm saying is "people who live in glass houses"......... Many criticisms from either group can go both ways.
You have attempted to influence people's views and asserted that your own view is superior. Your opening line was hardly non partisan. You are completely entitled to your beliefs, but it's hardly respectful to describe people as immature and silly, now is it?
There is also a major section of the evolutionary faction (if you can call it that) that are completely unwilling to consider alternatives, it's not the sole purview of the "religious" community. This is why extremism generally doesn't achieve much.
As I said, reasonable discussion to prove the unprovable is difficult.

[Scott R. Brown]

Intelligent design is not merely a concept based upon blind faith or religious precepts; it is also a concept that goes back at least as far as Socrates and Plato. It is a principle with foundations in philosophy.

Plato noted that all things in the universe are moved by other things. Indeed, anything that moves is moved by something else that is itself moving. By reduction he reasoned there must be, at some point, an eternal primordial prime mover.

Plato also postulated that there was a primordial condition of chaos which is the substrate or substance from which all physical matter (ordered objects) are composed. Order (Ideal Forms) whose origin is Mind was imposed upon this substrate to create physical (ordered) things.

The British scientist and author C.P. Snow described the 3rd law of thermodynamics in this manner:

1. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).

2. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).

3. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).

Since energy and matter are conserved they are in essence indestructible and since absolute zero is unattainable matter is in essence eternal as well.

These principles of physics indicate that Order is clearly not the natural state of matter; its natural state is chaos or entropy! The dictionary states: “Entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity [Chaos].” As water’s nature is to flow to the lowest point and thereby eventually approaching its own level, so does matter approach its natural lowest point to reach its own natural level, which is “inert uniformity” or chaos. According to Plato, mind exists outside the realm of matter and imposes Form upon chaotic matter to create order! Since Mind has dominion over matter, by Plato’s assertion, it must also be eternal.

These principles of physics, an increase in disorder (entropy), or the tendency for matter to approach chaos, confirms the concepts of Plato are founded upon true facts of nature. If creation tends towards disorder, as stated by the 3rd law of thermodynamics, at some point something must have ordered it. Plato says, if something is moving, something must have moved it. This something, according to Plato, was “Mind”!

In scientific terms we may say: “Energy was imposed upon a system that did not possess its own inherent energy!” This “Energy” has been called many things, “The Creative Force of the Universe” will do for purposes of this discussion! Since this Creative Force has dominion over physical matter and has the ability to order it, and since this order follows the principles of cause and effect, that is REASON, we may deduce the Creative Force is not merely eternal, but reasoned as well!!

The conclusion we must arrive at is that there IS a Creative Force that is eternal and reasoned that orders the universe. This does not necessarily negate the theory of evolution. The two concepts are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive!
__________________________________________________ ______________

At present the evidence for intelligent design outweighs the evidence of random chance!

We arrive at our own conclusions based upon our present level of learning, understanding and reasoning ability. Foolishness occurs when we are convinced the conclusions we assert are based upon a comprehensive foundation of knowledge, understanding and reasoning ability and that we are unaffected by personal bias! A wise man seeks to continually deepen his learning, understanding and reasoning abilities and introspect into his own personal biases in order to increase the opportunity for arriving at factual conclusions.

[Ben Gash]

Hence why there are many more religious physicists than biologists

[mantis108]

I don't think the United States of American can ever do away with ID. The minute that ID is undone you will all go broke. Don't forget your currency is based on "IN GOD WE TRUST". By the same token, we will not have Kriss Kringle to deliver toys and presents over Christmas Eve. Now who on earth would want that?

So I say let God be and let ID be. I personally like a motto in a bar in HK. It said "In God we trust, all other pay cash!"

Serious, I am enjoying the brilliant minds there posted those debates. Man, it is ever a good Christmas presents from you. Thank you.

Mantis108

[FatherDog]

Macro evolution cannot be directly observed, cannot be proven experimentally and cannot be repeated or reversed. It is therefore at it's most fundamental level unscientific.

Microcurvature of the earth can and has been observed, but macrocurvature just isn't possible! Assuming we live on a round earth is unscientific!

[Matrix]

In all matters of faith, for those that believe, no evidence is required, for those who do not believe, none will suffice.

Peace,

[Mika]

Oh, my favorite subject...

As such, however, thoroughly "debated", so I'll just be throwing in some wild punches, if you will.

By the way - and maybe someone already mentioned this - ID is challenging evolution whereas evolution is not challenging the existence of God. Evolution does not concern itself with that matter, evolution does not challenge God as it has no stand on the issue. ID is not science, but it claims to be, and this is where the real problem steps in. So, the attack, so to speak, comes from the ID crowd. This must be acknowledged.


http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.daeniken.com/e/index.html

http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp

http://www.rae.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4427144.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_...tti_Monsterism

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdes...h/dawkins.html

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/index.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...r_v_dover.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District

My favorite: http://www.caida.org/~bhuffake/carto...reationism.gif

And the ruling: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4547734.stm


Choose your link, there are all kinds.

Cheers,

Mika