Intelligent design isn't science

[Yonivore]

Either matter was created or it materialized out of inifinite nothingness.

Given the order of things, I'm banking on it having been designed by an intelligent creator.

What's your answer?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

C'mon CBF please..... Is this supposed to be an argument with any statistical relevance??? I seriously doubt you went around asking all your professors whether they were atheists or not... Anyway, if the professors at my university (@ MIT) were cleary divided on the issue how is it that your establishment wants to say there is no debate...

its funny cuz you basically say the exact same thing at the end of this paragraph that you mock me for in the beginning.

.

Give me one experiment that proves evolution....

give humanity a few more hundred years
theres plenty of experiments supporting natural selection, variable inheritence, survival of the fittest, descent with modification, etc, but, i dunno if you would take those as supporting evolution or not.


Let us not forget, you were the one who asked me how "Raptor species living on one continent were same as from another continent after millions of years of seperation"

[MasterYoda]

from the Good side of the force, was life created.

[velik_m]

Either matter was created or it materialized out of inifinite nothingness.

Given the order of things, I'm banking on it having been designed by an intelligent creator.

What's your answer?

And how did this creator came to be? Did he come from infinite nothingness?

[Phenomanul]

still does not mean its impossible

to recapitulate....

Let us consider the chance of development of a very simple system composed of only 200 integrated parts (simple compared with living systems). The probability of forming such an ordered system is 1 in 200 factorial, or 1 chance in 788,657,867,364,790,503,552,363,213,932,185,062,29 5,135,977,687,173,263,294,742,533,244,359,449,963, 403,342,920,304,284,011,984,623,904,177,212,138,91 9,638,830,257,642,790,242,637,105,061,926,624,952, 829,931,113,462,857,270,763,317,237,396,988,943,92 2,445,621,451,664,240,254,033,291,864,131,227,428, 294,853,277,524,242,407,573,903,240,321,257,405,57 9,568,660,226,031,904,170,324,062,351,700,858,796, 178,922,222,789,623,703,897,374,720,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

If there are only 946,080,000,000,000,000 seconds in the known timescale according to the "scientific community"... how is it that the above number is not for all intents and purposes "zero."

Dude and it is only a 200 part system.... the odds for building the smallest self-replicating DNA strand would be 1 in 10^10,467. Again, even supercomputers can't deal with that number without crashing.

[Phenomanul]

its funny cuz you basically say the exact same thing at the end of this paragraph that you mock me for in the beginning.

I guess you have a point.... but don't overlook the point I was making... that there was an internal debate at my school (which is for all intents and purposes one of the leading scientific ins utions in the world) and they essentially ended up in a "tie"..... to say that the scientific majority accepts "evolution" without question is a false statement....

Unfortunately 'higher powers' did not want to televise this 4-hr debate after the fact, and broke-off their agreement... stuff like that makes you wonder about their motives. I was like what the ???? Did they not like how it turned out... it wasn't as one-sided as they thought it would be...??? Anyways... one day we will get that televised debate... and scientists far more qualified than the Dover school board will be taking the stand in favor of ID instead of debasing and misconstruing its arguments.... ala' William Jennings Bryan.

Another unfortunate factor:
because every 6th grader from Joe to Sally is taught evolutionary principles as fact no matter if they become bankers, architects, lawyers, or musicians, etc... "evolution" is what they will embrace... they embrace it with such fervor to argue in its defense without the slightest clue as to what they are saying... I mean they couldn't possibly have been taught wrong??? These people cons ute the masses you reference as the overwhelming majority (perception is a big deal) and a big reason as to why your theory is the "accepted theory".... but that doesn't make it full-proof or correct.

Notice that I left out the scientific fields from the above argument... Not only are they a minority (in the pie-graphic of careers), but I have found that many of them at least question evolutionary concepts in their advanced courses... Among these people however, will also be your staunchiest supporters of evolution... and in those you will find your agnostic/athiest variety proponent.

give humanity a few more hundred years

sounds like a 'faith' statement to me... (right back at you )

theres plenty of experiments supporting natural selection, variable inheritence, survival of the fittest, descent with modification, etc, but, i dunno if you would take those as supporting evolution or not.

I've seen such 'experiments' and they really don't qualify as such... more than anything, they are observations.

Let us not forget, you were the one who asked me how "Raptor species living on one continent were same as from another continent after millions of years of seperation"

I asked you to question the evolutionary validity of accepting the separation of raptors over 'millions of years' and not seeing the species achieve significant variation.... which is different. Again, this is an observation used for logical reasoning. Can you conduct an experiment on them other than to use DNA forensics to compare the populations across the continents??? It's funny how when IDer's use DNA analyses to conduct their research, we are labeled as using pseudo-science.... whereas when other people use it, it's called a scientific experiment.... That is precisely the paradigm barrier IDer's want to break.

[jochhejaam]

to recapitulate....

If there are only 946,080,000,000,000,000 seconds in the known timescale according to the "scientific community"... how is it that the above number is not for all intents and purposes "zero."

Dude and it is only a 200 part system.... the odds for building the smallest self-replicating DNA strand would be 1 in 10^10,467. Again, even supercomputers can't deal with that number without crashing.

Those numbers put those that arrogantly, smugly and steadfastly hold fast to their theory of evolution being without an Intelligent Designer in a very bad light. I can't quatify it (too lazy to google) but I know there are evolutionists that don't discount the fact that there is some Intelligent Designer behind the theory they study.

The perspective of some, perhaps many, in the evolution/scientific community is that their is indeed an intelligent Designer behind their theory but not one associated with any particular religion or one to be feared or worshipped.
That sounds more like the type of intelligent opinion one would expect from an expert in the field of science as opposed to the unprovable position that their is no IDer.
Unfortunately because of the arguement that it may not fit into the currently unyielding definition by some of what cons utes scientific study they prefer to dismiss it outright.

Science calls for an open mind and shouldn't rule out a theory that serves to embellish evolution, not dismiss it.

[Phenomanul]

Those numbers put those that arrogantly, smugly and steadfastly hold fast to their theory of evolution being without an Intelligent Designer in a very bad light. I can't quantify it (too lazy to google) but I know there are evolutionists that don't discount the fact that there is some Intelligent Designer behind the theory they study.

Those numbers are the reason why accepting evolution without a designer requires faith.... But because most people aren't versed in statistical probability they don't see it or qualify it as such...

[Extra Stout]

still does not mean its impossible

Ouch. You just got checkmated.

You've ceded that the likelihood of unguided random creation of the universe is highly improbable.

Yet given a choice between one possibility with 99.999999+% likelihood and another with <0.000001% likelihood, you choose the latter. That is not a rational decision.

Dude and it is only a 200 part system.... the odds for building the smallest self-replicating DNA strand would be 1 in 10^10,467. Again, even supercomputers can't deal with that number without crashing.

Those odds may neglect the tendency of the cons uents to form a DNA strand based upon their physical properties.

But then one has to ask, why do those cons uents have those particular physical properties and not some other?

[boutons_]

'the currently unyielding definition by some of what cons utes scientific study "

The definition of science is not "current" in the sense of "recent".

So typical, IDers/creationists don't have a "scientific" theory, no testable hypothesis, no evidence, so they denigrate the very definition of science, itself widely accepted and internally consistent, and the basis of all scientific and technological progress, because science doesn't accept their hocus-pocus super-natural ideas.

The basic position is "ID is true, therefore, all of science is false".

[Phenomanul]

Ouch. You just got checkmated.

You've ceded that the likelihood of unguided random creation of the universe is highly improbable.

Yet given a choice between one possibility with 99.999999+% likelihood and another with <0.000001% likelihood, you choose the latter. That is not a rational decision.

Well if those were my odds, and CBF had waged money on that match, I'd gladly recieve his 'donation'.

Highly, highly, highly, highly, highly improbable..... The odds of CBF believing in an intelligent Creator are infinitely higher....

It's not like saying you got a chance in a billion... it's like saying if I hid one atom somewhere in this universe... that CBF would find it. Though this universe is many times quoted as being "infinite" it is actually "finite"; immensely large, but finite. Consider the fact that there are only roughly 10^125 atoms in the known universe... not including the multi-verse universe model of course. And the odds of CBF finding said atom are still infinitely higher than having a super-uber-complicated molecule like DNA form on its own... not to mention, 'form and replicate without falling apart'.

Those odds may neglect the tendency of the cons uents to form a DNA strand based upon their physical properties.

But then one has to ask, why do those cons uents have those particular physical properties and not some other?

To further hurt the odds, all the bases that cons ute the building blocks of DNA, and all the amino acids used by living systems are "left" handed. So given a "broth of random chemicals" and in the event that a DNA molecule was being formed by some unguided process, any right handed base attaching itself to the DNA molecule would hinder its ability to form the double-helix structure. NO natural process or mechanism exists to create 'chemical solutions' that are 99+% left-handed

Edit: number of atoms in universe... differring 'best' guesses.

[Phenomanul]

'the currently unyielding definition by some of what cons utes scientific study "

The definition of science is not "current" in the sense of "recent".

So typical, IDers/creationists don't have a "scientific" theory, no testable hypothesis, no evidence, so they denigrate the very definition of science, itself widely accepted and internally consistent, and the basis of all scientific and technological progress, because science doesn't accept their hocus-pocus super-natural ideas.

The basic position is "ID is true, therefore, all of science is false".

Your noted opinionated extremism only serves to aid my argument....

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I've seen such 'experiments' and they really don't qualify as such... more than anything, they are observations.

This single sentence automatically disqualifies any legitimate thing you could possibly say about evolution because you've obviously been reading articles from cnn.com or something.
Observations? Come on..

I asked you to question the evolutionary validity of accepting the separation of raptors over 'millions of years' and not seeing the species achieve significant variation.... which is different.

Actually thats what I just said, and actually its still impossible for a raptor to remain a raptor for millions of years.


Man you have not read enough on the subject of evolution, if you read up you'd probably have some pretty solid posts.

---
Stout, i dont know if you were being sarcastic or not, but people have acknowledged since day ONE the insanely odds of evolution and universe creation. I don't give a if its .0001^9999 power improbability that still leaves a chance and for all we know we ARE the only planet with life, who really knows? The fact is its not impossible, so if you look up the definitions to those words, then the definition to checkmate.....blah blah

What we have so far are still the most "rational" theories on the subject, and sticking a God into science will put us back about a thousand years. If we find more evidence pointing to a God, then cool. But we don't, so we can't. It's the way science works.

[Extra Stout]

To further hurt the odds, all the bases that cons ute the building blocks of DNA, and all the amino acids used by living systems are "left" handed. So given a "broth of random chemicals" and in the event that a DNA molecule was being formed by some unguided process, any right handed base attaching itself to the DNA molecule would hinder its ability to form the double-helix structure. NO natural process or mechanism exists to create 'chemical solutions' that are 99+% left-handed

Hmmm... I wonder about that last sentence.

Let's say you've got a bunch of amino acids that tend to want to react with one another and form chains.

So then you've got billions of reactions ongoing. Even if the odds of the formation of a molecule exclusively by left-handed basis are on the order of billions to one, if there are billions of reactions going on, doesn't that make the probability of one DNA molecule forming relatively likely? And once that one molecule can form, it then can self-replicate.

I'm not disputing design here, I just think that the properties of matter itself point more strongly to design than the natural processes that occur as a result of those properties.

[Phenomanul]

This single sentence automatically disqualifies any legitimate thing you could possibly say about evolution because you've obviously been reading articles from cnn.com or something.
Observations? Come on..


Actually thats what I just said, and actually its still impossible for a raptor to remain a raptor for millions of years.

Evolution would have dictated that the North American "raptor family" branch off into another species. The fact that they were essentially indistinct from those in Africa suggests "evolution" is not continually at work... which is a key evolutionary principle.

Man you have not read enough on the subject of evolution, if you read up you'd probably have some pretty solid posts.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Hmmm... I wonder about that last sentence.

Let's say you've got a bunch of amino acids that tend to want to react with one another and form chains.

So then you've got billions of reactions ongoing. Even if the odds of the formation of a molecule exclusively by left-handed basis are on the order of billions to one, if there are billions of reactions going on, doesn't that make the probability of one DNA molecule forming relatively likely? And once that one molecule can form, it then can self-replicate.

I'm not disputing design here, I just think that the properties of matter itself point more strongly to design than the natural processes that occur as a result of those properties.

We read a paper on this issue a couple years ago in EVO class, but I forgot what it was about. What I would personally say on this issue is that our laboratory experiments involving the creation of DNA are faulty.

Who says our knowledge of organic chemistry is complete?
Just because we can't reproduce left-handed DNA in a lab now doesn't mean we never will.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm tired of this discussion already. Just teach the little rug rats Genesis 1:1. You right-wing bas s win this round.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Evolution would have dictated that the North American "raptor family" branch off into another species. The fact that they were essentially indistinct from those in Africa suggests "evolution" is not continually at work... which is a key evolutionary principle.

alright hegamaboa, i asked you twice last time, i ask you one more time here

show me this article
prove yourself for once instead of ranting generalized false
If you show me an article, I will show you a non-observational evolutionary study

You're talking out of your ass anyone who knows the basis of evolution can see so, thats why I started talking like a jack ass in that other thread

So instead of proclaiming Albert Einstein a creationist, step up and show me some proof.


(BTW, you are wrong in your supposition that 'evolution would dictate they branch into seperate species' natural selection dictates that--a mistake you made several times in the last thread)

[Phenomanul]

Hmmm... I wonder about that last sentence.

Let's say you've got a bunch of amino acids that tend to want to react with one another and form chains.

So then you've got billions of reactions ongoing. Even if the odds of the formation of a molecule exclusively by left-handed basis are on the order of billions to one, if there are billions of reactions going on, doesn't that make the probability of one DNA molecule forming relatively likely? And once that one molecule can form, it then can self-replicate.

I'm not disputing design here, I just think that the properties of matter itself point more strongly to design than the natural processes that occur as a result of those properties.

Let's put it this way... only proteins can create amino acids that are completely left handed.... But the proteins are made from DNA itself....

As far as the odds go... again we're not talking about 1 in a billion or the like... The smallest self replicating DNA splice is about 500 base pairs long. But it requires a 'matching-codified' strand to close the helical structure. The odds that those two molecules would meet in the middle of the ocean are infintesimally low.

NOW... what unguided natural process was even around to make the DNA bases in the first place... (i.e. the cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine bases and the deoxyribose, purine and pyrimidine backbone sugars). Those cons uents themselves are entropically unstable and dont' exist outside of the natural 'inorganic' world (i.e. they are only made by living organisms). This dilemma leads to a bad case of a 'chicken before the egg' hurdle that no one can answer.

[mookie2001]

dam hegam do you have a biology degree from UT?

[Phenomanul]

alright hegamboa, i asked you twice last time, i ask you one more time here

show me this article
prove yourself for once instead of ranting generalized false
If you show me an article, I will show you a non-observational evolutionary study

You're talking out of your ass anyone who knows the basis of evolution can see so, thats why I started talking like a jack ass in that other thread

So instead of proclaiming Albert Einstein a creationist, step up and show me some proof.


(BTW, you are wrong in your supposition that 'evolution would dictate they branch into seperate species' natural selection dictates that--a mistake you made several times in the last thread)

I don't have copies of the 30 or so presentations that were presented at my school's debate, but I remember the name of the professor who presented this finding. I'll try to contact him....

With regards to your other rants... ahemm.... sigh.

Quit trying to dwell on the little points and look at the bigger picture... the "theory of evolution" has way too many critical gaps to be considered full-proof. If you don't like the fact that I can't accept it the way it is presented to everyone... tough.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

NOW... what unguided natural process was even around to make the DNA bases in the first place... (i.e. the cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine bases and the deoxyribose, purine and pyrimidine backbone sugars). Those cons uents themselves are entropically unstable and dont' exist outside of the natural 'inorganic' world (i.e. they are only made by living organisms). This dilemma leads to a bad case of a 'chicken before the egg' hurdle that no one can answer.

I think you are right about all this stuff, but the topic of this thread is ID being science or not, and tacking on "God" as the reason due to unexplainable phenomena is not science its ing religion.

If we stopped at every "dead end" in our pursuit of knowledge and just said "oh that's God" do you really think we'd have 40 GB handheld portable media player devices, knowledge that the earth was round, sent rockets into space, have models explaining weather patterns, be able to read atmospheric co2 levels from centuries ago,..

It's called progress. And its happening every day. Thats what I meant by give humanity a few more hundred years.


And I never said evolution was fullproof, I know alot of its weaknesses. But notice how it is called a "theory" and not a "law" because among people who are most educated in the matter they seem to have a consensus that this is the best theory around.

[Oh, Gee!!]

This dilemma leads to a bad case of a 'chicken before the egg' hurdle that no one can answer.

except for Id'ers of course.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

No matter how many "gaps" evolution has in it, ID has exactly one MORE "gap" by adding on another supposition we can not test or make predictions from

[Phenomanul]

dam hegam do you have a biology degree from UT?

No... a Bio-Engineering Masters at Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology and a Chemical Engineering undergraduate degree at Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology and
A Core Mathematics and Physics degree at Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology
and a Minor in Music.... at ... you know.