Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Should Divine Intervention Be Taugh Alongside Evol


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked

#91
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Well electrons and protons are all made of smaller particles that form quite easily neutrons are harder to make its a rare occasion where they are made and they presume the big bang was the only thing big enough to have created such a large quantity as was needed. Physics is great when you have the time to explain it.

In terms of statistics there you are wrong when it comes to evolution, mathematicians (and those rare creatures biologists that can do maths as well) have shown that there has been quite enough time for the formation of proteins and cells, we unfortunately dont have the time to prove it can happen because we dont have all that time to play with, but in those huge nebulae full of amino acids cells are being randomly created and destroyed and proteins formed and broken down, so we know its possible.

Question: those people who cant mention intelligent design before they get tenure, if all biologists secretly believed it to be true it wouldnt be career suicide, and you wont find many biologists with tenure that preach inteligent design, i have heard of several that will laugh at undergrauates for talking about it.

And we all know about optikal and his shaky physics.
  • 0

Advertisements


#92
EMCguy

EMCguy

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 729 posts
I'll let my cat know that her random paw tracks elicited a response. :tazz: She doesnt get that much much email, and I'm not really sure she understands what shes typing :)

best regards

EMCguy - master of Princess the cat :)
  • 0

#93
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
What, whats this, [bleep] dog chewing at my keyboard again.
  • 0

#94
EMCguy

EMCguy

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 729 posts
:) :tazz: :woot: :)
  • 0

#95
Avohir

Avohir

    Visiting Staff

  • Visiting Consultant
  • 1,002 posts
your logic is flawed. The only way we could be having these discussions is if those reactions did come together, be it by divine intervention, or that 1 in a billion chance. If any of the 999 million other possible futures had occured, we wouldn't be having this debate, so on that field, ID and evolution are sitting equal

but thats taking this argument far afield. The issue is still whether it should be taught in science class, and as I said previously, if it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science.

Edited by Avohir, 04 December 2005 - 12:27 AM.

  • 0

#96
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Who says those other possibilities didnt occur, stephen hawking and the other uber physicists think they happened.

i dont think it should be taught either its not scientist and as a scientist myself i think any scientist who claims it to be true should be removed from their professional orginisation because its bad science on there part and they are bringing down the scientific community.
  • 0

#97
EMCguy

EMCguy

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 729 posts

your logic is flawed. The only way we could be having these discussions is if those reactions did come together, be it by divine intervention, or that 1 in a billion chance. If any of the 999 million other possible futures had occured, we wouldn't be having this debate, so on that field, ID and evolution are sitting equal


So the way I look at it, the odds of it being accidental are so infinitesimally small (calculations I have read are much smaller than 1 in a billion), that an intelligent designer of some sort is far more likely.

but thats taking this argument far afield. The issue is still whether it should be taught in science class, and as I said previously, if it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science.


But the current arguments for the origin of life are not really falsifiable either. Harlod Ureys experiments used to be cited as proof that amino acids and therefore proteins could be easily made by lightning and the early earth atmosphere. Modern evolutionists no longer point to Ureys work because of many problems with his research, but mainly because there was not enough time.

Evolutionists used to talk about it taking a billion years or more for the first cell to have been accidently formed from protein laden pools of water on earth. They dont talk about that any more since fossils have been found in rocks that are 4.5 billion years old, and the earth started out as a molten magma sphere only 5 billion years ago, so quite literallly as soon as the earth has cooled off enough to have puddles of water on it, BANG! there is celluar life in those puddles.

The current explanation? Life on earth started with cells that accidently appeared on distant planets in other solar systems and galaxies, accidently making its way here by riding solar/galactic winds, and colonized earth once water formed.

How can you falsify that? We could collect the entire fossil record of the Andromeda galaxy, and if it provided no support to the colonial theory, the evolutionists would merely respond "Oh well, is must have been from another galaxy". Examine the entire universe, and they will conveniently start talking about alternate universes.

I have a hard time seeing how that theory can be held up as falsifiable. But they teach it in science classes all the time.

By the way, intelligent design is falsifiable rather easily in laboratories right here on earth today. Simply show in a lab that a single celled creature can be easily assembled by accident, (much like Urey tried to do) and you've completely eliminated the need for an intelligent designer. Biochemists have been trying for the past 50 years, and everything they learn about biophysical chemistry teaches them just how complex life really is.

Best regards

Princess the cat, (all random keystrokes)
  • 0

#98
Avohir

Avohir

    Visiting Staff

  • Visiting Consultant
  • 1,002 posts
you're still neglecting the argument I made. there is no arguing about how small of a chance it is, because the only way in which we could discuss the chance is if that outcome had occured, I dont know how to say it any more simply. Its like a chicken arguing that since its so improbable for an egg to occur, that god must've placed the egg there. The fact is, the egg did occur, and because it occurred, the chicken is able to question its existence. (thats a really terrible analogy, but I think it conveys the idea)

As to your other portion, you've displayed falsifiability several times as part of it. They made a hypothesis as to the age of the earth, it was falsified by finding ones older than it, etc etc. THAT is science. You forumulate a hypothesis, you gather data. If the data supports it, its closer to becoming accepted as a theory, if the data contradicts it, you start again with a new hypothesis.
  • 0

#99
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Quite, a little abstract i must agree Avohir but a pretty sound theory.
EMC guy you are wrong about the current theory, it is theorised that amino acids arrived on earth via asteroids and comets that had passed through or were fromed on the amino acid/protein nebulae we know to exist in this galaxy, they are currently trying to prove this theory with alot of the comet and asteroid impact missions they are doing know and plan to do.

If they wont teach it in the worlds foremost education establishments, then why should it be ok for the lesser ones to teach it.

Edited by warriorscot, 04 December 2005 - 05:18 PM.

  • 0

#100
headwayne

headwayne

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
It is interesting that "scientists" are used to try tp prove the theory of evolution rather than citing them by name. If you really did some research on it you would find many renowned "scientists" who are willing to be more open-minded about theories than some on this panel.
  • 0

Advertisements


#101
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Im sure they are thats what sceintists do, but the things is a scientist will never accept a theory upon blind faith, if someone came up and showed me irrefutable evidence of the existence of a higher being and that it had created life then sure i would as a scientist beleive that however unless im shown proof of something else im going to go with what there is a good amount of proof for and that would be evolution.

Also alot of scientists are absolute fruitcakes as well, and i should know i get taught by alot of excellent if a bit nutty scientists.
  • 0

#102
klaatu

klaatu

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
Where was the "intelligence" in the design of siamese twins? How "intelligent" was it to design human skin so that the Sun which gives this planet life gives us a fatal cancer?

Intelligent design is Religion disguised thinly as science, further it is a superstitious and fearful form of religion.

It is only those who "don't get it" who can possibly believe their religious faith can be threatened by Evolution. Unfortunately these are the fearful people who wish to force their points of view down the throats of schoolchildren.

The USA was founded by people escaping from intolerant rule, from kings who forbade the people from praying the way they want to when they want to, who forced people pray when and how the king instructed.
As a result OUR HIGHEST LAW states that no law shall be passed to do any such thing in this country, that the GOVERNMENT WILL NOT INSTRUCT THE KIND OF PRAYER NOR THE OCCASION OF IT.

The SCHOOLS ARE THE GOVERNMENT. RELIGION DOES NOT BELONG IN THEM... especially a boiler room sales pitch for it to pressure kids into conforming and obeying by submitting to "belief".

WE need to teach ALL RELIGIONS to our young so that they may learn to RESPECT the BELIEFS and PHILOSOPHY of ALL who believe whatever. But any such suggestion will be met with fear and derision from the proponents of Intelligent Design, because they wish to teach ONLY what will lead the kids into the clutches of their fearful superstitious form of twisted Christianity.

These are the people who will tell you that earthquakes happen in California because there are Homosexuals there. These are the backers of "intelligent design" make no mistake. Science as a concept is unavailable to their minds.

Fortunately we still have judges in this country who know better, and these embarrassments to all real spiritual people have been laughed out of court.
  • 0

#103
Kat

Kat

    Retired

  • Retired Staff
  • 19,711 posts
  • MVP
This thread was started before the no religion rule was implemented. Reading back through it, I see how very much of this turned into a religious debate. If left open, any replies to this last post will surely end up religious in nature.

We can't and won't allow religious discussions here for one simple reason. No one person believes in exactly the same thing...exactly the same way. We are all entitled to believe what and how we choose...but we are NOT allowed to push those beliefs on others. Trying to debate different religions and beliefs will result in nothing other than arguments and possibly hurt feelings.

I am closing this thread now. Thanks to everyone who participated for sharing your viewpoints. :tazz:
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP